Talk:Bath, Somerset/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

[edit] WP:RM

• Talk:Bath – Bath → Bath, England - Bath has many meanings as an English word.
  • Bath (disambiguation) → Bath — to support the above move.
    • reasoning is the same behind the Talk:Spa requested move.
      • 132.205.15.43 05:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose. Disambiguation is at the top of the Bath page for anyone who needs any of the others. Philip Baird Shearer 10:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Bath, England" is not common English parlance as it is in America i.e. "Bath, Michigan", also the other towns are named after Bath in England. Giano | Talk 11:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - ditto PBS and Giano - Bath is internationally understood to mean "the one wots in England". OldakQuill 15:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. James F. (talk) 15:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support move to either "Bath, England" or "Bath, Somerset". "Bath" should be an disambiguation. --A D Monroe III 15:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the primary encylopaedic use of the word. In a dictionary, yes, the hot tub might take precedence, but this is not a dictionary. quota
• Oppose. Disambiguation is at the top of the page. This isn't the Wiktionary and we never add designations like that in British English. — OwenBlacker 21:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

If there was an article on the physical item then it should be under "Bath" (common usage), but the disambiguation page should not be here. As currently most of the suggested other pages are for places (most of which are not written), the first, the City of Bath, is the best fit.

There is also the practical question of having to fix a lot of broken links if this move is made Philip Baird Shearer 10:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and even in the case of the physical object - I would still say the majority of users would come for the city. The disambiguation could then point to "the object or other meanings" --Oldak Quill 15:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is that an American assertion about the age of British plumbing and an Australian assertion on state of British hygiene? ;-) --Philip Baird Shearer 11:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on whether a rename is appropriate. However if the article is renamed it should not be to Bath, England as that does not fit the disambiguation standard for English place names, which is @place@, @ceremonial-county@, ie. in this case Bath, Somerset. -- Chris j wood 13:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Being a resident of Bath, I do not think this appropriate. Regardless of the fact that the votes, to-date, are against the move, I never hear the city's location expressed as "Bath, Somerset". It is always "Bath, Bath and North East Somerset" or "Bath, BANES". I realise there is distinction between the ceremonial and actual county but what is the point in moving to a never-used name? Further, I would say "Bath, England" is inappropriate - "Bath, United Kingdom" is more so. --Oldak Quill 19:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a fellow-resident of Bath I have to disagree. Bath & North East Somerset (B&NES/BANES) is the name of the local authority, not the county. Bath, Somerset is both correct and in fairly common use. (Admittedly, though, it fell into disuse during the brief tenure of the late and unlamented County of Avon.)[Roger Houghton]

As another resident of Bath, I have to say that I too believe that 'Bath, Somerset' is the appropriate expression. Mark O'Sullivan 11:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

As a resident of Bath I must say 'Bath, Somerset' is correct (especially in an address) but seldom used. It is too redolent of the much mocked Americanism 'Paris, France'. 88.105.116.240 18:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 22:02, 30 Mar 2005 (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.

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 Move to Bath, Somerset. Well, I guess some admin has to play Jesus here (in the sense of being crucified afterwards), and we all avoided this RM like a plague... There was a fairly good consensus to move, and a fairly bad consensus where to move. Noting the arguments for Bath (city), slight voting majority and UK naming conventions, and phase of the Moon, (as well as ~1300 incoming links, ZOMG!), well, that's it. I'll try to do a share of incoming links using AWB. Bath (disambiguation) won't be moved until all links are sorted out. If I forget, please relist at RM under "non-controversial" when done. Duja► 10:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Bath → Bath (city)
Bath (disambiguation) → Bath

• There are many other notable uses for bath and Bath.
• Disambiguation page for Bath should be at Bath.
• See Cork (city) and Cork.
• While there are other relatively small cities named Bath, this Bath is the only large, famous and particularly notable one, and, so, it makes sense to disambiguate it from all the other subjects that share the Bath/bath name with the standard Wikipedia disambiguation parenthetic remark, (city). See Cork (city).
• Bath is not the primary topic for the name, per WP:DAB#Primary topic, which says:

• When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (...), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.

No one can reasonably claim that the city Bath is used "much more" than the word bath, and, so, the city is not the primary meaning of the term, bath, and, therefore, it should not be the primary topic.

• Others have argued (in the 2005 survey for a similar move, above) that bath (the word, not place) is not encyclopedic, and, so, this city is clearly the most notable encyclopedic use of the name. However, with the fairly recent moves of Cork to Cork (city) and even Misery to Misery (novel), the convention of treating "common words" (like bath and misery) as "unnotable" and "not encyclopedic" appears to be changing in this respect. Also note that the Hair article is about the stuff on your head, not the (arguably) more encyclopedic famous stage production and film (which are at Hair (musical) and Hair (film)).
• Besides, it's not like Bath is a global city. If it were, that might have made it notable enough to "trump" the other uses.

Serge 03:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

[edit] Survey - Support votes

1. Support. I'm the nominator. --Serge 03:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
   • Comment: I support the specific move proposed: to Bath (city). I strongly oppose a move to Bath, Somerset per the argument presented by DaveOinSF in his vote below and as explained further in the Batch (city) discussion with Scott Davis. --Serge 17:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support --Filll 06:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Thaurisil 07:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support per nom, to Bath, Somerset. -Patstuart^talk|edits 12:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support move to Bath, Somerset as discussed below. Ambivalent at best to Bath (city). --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Support move to Bath, Somerset as discussed below. Not fond of Bath (city) either, which reminds me of Bath City F.C.. —Grstain | Talk 14:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support per nom, but would prefer ScottDavis' proposal of Bath, Somerset. - Evv 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Bath, Somerset -- Strongly opppose Bath (city) -- Bath (city) is ambiguous, as there are many cities named Bath. Primary topic does not apply to subjects that are already disambiguated, otherwise you'd need Bath (city) (disambiguation). –  Anþony  talk  16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Support, but would prefer move to Bath, Somerset. Voretus^talk 19:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support the general idea, but much prefer the natural-sounding Bath, Somerset, to Bath (city) (and I'm a local). --MichaelMaggs 21:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Support the concept. I think that Bath, Somerset is likely to be a better title. Vegaswikian 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Support move to Bath (city). However, I strongly oppose any move to Bath, Somerset or Bath, England.--DaveOinSF 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

    Daveo, do you care to explain why you oppose Bath, Somerset? --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

    An article titled Bath, Somerset or Bath, England implies that the city of Bath in Somerset, England is being disambiguated from some other city named Bath not located in Somerset or in England. That is incorrect, since Bath in Somerset, England is clearly the most famous city anwhere in the world named Bath. By disambiguating as Bath (city), the title reflects the fact that the need for disambiguation arises from the city sharing its name with another article(s) about subject(s) that are not cities. Simultaneously, Bath (city) correctly implies that the city that the article is about is the most notable locale with that name.--DaveOinSF 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

    An ambiguous disambiguation kind of defeats the purpose. Voretus^talk 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

    Exactly.--DaveOinSF 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

14. Support the move to Bath, Somerset, but strongly oppose Bath (city). Bath, Somerset would bring it into line with the rest of the List of places in Somerset.— Rod ^talk 20:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support the move to Bath, Somerset, per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#United_Kingdom naming conventions. older ≠ wiser 23:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Reconsidered.

15. Support the move on principle. "Bath" is common shorthand for both "bathing" and "bathtub", and there are numerous other places by that name. PC78 10:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - Oppose votes

1. Oppose - The city is really the best to stay here. -- Beardo 04:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Bathing and Bathtub have sufficiently different (and logical) names. No other place named Bath is anywhere near as notable. This is the article I'd expect to see here, not the disambig. That said, I think Bath, Somerset is preferable to Bath (city). FiggyBee 16:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. As a World Heritage Site Bath is I believe by far the most significant place with such a name, and none of the proposed alternative names are really satisfactory. I live in Bath, and I believe few residents think of themselves as in Somerset - which is considered somewhere south of Bath. Bath's most recent county was the defunct Avon (county), and is now in a unitary authority named Bath and North East Somerset, the name of which indicates that Bath is not generally viewed as part of Somerset nowadays (otherwise the unitary authority would simply have been named North East Somerset). Bath has a ceremonial Lord Mayor and Charter Trustees, so the ceremonial functions of Somerset in Bath are minimal or non-existant. Bath (city) has the failings described elsewhere. Bath, England is perhaps the best of this bad bunch. Overall leaving as is, with otheruses Bath (disambiguation) at the top, is best I think. Rwendland 13:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   added info: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Recommendations suggests consulting 3 other encyclopedias to establish a widely accepted name. Encyclopædia Britannica: Bath (city, unitary authority of Bath and North East Somerset, historic county of Somerset) [2]; Columbia Encyclopedia: Bath, city, England (mentions Bath and North East Somerset but not Somerset) [3]; Encarta: Bath (city, England) (city and administrative center of the unitary authority of Bath and North-East Somerset, southern England) [4]. This backs up oppose for Bath, Somerset, but gives some support to Bath, England. Rwendland 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Weak oppose Upon further consideration, I think that Bath is pretty clearly the most well-known of the places listed and merits primary topic status. If this had been some minor village, then Bath, Somerset, would have been appropriate. But the status as a World Heritage Site (not to mention the Chaucer's The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale) and the apparently somewhat ambiguous relationship between some cities and counties in England make that problematic. Seems that unlike in the United States and some other "new" countries, where a city is unambiguously subordinate to the next level of subnational entity, that relation isn't as clear-cut when the city has over a two thousand-year history while the surrounding county configuration has changed several times in the past century alone. older ≠ wiser 04:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Having read the complete discussion below, I would prefer not to move to Bath, Somerset until the question of administrative or ceremonial county is straightened out. I have no opinion on that. It is possible that Bath and Northeast Somerset simply implies that Bath isn't NE; but let the locals figure it out. Bath is primary usage compared to everything except Bathing and Bathtub; so let's leave it here, and add them to the dab header. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per FiggyBee. Bath, Somerset does not gel with local usage, and Bath is never referred to locally as being in Somerset. If someone said a place was in Somerset, most local people would consider it to be quite far south of Bath, and for people to drive combine harvesters everywhere and speak in strong Somerset accents. Bath, England does not sound right in British English. Let's just leave it be...Pittising 21:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

If the word bath originated here, getting named after the baths in Bath because the place was called Bath first, then that would be an argument for the place being the primary topic. But the English word bath is not named after this place, but is derived from the Germanic Bad that has nothing to do with the baths in Bath. --Serge 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Review of the Category:Towns in Somerset and Special:Whatlinkshere/Bath suggests that if the article is to be moved, that Bath, Somerset would be the preferred name, not Bath (city) which might be interpreted to refer to any number of the places listed at Bath (disambiguation). This was also noted in the move discussion 16 months ago (earlier in this page if it doesn't get archived). Do the locals have an opinion? --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (self followup) It's also supported by WP:NC:CITY#United_Kingdom that Bath, Somerset is preferred if Bath is not available. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • But, that guideline is addressing cities whose names conflicts with other cities, like Boston, Lincolnshire. In this unusual case, we have a relatively prominent city that is clearly the primary topic relative to the other cities that share the name; the conflict that makes the name unavailable is the fact that it conflicts with other non-city uses of the name - that's why it make sense to disambiguate it with (city). In this sense, Bath is more like Cork (city). Note that the disambiguation guideline for Ireland is also [[City, County]], but, never-the-less, Cork is at Cork (city). --Serge 19:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not a local, or at least to Bath, but there are many places named Bath (many more than on the current disambiguation page, I was surprised to discover), and so it might be a good idea to not call this one Bath (city), even though it is the most famous Bath apparently. I was also surprised to find out that a bath was not named after Bath, but both a bath and Bath apparently originated with the Old High German word "baed", to heat.--Filll 06:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly local to Bath (living in Bath and North East Somerset) and would support Bath, Somerset over Bath (city). The difficulties caused caused by the differences between traditional & ceremonial counties, particularly in relation to unitary authorities, is ongoing & confusing for many (including me).— Rod ^talk 14:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• FWIW I've just surveyed the 66 UK cities and 6 Irish cities to see what the naming precedent is, as the guidance is unclear. 68 are just the plain city name. 3 in the UK use county: Lancaster, Lancashire, Lincoln, Lincolnshire, Bangor, Gwynedd; 1 in Ireland uses (city): Cork (city). No city uses City, Country, and the only Town, Country I could find is Perth, Scotland. Rwendland 02:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bath (city in England)?

A title of Bath, Somerset implies that Bath, Somerset is the name that is most commonly used to refer to this city. Clearly, it is not. The most common name is Bath, period. I prefer to use standard parenthetic disambiguation than to use a differerent/less common name in the title. Is Bath (city in England) more acceptable than Bath (city)? --Serge 15:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME: "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." Disambiguators are only necessary when the only acceptable name is in unavailable. –  Anþony  talk  16:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Bath, Somerset a "well-accepted alternative name" for the subject? Is it even a name? --Serge 16:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it gets a quarter of a million GHits... FiggyBee 16:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And Bath, England gets that many GHits again: half a million. My question stands: is Bath, Somerset even a name for this city? Or is the name Bath, and Bath, Somerset is just a location-qualified reference to Bath? If it's the latter, then Bath, Somerset is not a "well-accepted alternative name" for the subject, and should not be used for the title of the article. --Serge 17:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Bath, England seems acceptable to me as well. I won't express a preference for one over the other. As for the distinction between a "name" and a "location-qualified reference", I think that's just arguing over semantics. Even if you accept that Bath, Somerset is some kind of disambiguation rather than the name per se, there's nothing wrong with that. Parenthetical disambiguation is not mandatory when another method makes more sense. –  Anþony  talk  19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not arguing over semantics. Arguing over semantics would be arguing over whether name and "location-qualified reference" mean the same thing. The underlying issue here is: what is supposed to go into a title (regardless of what you call it), and whether Cityname, Area-City-Is-In qualifies as that (regardless of what you call it) for a city article. Another way to put it is: is adding comma-separated contextual information to the most common/simple name of an article subject in its title preferred to adding that or similar information in a parenthetic remark in the title? --Serge 20:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

When there is an well-known alternative name for a subject that is unambigous, that name is preferred over the common name with a parenthetical disambiguation. There isn't a general formula for this, as you seem to be looking for. Another example might be using middle names or initials to differentiate between people of the same name. –  Anþony  talk  22:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] primary topic and disambiguated subjects

Anþony wrote:

Primary topic does not apply to subjects that are already disambiguated, otherwise you'd need Bath (city) (disambiguation).

Are you suggesting that at the top of Bath (city) there should be a dab header to a dab page for all the other cities named Bath, but not for all other non-city subjects named bath, because the (city) dab would already have "filtered" those out, in effect? Interesting. Yes, that's quite convincing. But to me, that's an argument for Bath (city in England), Bath (Somerset), Bath (Somerset, England) or Bath (city in Somerset, England), not support for Bath, Somerset which I still think wrongly implies that Bath, Somerset is the most common name for that city, because, in that format, it is not clear that , Somerset is dab info. --Serge 20:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Serge, which of the reasons I offered for Bath, Somerset do you dispute?

1. It is the convention for disambiguating ambiguous placenames in Somerset (see Category:Towns in Somerset)
2. It is documented as the convention for naming places in England (see WP:NC:CITY#United_Kingdom )
3. There are many other places that could be described as Bath (city) (see Bath (disambiguation) and Bath, Maine)[5]

At least here most people are supporting that bath may not always mean the English city to a global audience. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing any of these facts, Scott. My argument is that the conventions reflected in the guidelines you cite should be changed for the reasons that I have provided. If the supermajority here chooses Bath, Somerset in the end, I will support it (and I'm very please there is little opposition to the move from Bath, unlike the horrible experience at Cork). In the mean time, I will try to convince anyone that I can of the problem with these conventions, and why they need to be changed (and, until they are changed, why they should be ignored). --Serge 22:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was attempting to point out how ridiculous Bath (city) is for those exact reasons. If you're going to use a disambiguator, pick something unambiguous. Bath (Somerset) or similar could solve that problem, but a disambiguator isn't needed at all when there's an acceptable alternative. –  Anþony  talk  22:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Serge, it is disruptive and against WP:POINT to be deliberately trying to get articles moved out of accordance with the accepted naming conventions just so that you can then wave those moved articles at WP:NC:CITY as an example of why you want the documented convention changed. You well know that if you want to change WP:NC:CITY#United_Kingdom it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). However you also know that talk page is already full of your attempts to change the USA part of the convention, so far to no avail. The best place to start the conversation to make sure the editors who care are involved is probably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography with links from Wikipedia talk:English Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. If A consensus appears there to change the current conventions, it would be appropriate to place a notice on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) and update the convention. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Scott, I assure you, I am not doing this to so that [I] can wave this article at WP:NC:CITY. It never even crossed my mind. What ever gave you the idea that this might even be what this is about? At any rate, this is a much bigger issue, and I've started a discussion/survey on it at WT:NC. --Serge 01:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What gave me the idea was your comment above that I was responding to: ...the conventions reflected in the guidelines you cite should be changed... In the mean time, I will try to convince anyone that I can of the problem with these conventions, and why they need to be changed (and, until they are changed, why they should be ignored). This suggests to me an attempt to have articles with names such as Bath (city) to show that the current documented convention is out of step with actual usage. I'm also disappointed that you felt that starting a discussion requires an attached survey, but for the moment I'll respect your request not to reveal there my previous knowledge understanding of your position in that survey. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bath (city)

User:DaveOinSF said above: An article titled Bath, Somerset or Bath, England implies that the city of Bath in Somerset, England is being disambiguated from some other city named Bath not located in Somerset or in England ...

Dave also agreed with User:Voretus that An ambiguous disambiguation kind of defeats the purpose.

Should I interpret therefore that Dave expects the subject of Bath (city) to be the same as the subject of http://www.cityofbath.com ? --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because .com domains typically go to U.S. sites, and, so, I, for one, would expect cityofbath.com to belong to a U.S. city named Bath. Anyone can buy any domain that somebody else doesn't already own. It means little. Do you have any substantial rebuttal to Dave's argument? Because I find it to be compelling. --Serge 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The obvious rebuttal is "An ambiguous disambiguation kind of defeats the purpose". There are multiple cities named Bath, but only one is in Somerset, as many others have noted. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Scott, since you are not addressing anything that Dave wrote, perhaps you did not understand his point? I don't know how to improve on it, so I can only repeat it:

By disambiguating as Bath (city), the title reflects the fact that the need for disambiguation arises from the city sharing its name with another article(s) about subject(s) that are not cities. Simultaneously, Bath (city) correctly implies that the city that the article is about is the most notable locale with that name.

In other words, you seem to be arguing that, in general, Name (city) implies that Name is the only city with that name, while Dave is arguing that it implies that Name is the only city that is the primary city topic use of that name. Note that the article title Name (alone - no dabbing) does not necessarily imply that Name is the only use of that name, just that the given subject is the primary topic use of Name. Similarly, Name (city) implies that the given subject is the primary city topic use of that name. If it is "ambiguous disambiguation", then it is ambiguous only to the same degree that using Name is ambiguous as a primary topic when there are other uses; it's standard accepted usage in Wikipedia. --Serge 16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I understood that, and believe that if it's worth the effort to fix about 1300 links to Bath so that it would be OK to move Bath (disambiguation) there, we might as well do it so that they won't need doing again when Bath, Maine (or any other) has a growth spurt and becomes the best-known city by that name. I expect that Bath (city) means the one in Maine for most people who live in New England or the Maritimes, perhaps to distinguish it from the villages of Bath, New Brunswick and Bath, New Hampshire. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, however bad the situation may be for this article to be at Bath (city) with respect to future potential issues with other cities named Bath getting more prominent, it can be no worse than for it to stay at Bath (assuming the only conflicts were with cities). And, if there were no non-city conflicts, then this article would unquestionably stay at Bath, would it not? So how bad can this be? Not bad at all, I say. Practically speaking, the odds of some other city named Bath becoming sufficiently prominent to warrant another change is extremely unlikely in our lifetimes. If this is the crux of the argument against using Bath (city), it's pretty anemic. Our great grandchildren can fix Bath (city), should it ever need fixing... Speaking of odds, by that measure, Bath, Somerset is much more likely to need a change, given the way counties seem to come and go in that part of the world... The locals can't even seem to agree whether Bath is in Somerset even now. Like Cork (city), and unlike Cork, County Cork and Bath, Somerset, Bath (city) is very likely to be an appropriate and stable title for a very long time. --Serge 05:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I leave it to someone else not so far involved in the conversation to adjudicate on whether a consensus exists for either move (I still believe there's consensus for Bath, Somerset).

The ceremonial counties of England appear to be stable, despite relatively recent shuffling of the administrative counties. There is also the advantage that if Bath, Somerset were to need to be moved to Bath, Avon for example, a redirect can remain, so the links do not require a mass update as will be required by a change of meaning of [[Bath]] from a city to a dab page, or a later change of meaning if Bath (city). --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a few statements of preference of Bath, Somerset over Bath (city), but very few statements of opposition to it. Support votes that do not specify a preference must be assumed to be Bath (city), as that is what this RM is about. But all that is beside the point here: which is what are the arguments for each, and which is stronger, and why. Again, the likelihood that some other city named Bath will somehow gain enough prominence to knock out its namesake as unquestionably being the primary topic in this domain (cities) is vanishingly tiny. --Serge 16:49, 21 December 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.

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 Do not move. Sorry, Duja - you got the hard one and I got the easy one. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move 2

Bath, Somerset → Bath (city) — Bath is not known as Bath, Somerset. This Bath is the principal city with this name. Previous RM to Bath (city) was supported by a majority, but an admin moved it to a preference supported by a minority. Serge 22:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

[edit] Survey - Support votes

• Support, sort of: Of these two options, Bath (city) is the best, because of the vagueness involved in whether Bath really is in Somerset or not, and because it's the primary topic for cities named Bath. Note that the apparent consensus above was that the city was not the primary topic for Bath, but it is surely the primary city named Bath. That said, I'm increasingly of the opinion that having the city at Bath was a better solution than either Bath (city) or Bath, Somerset — the other primary meanings are covered at the distinct words bathtub and bathing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Josiah, I'm surprised to see you repeat this argument. Apparently I wasn't too convincing in the Lost debate, but I'll reiterate for those here: the primary topic provision only applies to the "main article" -- without disambiguation -- and does not apply to articles which already require disambiguation. The purpose of primary topics is to assist users when they search for an ambiguous term. Since no one is actually going to search for "Bath (city)", we're not helping anyone by using an ambiguous title. –  Anþony  talk  12:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - Oppose votes

• Oppose. I'm afraid to say that Serge arrives at his interesting conclusion only by creatively counting the votes in the Requested Move, above. (Note that he counts all users who said they prefer "Bath, Somerset" as voting equally for that and for "Bath (city)"). The closure was prefectly sound, and correctly implements the majority view. I regret that Serge so dislikes the result of his own poll that he feels the need to run it all over again only a few days later. --MichaelMaggs 22:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - as an Oppose voter above, my first choice, and what I argued for, was Bath, as against Bath, Somerset. But I find Bath, Somerset - which, at worst, is a trifle dated, but has unquestionably been usage - far preferable to Bath (city). If Bath is ambiguous, the page name should at least indicate which Bath we mean. (I also see clear consensus, and yield to it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Bath (city) is improper as ambiguous disambiguation. The previous poll showed a clear preference for Bath, Somerset over Bath (city). Serge might recall a similar case of a supposedly flawed poll over a trivial naming issue and learn some lessons from it. From WP:DDV: "If a straw poll was called on an issue recently, there is usually no reason to call a second poll, even if you think that consensus may have changed or that the first poll was conducted unfairly." –  Anþony  talk  23:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - If Bath were the only city in the World named Bath, then fine. But it's not. - BillCJ 00:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - you can't be serious! Unique name, conforms to naming conventions, majority of pro-move votes last week preferred the current name. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per all above. - Evv 13:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Oddly enough, not strong, except in that it is an attempt to get a revote on a poll closed less than 2 weeks ago. This Bath is almost certainly the most common city with that name, but not unquestionably so. (Note that I am in opposition to Serge in his attempts to change naming policy, but I don't think my !vote is affected by that.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Bath (city) but agree Bath, Somerset is less than ideal. Partly because relisted so soon and the other points noted above in this section, but as much or more so because I dispute the claim that "Bath is not known as Bath, Somerset". Google "Bath, Somerset" uk and notice how many of the 200,000+ hits are UK websites (ie URLs ending in .co.uk). Niteowlneils 01:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose because the page name would have an ambiguous disambiguator which is useless. The RM above had a consensus for the current page name and I'm wondering how Serge could think otherwise. Voretus/talk 05:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose — As stated, the city of Bath in Somerset is not the only city of Bath. — Grstain | Talk 14:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with comments by previous users. Timrollpickering 14:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

I'm not sure. Possibly revert actually back to Bath. We might end up with Bath (Bathtub). Simply south 22:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on; Bath (tub), surely. ;-> If reversion is consensus, I wouldn't mind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Er.. Bath is not in Somerset!! [8]. So "Bath, Somerset" is as silly as London, Middlesex. It has been independent of Somerset Council since 1889 and was in the county of Avon for some period of time from 1974. As a World Heritage site and with the overwhleming majority of links on Wikipedia pointing to Bath meaning the City - the original location at Bath was and still is correct. This move is but another fudge. Jooler

There seems to be concensus that ceremonial counties should be used, as they're more stable and better known. Hence "Somerset" is correct.

Where is this so-called consensus for creating a page name that is factually incorrect? Jooler 23:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest Bath, England as as an alternate title, but I fear someone would object on the grounds that it's somehow "really" in France, or that some reader might assume it was an article about a campaign to get Englanders to bathe more often. - BillCJ 21:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A better example would be Berwick on Tweed, Berwickshire or Berwick, Berwickshire. If you are confused (and you should be) see Berwick on Tweed and Berwickshire (named after a city in the county that isn't in the same country let alone county) Jooler 23:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

While Bath, Somerset may not be the "right" title, it's at least unambiguous, unlike Bath (city). There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on what that "right" title is, but most here seem willing to accept Bath, Somerset as an adequate title. I think we should just drop the issue for now. –  Anþony  talk  22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not just "not right" - it's wholly wrong. Surely notability trumps ambiguity. Even after the bot assisted changing of links from Bath to Bath, Somerset, the vast majority of links to bath still mean the city in England. Jooler 23:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The editors here have decided that this city is not the primary topic for Bath -- so no, notability does not trump ambiguity. The poll was concluded less than a week ago. If such concerns weren't convincing then, they aren't going to have much affect now. –  Anþony  talk  00:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a majority. And I didn't know there was a vote on. Notability trumps ambiguity on plenty of pages. Wikipedia:Primary topic disambiguation Jooler 03:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Try ""Bath, Wiltshire" - The comma is generally ignored in searches. Jooler 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Only about one-tenth the hits, but I think still supports my overriding point that "[city], {some geopolitical entity}" is NOT an 'uncommon construct in the UK', as I understood Serge to be claiming it to be. Niteowlneils 03:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Or better yet "Bath, Avon" which gets 900,000 hits five times more than Somerset. Itis an uncommon construct. No-one but no-one would ever say "I'm going to 'Bath, Somerset' for the weekend" Jooler 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I just oppose Bath (city). Bath, Avon, Bath, England, or Bath, United Kingdom would also all be fine by me (whichever is most accurate and _not ambiguous at all_ -- given the historical issues that Avon vs. Somerset apparently raises, I guess my first choice would be Bath, England). It wouldn't even bother me too much if the city took over the location at just Bath, but there doesn't seem to be sufficient consensus for that. It is apparently a common written construct, and there's plenty of articles on WP titled in ways more often written than referred to in casual speech. Niteowlneils 04:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the top of this page. There was a consensus not to move the page from 'Bath' back then. A sizable minority wanted to retain it at Bath in the recent vote. It is just plain stupid to have the page at Bath, Somerset when it's not even in bloody Somerset . The vote was completely flawed nand the arguments against the current name werenot properly put forward. Having the page at 'Bath, Somerset' is like having a page titled Washington D.C. , Maryland (364,000 Google hits for "Wasginton D.C, Maryland") Jooler 04:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am SO not trying to advocate for Bath, Somerset. To summarize, while I think there is a strong argument for the UK city to be at Bath, barring that, I think Bath, England is the best alternative of all the disambiguated titles suggested to date. Cork (city) only works because there apparently are no other cities named Cork. I very much doubt (and seriously hope not) that any precedent could be found for using just (city) to disambiguate any city where other cities share the name. Niteowlneils 04:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean that Bath, Europe and Bath, Earth are to ambiguous? Aw shucks, that means I probably have no chance for my favorite, Bath, Sol System :( - BillCJ 04:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Bath (disambiguation) there's one in the Netherlands, and several in North America, so, yes. Niteowlneils 04:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

To User:Jooler; if this sity is in the ceremonial county of Somerset, the name is correct. If it isn't, please let us know. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How about moving to Bath Spa? Simply south 13:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Responding to various comments above in no particular order:

1. WP:AWB is not a bot, it's just a software tool to assist human editors to make repetitive edits. I did about 500 of them before taking a break for Christmas.
2. If "Bath is not in Somerset", there are a lot of Wikipedia articles that need to be corrected - perhaps a quarter of the ones I changed to [[Bath, Somerset|Bath]] were immediately followed by ", Somerset". Then theres the categories and lists too.
3. About 2% of the links to Bath did not mean the city. Generally either bathing, one of the variants on that, or Bath Abbey.
4. (new thought)If there is an article about the cricket ground in Bath, it should be added to Bath (disambiguation) and have someone search for Bath and cricket to fix a lot of articles about cricketers who have played there. Maybe as much as 8-10% of the links (I didn't try to count those, as I took a while to realise it might be significant).
5. I don't think the city is ever referred to as "Bath Spa". I have found only the two links referred to somewhere about about the football clubs using that name.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 13:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Bath, England seems to be the most common, reasonable choice here. —Centrx→talk • 21:25, 31 December 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.