Talk:Plymouth

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 move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Plymouth → Plymouth, England Plymouth, Devon — There are more than thirty places named Plymouth or similar, and while the city in England is important, it is unlikely that most people looking for a place called Plymouth are looking for that one. Currently someone looking for one of the other Plymouths by typing "Plymouth" comes here, has to go to a disambiguation page, and only then get to the place he wants to go. The Plymouth page should instead be the same as the Westport page: fewer hops for the user. This proposed move is to help make navigation of place-name articles less confusing. — Evertype 15:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

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

1. Support as above. Evertype 15:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Although the one in England is the original, I don't think it's major enough to be automatically recognised. Deb 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. I don't care which of the suggested names is used for the rename. Vegaswikian 21:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - Wikipedia is a world-based website, not England based. Plymouth, Devon is not world famous like Boston. I consider myself to be knowledgeable in geography, and when I think of the word "Plymouth", Plymouth Rock and nearby Plymouth, Wisconsin come to my mind first. Plymouth in England doesn't even come to my mind. I barely remember hearing of the city. There's about a 1% 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 don't think its necessarily well-known to a world audience. Its beauty is irrelevant. My point is Plymouth needs to be a disambiguous link. --Royalbroil 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   As has been discussed in the case of Newport News, Plymouth Rock is not the same as Plymouth because it's a different name. Just type in Plymouth Rock if you want that article, it links directly there. Seems like a very strong US bias to me. Are you suggesting that Plymouth, Wisconsin, a town of 8,000 people, is well-known to a World audience? I know my geography but I've never heard of this place, after all it's a very small town in a country of 300 million people. I don't think any Plymouth is known that widely across the World, but the one in Devon is the nearest I can think of. Marky-Son 15:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   Let me be quite clear on this, you're supporting the proposal that this page be moved on the ground that Wikipedia is a world-based website, and should not reflect a UK bias... you're obviously blissfully unaware of the many many examples of US bias on Wikipedia (such as colour and flavour, which both redirect to the US spelling, despite the word only being officially spelled that way in one country) and moving this page, or any other pages about towns in the UK because there's an American town with the same name, panders to that, to my mind. Whether you've heard of Plymouth in England or not, it's still the most notable place bearing that name. No disambig is needed; people can click on 'for other uses see' link at the top if they need somewhere else. --Stevefarrell 17:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   Agreed about the Plymouth Rock reference. I agree there are US biases, and that they should be removed too. There is no way to make everyone happy with the color/colour debate, so I won't touch that one. I think a city needs to be MUCH more notable than all the others (such as Kiel, Germany vs. Kiel, Wisconsin), and a world-reknown city to earn the right to own the native page. I don't think that Plymouth is considered a world-reknown city like Kiel. I have written two articles about UK things (the DYK articles Henry Segrave and the Segrave Trophy), and I got to experience first-hand how biases EVERYONE is without realizing it, including myself. Very humbling. I think that Plymouth, Newport, and Chester are too UK-biased. I found about all three articles at the same source, and I feel the same about all three. I have no anti-UK sediments. Cheers! --Royalbroil 20:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   Well, I just find it very odd how few Americans seem to have heard of the place where the Mayflower set sail from in order to found their country. I'm saying, the city has an important historical role in your country, so there's no bias at all in assuming this is the most important place with this name. --Stevefarrell 23:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Support due to Plymouth, Massachusetts and Plymouth (automobile). I am not trying to be biased, but those two articles (especially the car company) are also important. And to say "historical cities of 500,ooo are significant in a way towns of 100,000 usually are not" is a bit disingenuous in this case; Devon's is listed at around 250,000 and Massachusetts's is listed at 50,000, while both are very important to the history of their respective countries. Dekimasu 17:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose As at Newport, importance is not a linear function of population - historical cities of 500,ooo are significant in a way towns of 100,000 usually are not. Plymouth, Devon is one of the major cities of a major country - the other Plymouths aren't even the most important features of their own states. There could be another 12,000 or 120,000 hamlets and townships called Plymouth, but the article is still at the correct place. Aquilina 22:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose For the same reason as Aquilina. Population, history and importance are important factors. Dot dismabiguate for the sake of it. Apply common sense. Owain (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Plymouth, England would be pandering to regional nationalism and therefore is not reflecting a NPOV. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 10:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   I don't understand quite what you mean about "pandering". Plymouth is in England, and not in Wales or Scotland or Northern Ireland. In any case, the proposal is that Plymouth per se should be the portal to all the many Plymouths, and I've already indicated below that the move for this article should be to Plymouth, Devon. Evertype 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   My opposition is to the move detailed above: which is to move Plymouth (which has been in Great Britain since 1707) to Plymouth, England. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   The reason for this proposal is to free Plymouth to be the disambiguation page, so people looking for any of the 30+ Plymouths can get there more directly. Evertype 14:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose for the reasons outlined by Aquilina and Owain. -- Arwel (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Plymouth is a highly significant place historically as well as being a beautiful large city. When most people type in Plymouth, they will be looking for the place in Devon so it should stay as it is. For more details, see my comments on Newport and Chester. Marky-Son 21:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose as outlined by Aquilina and Owain. If you select Boston you go to Boston (Mass) not a disambiguation page. NoelWalley 22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose per reasons already outlined above. -- Roleplayer 13:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose same nominator, same US-biased reasons. --Stevefarrell 13:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   What's this about? I proposed this because I believed this and some other pages should be like the Westport page. I didn't do it for "US-biased" reasons. I don't live in the U.S. either. Evertype 18:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   If you say so. But your assertion in the original nomination on this and the Chester and Newport pages was that 'hardly anyone looking for (this place) would be looking for the one in the UK', which is a nonsense. Perth leads to a disambiguation page because there are two Perths that are very notable, the one in Scotland and the one in Australia. But, especially with Chester, none of the other places bearing that name come close to being as notable, and the same applies to Plymouth. It seems to me that you want it disambiguated because you believe that, if they're not more important, the places bearing these names in the United States are at least as important, for the simple reason they're in the United States. But they're not. If they were, I'd be supporting the proposal in a flash. --Stevefarrell 23:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   No, honestly. The assertion has ALWAYS been "there are 30 Newports/Chesters/Plymouths and it makes good sense to have these treated like Westport has been. In my view, the "notability" resides not in any particular place, but in the fact that there are so many bearing the same name. Look at Westport. I live near the one in Ireland, and yet the list is NPOV ordered simply alphabetically. No chauvinism. No U.S. bias. Just fair access for anyone interested in a "Westport" regardless of how "important" or "populous" it is. Evertype 00:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

   But as I said elsewhere, to the best of my knowledge there is no one Westport that is more notable than the others. That isn't the case here or with Chester and Newport. Chester in England is the place people think of when they think of Chester. I'm happy to see there's no bias in your nomination, although there certainly is in peoples' reasons for supporting it, but I remain unconvinced that these three towns need a move to a disambiguation page. Newport, for example, already links straight to the next two most notable places bearing the name, and if we followed this convention throughout Wikipedia, thousands of pages - not just on place names - would be a disambiguation page instead of going straight to an article and then giving you the option of seeing more things with that same name. Personally I feel that would be unnecessary in the majority of cases. --Stevefarrell 08:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

9. STRONG OPPOSE There is no comparison here. Plymouth has a 1000+ year documented history, and without recourse to arguments about Americanocentrism, none of the US Plymouths have one iota of the significance in overall historical, geopolitical, and encyclopaedic terms. Similar arguments apply to e.g. York, London, Copenhagen, Paris, etc. Sjc 06:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Vehemently oppose Without going into the issues of Plymouth being the original Plymouth, are there actually any none-Americans who want to see this?? Plymouth is a city of immense historical significance (for Americans as well, see Mayflower) and is today a major centre of learning. Having studied at University of Plymouth and been a part of its International Students Society I can state that Plymouth is famous world-wide with its university considered a centre of excellence (again, worldwide) for maritime-related studies and even its business school. There is no other Plymouth in the world with the same significance. You can discover that right here on Wikipedia. Suriel1981 07:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose Plymouth is larger, has more history and is more important in the UK than Plymouth is in Massachusetts or Plymouth the car company is in the US. Mageslayer99 17:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

• If the article is moved, it should be to Plymouth, Devon, with a redirect from Plymouth, England - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names). Warofdreams talk 16:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not object to this. The idea is to free up Plymouth to be the portal to all thirty+ Plymouths, too many to be well-served by the current disambiguation page. Evertype 16:49, 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.