Talk:Newport/Archive 1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Newport → Newport, Wales – There are more than thirty Newports, and while the city in Wales is important, it is unlikely that most people looking for a place called Newport are looking for that one. Currently someone looking for one of the other Newports by typing "Newport" comes here, has to go to a disambiguation page, and only then get to the place he wants to go. The Newport page should instead be the same as the Westport page: fewer hops for the user. The new Newport, Wales and the Newport, Pembrokeshire pages should have disambiguation links to one another, which would make the current Newport, Wales disambiguation page moot, which would be less confusing. Evertype 11:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

An alternative name to which this article could be named could be Newport (city). The point is that the disambiguation page should be plain Newport Evertype 21:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Point of information - This is the relevant paragraph from the naming conventions:

United Kingdom

Where possible, articles on places in the UK should go under [[placename]]. Where disambiguation is needed, they should go under [[placename, county]]. Thus Skegness but Boston, Lincolnshire. Where county definitions have changed, policy is under discussion, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Counties of Britain may be helpful.

Point of information the Disambiguation guidelines are for the avoidance of clashes of pages that would otherwise have identical names. It suggests that editors should apply common sense. Given that:

• there is no need or desire for Newport, Rhode Island or Newport, Isle of Wight (or any other page) to move to the primary topic,
• the current primary topic describes the biggest place, and
• there is no consensus for an appropriate disambiguation title

then this page move is redundant. Owain (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are more than THIRTY Newports which is why Newport should be the disambiguation page, just as Westport is a disambiguation page for the 20 or so Westports. This is an argument for simplicity in access to information on the Wikipedia. All the counterarguments are special pleadings from people who think the city in Monmouth is the most important Newport. Evertype 15:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the fact that there is no consensus for a disambiguation title. Newport, Wales won't work as there is more than one Newport in Wales. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Firsty, this IS the most important Newport. We have linked the next 2 important Newports at the top of the page. All your arguements consist of hypocritical comments about there being many Newports, yet you don't say the same thing about London. More than 30 is nonsense. I don't care if there are 500 tiny villages called Newport, it still shouldn't be changed. Maybe you feel bitter that your home town was moved to a disambiguation page, so you want to spoil it for us as well. I find no other explanation of you trying to compare Newport (Wales) to Westport (Ireland), as there is no comparison in terms of population size, importance to the regional/local economy and how well-known they are. The largest Westport has less than 27,000 people and is not an original Westport, merely named after the place in Ireland. If we linked all 30 Newports at the top of the article you still wouldn't be happy. Marky-Son 16:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite happy about the Westport page. There are many Westports, and this page allows people to find them all easily. I think that the same sensible convention should be extended to other place-names, regardless of population. Your argument wavers between how "important" your Newport is and how "populous" it is. I'm not the one being chauvinistic. I think that Newport should be the disambiguation page for all the Newports, and that the article about yo8ur city should have another title. Newport, Gwent, Wales exists and is a candidate. Newport, Monmouthshire, Wales and Newport, Monmouthshire, England exist. So do Newport, Monmouthshire and Newport, Gwent. And Newport, South Wales. There is no dearth of suitable names that could be used for this city, while the Newport page can simply be a link to all Newports. I'm not being POV here. I have nothing against your city, or you. I have something against people interested in the 30 other Newports (regardless of size and regardless of relative unimportance to you) having to go to this article in order to get to a disambiguation page before getting where they want to go. Evertype 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Still avoiding the London coparison I see. I disagree with your policy as I think it ruins wikipedia but I'm not being POV here. By the way, you cannot have Monmouthshire or Gwent as a name for this article because they are redundent. The Monmouthshire local authority is now a much smaller area to the east of Newport. Gwent is a made-up county that no longer exists in most cases. I know this because I live here. The 30 other Newports are important to a lesser number of people is a better way of putting it. Marky-Son 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

London is a city of millions. Your Newport is not in the same class, surely. Evertype 09:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The same "sensible convention" does not need to be applied to all places, haven't you figured that out yet? It does not and should not apply in all cases — that is ludicrous. The fact that you have highlighted six redirect pages shows that there is no universal suitable NPoV disambiguation, other than what we have already. Why are you not proposing this for Wells, Gloucester, Cambridge, Warwick, Worcester, Canterbury, Durham or even Rutland? It is insanity to apply a one-size-fits-all strategy and the policies do not mandate it; in fact they suggest that common sense should be applied. Please do so. Owain (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Evertype wants to make wikipedia harder to use for the majority of people to keep the minority happy, how very strange. Marky-Son 19:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well again your population arguments don't make a lot of sense. Your Newport is a city of only 130,000. A count of the denizens of the other Newports is 150,000. We do not have a situation where all of the citizens of 'any Newport are running every day to the Wikipedia to learn about where it is they live. I've proposed that a number of place-names should have nice, friendy portals to the many localities which bear their names, just as Westport does. Your chauvinism ("My city is the real Newport") leads you to special pleading, and it's been getting more and more ad hominem. I proposed this move. A lot of other people have supported it on its merits. As far as I can see, the Westport practice is the "common sense" one. Evertype 09:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the same arguments that have been put forward against a move on Talk:Chester equally apply here. Owain (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

1. Support as per above. Evertype 11:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Given the prominence of other Newports, such as Newport News, Virginia, I think a dab page under "Newport" is best. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
   • "Newport News" is not "Newport". So its prominence or otherwise is irrelevant. Owain (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong Support. Another case where the city naming convention causes problems. This needs to be fixed for all cities and soon. Don't direct users to the wrong article. And besides, from my point of view, I never heard of this Newport. I know of several others but not this one so it is not likely it is the major use and deserving of that name space. Vegaswikian 19:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   So you would do the same for London? Marky-Son 19:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   The London (disambiguation) page is really quite a different matter. Evertype 20:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   How is this a problem with the naming conventions? Disambiguation pages are only needed when there is not an obvious candidate for the unqualified article. This has already been discussed at length before this solution was arrived at. Just because you haven't heard of it means nothing. Compare populations, histories and other factors instead of being so subjective. Owain (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   In the case of Newport, there is no "obvious" candidate locality for the unqualified article. My suggestion is that the obvious candidate for the unqualified article, in this case as in the case of Westport, is the list of thirty Newports. Evertype 21:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Of course there is — the way it is done now: One city that is five times bigger than the next biggest, which was chartered 250 years before the other. Owain (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

4. Support. I hope i have done this right as I haven't used a talk page before. There should be Newport City, Wales and Newport City Council Area, Wales to separtate the actual city from teh county. (posted by Alecs casnewydd 2006-07-30 22:26:46)

   No, that is not what the proposal is for. It is simply for renaming the current page and replacing it with a disambiguation page. Owain (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Surely this should not count as an opinion as the user was confused as to the meaning of the debate? Marky-Son 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Support. I go to Newport a lot (the one in the article), but I still think there's a good case for re-naming the article, but preferably to Newport, Monmouthshire, as there are several in Wales. (Unsigned comment by User:Deb 16:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC).

   Therein lies another problem. If this article were to be moved to a new name (and there is no need to) then the choice of disambiguation name would be a contentious issue. The staus quo provides the least scope for unnecessary argument. Owain (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Support. For primary topic disambiguation, the burden of evidence needs to show that one use of the term is predominant over all the others. In the absence of such evidence the default option is for equal disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 13:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   So, why are there so many pages that don't follow this "rule"? MonMan 13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Perhaps because they haven't come under any sort of scrutiny. Many articles have been created by editors making an assumption that the use of the term they are familiar with is the primary use. It is only when other editors come along and question the assumption that things can get sorted out. older ≠ wiser 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   In that case, dare I ask your rationale for "sorting out" the Newport article specifically, as opposed to a more systematic approach? It seems clear to me that the Newport article is the one most likely to be referenced. Just look at the number of links to it compared to the others (which are mostly stubs!). MonMan 14:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Well that is a good place to start. I'm not dead-set against the city in Wales having primary topic status, it's just that I haven't seen strong evidence presented yet. Going merely by what links here, Newport, Rhode Island has almost as many as Newport, and is the first thing I would happen to think of when presented with the term "Newport" with no other context. Google (although only reliable as a very very general gauge) has 11,300,000 results for Newport "Rhode Island" and Newport Wales has 8,420,000. Even Newport Oregon has 10,800,000 results and Newport Vermont has 7,300,000. Neither What links here nor Google results definitively prove anything. They are just factors to consider. older ≠ wiser 16:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Wikipedia has 39 pages just for individual districts of Newport (Wales) alone. All you are proving by searching google is that more people live in Oregon than Wales, and the fact that my Newport could also be in Monmouthshire, Gwent, UK, Great Britain or England. I've yet to see any strong evidence as to why the population of Newport, Wales being far greater than any other Newports should be ignored. Marky-Son 17:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   As a compromise, I have added the link to Newport, Rhode Island at the top of the article. This Newport being the only other moderately famous one, but still significantly smaller than Newport, Wales. This still means it is still 1 click for those looking for the place in Rhode Island, therefore meaning less effort for a greater proportion of people. Marky-Son 17:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

7. Support The issue to me seems to be whether this Newport has sufficient "claim to fame" to push aside all other Newports in the world. That kind of prominence is difficult to judge empirically and it certainly isn't a matter of size or age. Given the generic quality of a name like "Newport" I wonder that any of the other Newports are named for this one (the ones in the US are probably named for Newport, RI, at least those not near water). To "push aside" the disambiguation page requires a fairly high level of confidence that a person who searches "Newport" per se really does want this Newport rather than the galaxy of other cities (and other things) that share the name. As a disinterested foreigner (I'm an American) I would say that sort of certainty is lacking. (As an aside, can actual residents of the city in question really judge the renown of their home town for the entire world? To me, that seems a tad egocentric). Sumergocognito 08:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   As a disinterested foreigner who by his own admission does not know anything about the cities and towns in question, how can you make a decision? I would say that actual residents that have researched the name of their hometown are more qualified to make decisions than disinterested foreigners. Owain (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Reasons why Newport, Wales should be more prominent than other Newports:

   -The population is by far the greatest of all the Newports and it is part of a massive metropolitan area of South Wales.

   -The history streches back to Roman times (especially Caerleon), the dark ages and the Tudor period. What American city can make such a claim?

   -It will be the host of the (I think) 3rd biggest sporting event in the World in 2010. The city's sports teams were also famous nationally, at one time at least. I doubt these much smaller Newports could also make such a claim. Marky-Son 10:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   And what a fine city you must live in. However, you insist on taking this personally because of your pride in the place in which you live. I did not attack you. Nor do I attack your city. I proposed something that would improve access to 30 articles including yours for the many people out there who are interested in other Newports but yours. Evertype 14:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   This is not personal it is simply practical. Given that there are now "see also" links on the top of this page for the two next biggest towns (c. 50,000 population between them) even by your reckoning, the majority of people can now get to their desired article by no more than one click. Exactly what you are proposing, but without the enormous associated hassle of moving articles, fixing broken links for no real benefit. Owain (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

8. Support. Plenty of other well known Newports to warrant a move for this one. – Axman (☏) 12:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Like what? There are no other well known Newports. Marky-Son 12:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   This debate is getting silly now. The disambiguation line at the top now links to the only other two Newports of any real renown; I would like to see evidence of other places' renown rather than just blanket "move this", "move that" statements. Owain (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

9. Strong Support. Too many other important Newports. Coffeemilk 13:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Like what? The only other two Newports of any mention (both less than 1/5 the size) are already linked from the top of the page. Owain (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

All the arguments (size and age) are less than persuasive that Newport, Wales is better known or more likely to be the intended article than Newport, RI. Furthermore, considering that Newport Beach, CA is often referred to as Newport, a full disambiguation page would be more appropriate. Coffeemilk 10:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to make Newport, RI the main article? Are you saying Newport, RI is by far the most well-known Newport? If you want to move this to a disambiguation page then the people looking for Newport, RI would still be 1-click away from their desired article so this would be of no advantage to them at all, plus it would annoy all the people looking for Newport, Wales. As for Newport Beach, if people can't be bothered to type in the proper name then it's their problem. Newport Beach is still smaller than this Newport anyway. Marky-Son 11:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Newport, RI is "by far" the best known Newport. But I do think that fact that this discussion is taking place demonstrates that neither one passes the "much more famous" test. I suspect that the RI one is a more likely target for wikipedia users, but I don't advocate making it the primary article. As for Newport Beach, it should be accessible. The goal should be niceness for readers, not editors. Coffeemilk

"The goal should be niceness for readers, not editors." Quite right: at present the vast majority of readers are zero or one clicks away from their desired article, without having to navigate through a long and complex list. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 11:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You suspect Newport, RI must be the main target for wikipedia users? Well you've obviously used such a complicated scientific process to prove me wrong so the article must be changed instantly! Marky-Son 12:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

May I just add, have you looked at the size of the articles? The fact that the Newport, RI article is only half the size of Newport, Wales would prove your suspicion rather unfounded. Marky-Son 12:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you even bother to read the comments that people put up? There really is no need for that here.158.143.147.130 14:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of what I've read is total nonsense so I will exactly what I think. Do you expect me to just say well I disagree with your idea but go ahead and do it anyway? Marky-Son 14:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Support - Wikipedia is a world-based website, not England based. Newport is not world famous. I consider myself to be knowledgeable in geography, and when I think of the word "Newport", nothing comes to mind except Newport, Rhode Island. I never heard of Newport in England. There's a 0% chance that I would be searcing for the city in England. I guess that's my United States bias. The city may be historic, but I KNOW it is NOT necessarily well-known to a world audience. No Newport stands out over the others, so the article should link to a disambiguous page. Newport CLEARLY needs to be a disambiguous link. --Royalbroil 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   The above proposed move is regarding Newport in Wales, not England, Mister "I consider myself to be knowledgeable in geography"! Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs)

   You beat me to it! He hasn't heard of Plymouth or Chester either. Another fellow who seems to be on an anti-British crusade. The World does actually exist north of Michigan would you believe? Marky-Son 15:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   Very funny! (I am actually from Wisconsin, and have visited 20 states and 2 provinces of Canada.) I am indifferent to Britian/Wales. I'm just pointing out that no Newport is so much more well-known that the others that I believe it should be a disambiguous page. Cheers! --Royalbroil 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment It is pretty clear from the below that the only people some of the people who insist that the article not be moved are people who live in the city in Monmouth, and who think that theirs the biggest Newport is the only "real" Newport. Fair enough, but I stand by the proposal I have made. Evertype 14:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not try to twist our words. We think our Newport is the biggest Newport (by far) and this whole exercise is a waste of time. Where does it say Aquilina is from Newport? Marky-Son 19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute its being the biggest. I maintain that its bigness isn't sufficient cause to be a detour for thirty other Newports. And I hold the same view for other localities. Evertype 19:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Population size may not be the only reason, but it is the most important reason, and the next 2 biggest Newports don't go on any detour as has already been pointed out numerous times. Other reasons have been given, such as the ancient history of the city. You accuse me of taking it personally but I would hold the same view for other places, such as the earlier examples of Plymouth and Boston. You point out we are from Newport, Monmouthshire so we are biased towards our own city, this a true to a certain extent. However, most of you who want the name changed had never even heard of the city before so how can you tell us how important the place is. It is us who have made the compromise here (twice), yet this still isn't enough for you. Marky-Son 19:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Population size is the most important reason to you. But to me it is ease of access to thirty+ articles to all Newportonians, Newporters, and people interested in Newports of all kinds that is most important. I don't care which Newport is biggest. I care about appropriate access to all Newports, and similar towns and cities. Evertype 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There is population, history and importance. Newport, Monmouthshire scores on all three. For goodness sake, there are 30 articles, but 27 of them describe places of less than 10,000 people. There is no on-size-fits-all disambiguation, common sense needs to be applied. London does not lead to a disambig page, despite there being 30+ places called London? Why not? Do you not care about appropriate access to all Londons, and similar towns and cities? Chester does not lead to a disambig page, despite there being 30+ places called Chester. Why not? Do you not care about appropriate access to all Chesters, and similar towns and cities? Please use common sense! Owain (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I care about easy access on the Wikipedia, and you are welcome to look at Talk:Plymouth and [[[Talk:Chester]]. I am using common sense. Evertype 21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not common sense to apply the same one-size-fits-all strategy to all cases of disambiguation. As long as there are exceptions to the one-size-fits-all rule, then this can be an "exception". There is no need to look at Plymouth, Chester, Canterbury, Durham, Worcester or the host of other articles that are handled the same as this one, because we can apply common sense! Owain (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have shown raw facts based on the new compromise line at the top of the page that any move would make pages harder to find, not easier. This whole debate should now be finished. Owain (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving Newport (disambiguation) to Newport means anyone looking for any Newport just has to type "Newport", scroll to the correct one, and go. Evertype 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsensical. You would deliberately introduce a new level of indirection for the majority of people just to suit some one-size-fits-all disambiguation strategy? There is no need for it. It will add to the number of click-throughs for the majority of people and it totally unnecessary. There are plenty of examples of places that use the non-disambiguation page where there are multiple places that share the same name, even when the main page describes a place that is smaller. In this case the place is much bigger. Let's use common sense here. Owain (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Evertype, why did you spend so long adding up the populations of all the Newports if this is not the most important reason to you?

Curiosity, to see if your thesis had merit. Evertype 21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We solved the problem, now the majority of people are just 1 click or less away from finding their desired article. You are obviously too stubborn to see things from our point of view. We made a compromise that I found unessessary, quite frankly, yet you are unwilling to accept such a compromise. Marky-Son 21:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not stubborn. I think that there are so many Newports that Newport should be a roadmap to all of them. Evertype 21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But most of them are tiny villages! If they were all equivalent in size, history and importance then I may be inclined to agree with you, but to suggest that purely because of the number of places that there should automatically be a disambiguation page is quite frankly complete nonsense. I am getting tired of this now — your arguments seem to be going around in circles and consist of "there are many Newports". So what? We have arrived at the best solution whereby the most people need the least clicks to get what they want. You want to make it worse under the false impression that there is somehow a rule that requires a disambig page in this instance. There is not. Owain (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose.Marky-Son 13:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose Where is the quantifiable analysis that "it is unlikely that most people looking for a place called Newport are looking for that one"? Owain (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   See discussion below. The population of all the other Newports is surely much greater than 139,500. Evertype 20:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Tell you what, rather than basing your decisions on pure guesswork, why don't you add them all up? (assuming you can find population figures for most of them). Owain (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   I did. Even though at least 11 of the Newports on the list don't have population data available on Wikipedia, and omitting Newport Beach and Newport News as well as the projected 30,000 inhabitants of the development in Jersey City, the population of all the other Newports is 153,907, still larger than 139,500. Evertype 21:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose - here we have a clear case of one Newport being far more significant any other individual Newport. Whether it is somehow igger than a "sum" of Newports according to some arbitrary measure is irrelevant - importance is not a linear function of population. Aquilina 17:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Currently there is no precedent for this. If this was part of a system-wide change it would make sense, but there are so many counter-examples to all of the reasons given so far, it would not make any sense to change this article. MonMan 13:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose There is no obvious or even uncontroversial County identifier to place in the new article name for Newport. Newport, Wales is just daft as there is more than one Newport in Wales. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 10:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose I agree with MonMan, Currently there is no precedent for this. NoelWalley 21:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   See Westport. Nice, friendly access for every user of the enyclopaedia. Evertype 22:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   It's not as simple as that! It's not friendly to make the majority of people go on an unnecessary detour to get to the page they want. See the weighted page clicks discussion further down. Owain (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   Oh, come on, that's just "fun with maths". This is an encyclopaedia. Your thesis is that 130,000 people who live in one place named Newport are more important than 150,000+ who live in other places named Newport, which isn't so, and moreover, the number of people who may wish to find out about one or more Newports is more than 280,000 anyway. Your arguments just don't make sense. This Request for Move may succeed, or it may fail. It was made in good faith, and the arguments against the move are very POV in my view. Evertype 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   Now you're using made-up figures to boost your arguement! It's 140,000 in this Newport and has as been pointed out more times than I can remember, the 2 next most populous Newports are linked at the top. Owain has proven you wrong on this but you still won't take it. Don't try to play the "POV card" just because you have run out of any other valid opinions to make. Marky-Son 09:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   It was a typo. Your thesis is that 140,000 people who live in one place named Newport are more important than 150,000+ who live in other places named Newport, which isn't so, and moreover, the number of people who may wish to find out about one or more Newports is more than 290,000 anyway. Evertype 18:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose The disambig would mean far more time lost for anyone looking for the top three Newports as it takes time to work out how the page is organised, find the right country and sift through all the miniscule Newports. The current solution with Rhode Island and the Isle of Wight Newports linked at the top of the page is the best for anyone looking for this Newport, which rightly gets the main page on historic significance as much as population, or the two others, and that's by far the majority of users likely to be looking for Newport. Mattley ^(Chattley) 10:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose for the basic reason that all these page move nominations by User:Evertype carry a heavy and obvious US bias; he wants them disambiguated to prefer the US city carrying the name, as at Talk:Chester. --Stevefarrell 13:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   I object to this. I made this proposal in good faith because the Westport page makes good sense and I believe the same makes good sense for other common place-names. I have no U.S. bias whatsoever. Your claim is entirely incorrect. Please look at the Westport page. That is what I have proposed for Newport, Chester, and Plymouth. You may disagree, but you ought not impute to me motivations which are false. Evertype 18:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   I apologise if I caused any offence, but I still oppose the moves. The difference with Westport is that there is no one place bearing that name that can claim to being more notable. My opposition of the move for Newport is much weaker than for Plymouth and Chester, but it still stands that there is one place bearing that name that is more important and significant than the others, which isn't the case with Westport, as far as I know. --Stevefarrell 23:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

9. Oppose same reason as Mattley's (Sloman 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC))
10. Oppose - disambugation notice at top of page already covers other significant Newports. No need to make it more converluted. josh (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose - disambiguation notice at the top is adequate. This Newport is the biggest by a long way, and Newport, Wales and Newport, South Wales is no good either, as they still don't distinguish Casnewydd from Trefdraeth. -- Arwel (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

It would be more hops for the user if they were looking for the city of Newport. To compare the city to the tiny village of Newport, Pembrokeshire is silly. This Newport is by far the most populous Newport in the World so I don't see why most people wouldn't be searching for it. Marky-Son 13:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So you suggest that even though there are thirty Newports, most people look for the one? I don't believe you can say that. (You are welcome to supply population statistics to bolster your claim.) Today, I was looking for Newport, County Mayo. I had to do to Newport then to Newport (disambiguation) before I got to where I wanted to go. With the new proposal I would go to Newport and then to where I wanted to go, and so would everyone. That would be consistent with what we do with Westport and there aren't nearly as many Westports as there are Newports. Oh, one more thing. I didn't know there was one Newport in Wales, never mind two. But I could have named half a dozen other ones. (I live in Lecanvey, near Westport, County Mayo.) My proposal does no harm to the noble city of Newport in Monmouthshire. It just makes the Wikipedia easier to use! Evertype 15:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We've done population statistics to death. Newport, Monmouthshire - population c. 140,000; The next biggest is Newport, Rhode Island - population c. 27,000. Even if it wasn't over five times the size of the next biggest it wouldn't matter because there are other factors to take into account. It would be plainly rediculous to have disambiguation pages for every placename in the world that had more than one version. Common sense needs to be applied. There is also the thorny subject of what style of disambiguation could be applied. Your version would certainly cause offence to those that believe Monmouthshire should rightly be in England, or those from the Pembrokeshire village, and so on. Owain (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Given the prominence of other Newports, such as Newport News, Virginia, I think a dab page under "Newport" is best." -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)

Surely anyone with common sense would type in Newport News instead of just Newport then? Marky-Son 18:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that at least 11 of the Newports on the list don't have population data available on Wikipedia, and omitting Newport Beach and Newport News, the population of all the other Newports is 153,907. Why should these fine folks have to go through your city to get to theirs? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Size doesn't matter. I see you two are both from Newport in Monmouth. I'm glad you're proud of your city. The article is one of the better ones. But the disambiguation page isn't helpful. Evertype 20:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And precisely how did you arrive at this figure? Do you not remember mathematics examinations where you have to show your workings? Owain (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I also see you people are not from the UK, that would explain why you havn't heard of it. There is a similar case for Plymouth, as there are many Plymouths around the World, but the one in devon is by far the biggest. What about the population of Newport that would have to go through the disambiguation page? As Owain said, where would this end, when every search leads to a disambiguation page perhaps? Marky-Son 20:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The inhabitants of your doubtless fine city probably don't need the Wikipedia article to find out about it. Please don't take this personally. Newport > Choice-of-Newports-Page > Desired-Newport is more helpful and useful to the populations of all the Newports than Newport > Newport-City > Choice-of-Newports-Page > Desired-Newport. I don't believe the 139,500 residents of your city have any particular claim to immediacy that trumps that of the 153,000+ denizens of all the other Newports. Evertype 21:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't believe it, but have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. Any such major move requires major evidence. You have come up with a figure of 153,000 but have failed to show how you arrived at it.

I told you, I added up the populations listed in Wikipedia articles. Shall I publish the figures in a list here? Evertype 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes please. I added them up and got a different result. Incidentally there is no precedent for places to need an absolute majority of population or even a plurality of population to get a non-disambiguated place name, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. Owain (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prove anything but that the Newport and Westport pages should do the same thing. You lot (who all live in the Newport (city) I suppose) are the ones saying that population is key. I'm just saying there are more Newporters who live in other Newports than the Newportonians who live in Monmouth. Evertype 14:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion that they should do the same thing is based on the assumption that there is no obvious candidate for the non-disambiguated article. That may well be the case for Westport, but I am pointing out based on history, population and importance that there is here. Owain (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You also assume that a place needs to have a majority of the population to not be disambiguated (i.e. more than all the others added together). There is no precedent for this. Let's take another example, Chester: A similar number of places around the world with this name, with the next biggest town only just under half the size. Add together the first 23 from the US alone and we get a bigger population than the county town of Cheshire which currently sits at Chester. Wikipedia is not a directory of places, it is an encyclopædia where the information that people are most likely to be looking for is easily accessible. People looking for a town of 527 people in County Mayo would surely expect there to be more important places in the world? Owain (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better. There is an easy clickthrough at the top of the Newport page for all the others. For them it's still the same number of clicks. What's the problem with that? MonMan 13:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This has to be the best solution: With the current disambiguation links at the top of the page, there is now one or zero clicks from Newport for the majority of people that would be searching for a place called "Newport". Any move of this page would increase the number of click-throughs for the majority of people. If we use Evertype's figures of 153,907 for the non-Monmouthshire towns, we arrive at the following:

• Total number of people living in a "Newport" = 153,907+139,500 = 293,407
• Total number of people living in Newport, RI and Newport, IOW = 26,475 + 23,957 = 50,432
• Total number of people living in a non-Monmouthshire, RI or IOW Newport = 293,407 - 139,500 - 50,432 = 103,475

If we weight the number of people by the number of pages they need to navigate we get:

139,500 x 1 + 50,432 x 2 + 103,475 x 3 = 550,789

If we change the pages so that Newport is a disambiguation page then they are all weighted to two pages:

139,500 x 2 + 50,432 x 2 + 103,475 x 2 = 586,814

So it can be seen that the current setup is less clicks-per-person than a setup where Newport is a disambiguation page to every place. Owain (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Newport (city) is an unacceptable name for this article as Newport, Rhode Island is also a city. There is more than 1 Newport in Wales and the UK and Newport is no longer in Monmouthshire or Gwent so all these would also be unacceptable. Now that links have been added for the Newports in RI and IOW at the top of this article, changing the name of it would only make life more difficult for the majority of people so I don't see why this arguement rages on. Marky-Son 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is still in Monmouthshire (ancient or geographic county), but the naming conventions state that we should use administrative counties for disambiguation in the UK. Which leaves the less-than-desirable choice of Newport, Newport. This was all discussed aeons ago before this "compromise" was reached. Owain (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just to try and lighten things up a bit, please let me tell you a true story. Hubbie and I were on our way to Newport last Saturday, and he wanted to try out his new sat-nav toy, so he set the destination for Newport, and you know what? It told us to turn off at the A470. Apparently there's another Newport in the Cardiff area, and it assumed we were looking for that one! Deb 18:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, no there isn't. Where did it say exactly to go to? Owain (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. We ignored it when it told us to turn off, and it was okay for a while until we got nearer to Newport, then it told us to turn off at the junction just before we wanted, then it got frantic and kept telling us to do a U-turn, so we turned it off! Deb 19:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.