Talk:Plymouth

Coat of arms

There is certainly benefit to including the coat of arms in the article, but I think we can present that in a much better way. Ideally, I'd want to see two things:

1. The full coat of arms, not just the field (as in this photograph
2. Additionally show the flag of the city

Showing these two things would add significant value, and could be shown side by side. As an example of what I mean, look at articles like Boston or Birmingham.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll also add that the blazon should not be included in the infobox (or the article) - the correct place to include that info is the file description page and/or an article like Coat of arms of Plymouth. There is zero need to have Argent a Saltire Vert between four Towers Sable included below an image that matches that description. The purpose of this article is to educate people about the city, not the finer points of heraldry (which is why that info not included on City of London, Manchester, Liverpool, York or any other place article).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

In general coats of arms should appear with their blazons in an information-imparting context, such as this. (Thus I'm not suggesting the Queen should add the blazon of the royal arms to the image on her State Coach, etc). A grant of arms by a herald of the College of Arms is technically a series of words (blazon) not an image, thus it is a highly important piece of information. The image is dictated by the blazon. I take it you are not a student of heraldry, and that's fine, as you dismiss the blazon as a mere "description". If it were merely that I could understand your point. The writing of blazons is actually a highly disciplined procedure which requires much studying to master. It is only by knowing the blazon that one can identify the bearer of coats of arms, as I know from personal experience of this particular shield, which I had seen on a building in North Devon but was unfamiliar with. I blazoned it as Argent, a saltire vert between four towers sable and input that exact form of words to google search which matched the wording to various heraldic sources identifying it as arms of Plymouth. Try googling "four black castles between a sort of sideways cross on a white background, oh yes and the cross is green" and see if you get anything. I spend a lot of my wikipedia time identifying coats of arms in images without any captions, and I can tell you that the only way to start the identification process is to write a gramatically correct blazon which can then be googled. So having written the correct blazon and come up with the answer I sought, it is somewhat disappointing to have it dismissed as a mere "description" unworthy of inclusion. It frequently is the case that people with no understanding of heraldry dismiss it in this way. These are not logos - I can understand you don't need a "description" of the Conservative Party logo under that image "A scribbled oak tree", that would be absurd and would serve no purpose. Wherever else coats of arms appear in wp they have a blazon, I can't see why articles on cities should be different. Moreover, arms are only borne by persons, natural or legal, not by "cities". A corporation is a legal person, a fictitious "body", and thus is able to bear arms. It is sloppy to say "arms of the city". See for example "Plymouth Corporation Insignia and notes on the Mayor's Chain and the Medal attached..."[1]. But I am willing to omit that if it's a problem. Thus the format for coats of arms in articles on cities needs to be brought into conformity with general wp practice on heraldry, i.e.: state blazon under image. If you don't want it in the info-box it can surely appear in the body of the article. Please don't assume that wikipedia is set in aspic and that there is no room for improvement in many areas. Articles in wp ostensibly about cities can be greatly improved by input in specialist areas apart from geography and street-planning. For all the above reasons I have reinstated the blazon in the info-box, which adds precisely 6 more words.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am no student of heraldry, but I am aware that the words of the blazon are the grant of arms. That would mean that if I created my own version using a different shade of green to you, both would be equally valid.

I also would point out again that the full CoA and not just the escutcheon is significantly more valuable and is therefore preferred. I imagine you agree with that too. If we had that, then including the blazon for the full arms, including the crest and supporters, would be several lines long. Furthermore my opinion is that text is of no interest to 99+% of readers.

With regards to the Corporation of Plymouth: That may have been the organisation that was orignially granted the arms. However, it does not now exist as it has been abolished. The successor organisation is Plymouth City Council, and any references should be to the current entity that holds the arms.

I would urge you to persue the inclusion of blazons in an appropriate central discussion venue, as that would be a sea change to many articles. Could you point me to a general purpose article, not one focused on heraldry, that includes a blazon and includes that blazon in the infobox? Can you point to any that have not been written by yourself? I've had a look at several different articles about cities and notable people (eg Elizabeth II or Winston Churchill) and the blazon is not included, even when there is a section to describe the relevant things.

My ideal end goal here would be to have the flag of the city and the full CoA displayed in infobox, in the style of Birmingham. I am aware the relevant graphics do not presently exist but that should be the objective we are working towards. I consider the escutcheon to be a halfway step (clearly better than nothing, and clearly inferior to the full CoA).

I have asked for broader involvement from WP:UKGEO here, and I would urge removal of the blazon. I will do so unless there is a consensus against my position (not just two editors disagreeing).--Nilfanion (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Although the four towers are there for a reason ("castle quadrate" – in text) I don't think there's anything particularly notable about the blazon to warrant its inclusion. For consistency the addition of blazons to such arms in infoboxes should either be done widely or not at all. Flag and full CoA and better lead image (per next section) would seem the way to go.  —SMALLJIM  15:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead image

I feel that the image at the top of the infobox is quite weak, and we could do a much better job with a collage. I can probably put something together, but any thoughts on what it should show? Smeaton's Tower is the obvious centrepiece but what else? In no particular order, the following might be good: The Royal Albert Bridge, the dockyard, Saltram House, the Civic Centre, Home Park, the Barbican, Drake's Island...--Nilfanion (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Pennycross

Redirecting 'Penycross' to this article presumes that there is only one Pennycross. But that ain't the case! There is a Pennycross on the Isle of Mull, ancestral home to the Macleans of Pennycross family. Could someone who understands these things please restore a Pennycross page? Shipsview (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move - 17 May 2018

• Plymouth → Plymouth, Devon
• Plymouth (disambiguation) → Plymouth

– A year and change after the last RM, I think we need to revisit this. The city in Devon, England is simply not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the name "Plymouth". Even just looking at the top 10 ambiguous articles, Plymouth receives only 24.6% of the page views,[2] far short of the "more likely than all the other topics combined" benchmark. Plymouth Colony receives almost as many page views as the British city. Plymouth, Devon is also not the largest community of the name - it has 260,000 people in the area, while Plymouth County, Massachusetts - the area around Plymouth, Massachusetts - has 490,000. And finally, while Plymouth, Devon is unquestionably of great historical importance, it doesn't have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" than all the other topics. Plymouth, Montserrat was (and officially still is) the capital of a whole island, and its destruction in a volcanic eruption was a highly notable and well known humanitarian crisis. Plymouth Colony/Plymouth, Massachusetts is also of immense significance in the history of the United States, the history of the British Empire, the histories of the former British Americas, and European colonization in general. Other topics like Plymouth (automobile) and the many other towns named "Plymouth" also factor in. Additionally, it's not practical to add all the other most prominent Plymouths to the hat note - the notability of the Massachusetts community alone is split across 2 if not 3 articles (Plymouth, Massachusetts Plymouth Colony, Plymouth County, Massachusetts). In short, the Devon city has neither more page views nor more historical significance than all the other topics combined, and so isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is something of a perennial proposal, similar requests failed in 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2014. I really don't see any point in revisiting it yet again. DuncanHill (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is so problematically titled that perennial proposals are likely to continue until it's fixed. The fact that it hasn't happened yet is not a reason not to fix it now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You haven't really made any arguments in favour of moving that you didn't make last time (I haven't checked to see how many times you've said the same things before). I think that the current proposal is simply a waste of time, will generate much heat and little light, and has no realistic prospect of success. DuncanHill (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that most of those arguments have ever been made in a nomination, and I only recall participating, briefly, in the one previous discussion. But more importantly, the evidence is compelling - there's no way this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and discussions are likely to continue until the problem is fixed. And once that happens, it's likely that we'll never have a serious discussion about it again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In the last RM you said that it obviously wasn't the primary topic and that it only got 26.8% of views. This time you've said basically the same thing in a more long winded manner, but with the added implication that you won't shut up till you get your way. DuncanHill (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I've given various forms of evidence that this isn't the primary topic. I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your comment, if you don't want to participate in an RM, don't.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't said I don't want to participate, I've said I think you are wasting people's time. You haven't presented anything that hasn't been said before, if not by you then by someone else. DuncanHill (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The British city also isn't the most prominent on Google Books: "Plymouth, England" returns 85.9k hits and "Plymouth, Devon" returns 84k, while "Plymouth colony" returns 190k hits, "Plymouth, Massachusetts" returns 73.5k, "Plymouth County" returns 284k, and "Plymouth, Montserrat" returns 8.3k. Additionally, Plymouth car returns 3.4 million Google Books hits.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Question But what does "Plymouth" return,a nd how does it break down into the different uses? You have excluded results for "Plymouth" alone from your results, so they say nothing about the primary use of unmodified Plymouth. DuncanHill (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Geography affects bare results for Plymouth so it's hard to parse. However, in my search, every result but two on the first 3 pages but one are for Plymouth, Massachusetts/Plymouth Colony (one is for Plymouth, Michigan and another is for Plymouth, New Hampshire.)--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I feel this is just flogging a dead horse, with many likely participants are exhausted by the repeated debate and unlikely to contribute constructively. The previous RM demonstrated that. And that's from both sides of the debate. My opinion on the case is unchanged (ie support), but I don't care enough to actually call that a !vote.

What I would say is I believe that all the evidence in this nomination has been presented before in previous RMs, and nothing new has been presented this time. I would not count number of google hits on a book search as a useful measure as too many things distort that. For instance, quantity is not a substitute for quality, a hundred car maintenance manuals for various Plymouth cars have less weight than a single book about Plymouth, Michigan.

The main reason for my apathy is that I believe the primary topic rules are somewhat irrelevant and only a tiny fraction of our readers actually get affected by primary topic decisions. I don't think the amount of editors time spent on these things justifies the benefits to readers. But that's a problem with the process not this RM.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support both moves. I may be biased by my nationality, but most editors would not expect the base title "Plymouth" to be the one in Devon. A disambiguation page makes perfect sense here. ONR (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Plymouth is a city a quarter of a million people with a 1000+ year documented history; none of the other Plymouths have near the historical, geopolitical, or encyclopedic significance. (cf. Boston.) —  AjaxSmack  02:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • So is Cork. And amazingly we followed WP guidelines and decided that other topics led to a lack of primary topic per our two main PT criteria. Red Slash 14:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Why not move London? Obviously not. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, why not move London? I don't know, maybe it might have something to do with:

1. London is the most important city in the UK, the British Isles, and probably all of Europe. Plymouth isn't the most important city on the southern coast of England.

   London has a fair few places named after it of little significance even to the communities they're located in, and one city with about a twentieth of the metro population that London has. Plymouth gave its name to the most important colony in early U.S. history, a country which did end up being kind of important, and its most populous name-copier has a fifth of its metro population, and all the different cities named after it have a comparable population to the original Plymouth.

   No car company has been named after London. Plymouth, the car company, produced half a million cars a year... in 1941.

• Bless your heart, in itu oculi, what would we do without you? Red Slash 14:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• comment I had to look at the disambiguation page to realise there is anywhere/anything significant called "Plymouth" other than the port on the south coast of England, and expected to find a railway station, electoral district, ship, followed by a few places in "the colonies". That said, I'm generally in favour of disambiguation pages at primary topic article names, simply because it makes it far easier to detect failed wikilinks by people who assume that "Plymouth" is a car or a place in the USA. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Tentative support. England's Plymouth is the first one (unimportant), the biggest one (important), the most-looked-at-one (probably? I am not sure how to do pageviews any more) and definitely the one with the strongest contingent of nationalistic editors protecting "their" tribe's article (which I hope is not the only determining factor). But that first paragraph on the dab page has three strong contenders, and two of them are unquestionably full title matches. Throw in the honestly overwhelming length of the DAB page and I'm sold. There are too many possible meanings for Plymouth, and the city in England honestly isn't as important as the Brits like to think it is. If Louisville were named Rolls Royce I think we'd have a disambiguation page, but we'll see what the pageviews are like for the Plymouths. Red Slash 14:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Rolls Royce is an international brand and their cars are famous all over the world. I don't think we can say the same for Plymouth cars. If Louisville was called Geely, no, I don't think we would have a dab page. And I had to look up Louisville to see where it was.--Ykraps (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No single article has anywhere close to a majority of pageviews and more than the others combined, and the English city does not have substantially more enduring notability and educational value than the colony or the other topics combined. In short, the English city does not meet either PT test, and so a disambiguation page is the best outcome for our readers and editors. Dohn joe (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• Note I strongly oppose disambiguating with "Devon". Plymouth has its own unitary authority separate to Devon, and is administratively separate. Perhaps "England" instead. JLJ001 (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The vast majority of readers are looking for one of the other Plymouths. Anyone from outside England would no doubt be surprised to see this city pop up after typing in "Plymouth." Nine Zulu queens (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I did a pageview analysis and it's a closer call than I realized. But the bottom line is that American Plymouth (Plymouth, Massachusetts + Plymouth Colony) gets more views than the English one ((805+430)>957). Nine Zulu queens (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • It's easier to see looking at a longer period. But ignoring Plymouth Colony which isn't in conflict with this name, and ignoring that massive spike in Argyle's pageviews, it's clear that Plymouth, England and its related topics gets near 30% more views than the US versions. So it's hardly getting the most pageviews, although it is the primary topic. In the interests of navigation I can't see exactly why we shouldn't have a disambiguation page. But this exact logic can apply to almost every UK town/city, eg; Portsmouth. So I suppose the issue is what exactly is a primary topic when looking at cities? JLJ001 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Page views alone don't determine PT. If you don't believe me, jog over to apple and see if you can get it redirected to Apple [[3]] In addition, both Plymouth Argyle and Plymouth Colony are WP:Partial title matches so, as JLJ001 points out, the UK city has the lion's share of the page views anyway.
      • The Massachusetts town and the colony are not partial title matches. They are the same place and have the same common name. They have been separated by the ingenuity of Wikipedia editors. Britannica has an article titled simply "Plymouth" that starts with Pilgrims and ends with the 2010 population figures. "Plymouth Colony" is a name that matches suspiciously well with "Massachusetts Bay Colony," which I doubt was a concern of the colonists themselves. Governor William Bradford wrote, History of Plymouth Plantation. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Uh.. Plymouth Colony was entirely distinct from Massachussetts Bay Colony. Its entirely proper to have a separate article on the colony and the town. The first (English) settlement in the colony is the town of Plymouth, which is distinct from the whole. The problem is the initial history - about the Mayflower passengers and their first few years, where the town and the colony were effectively the same thing. By 1690 Plymouth Colony was a totally different entity to the town, just as New York state is totally different to NYC. What is pertinent here: I'm not if Plymouth Colony is ever referred to as JUST Plymouth.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Many sources, even sources for "Plymouth Colony", refer to the colony as just "Plymouth" in various cases.[4][5][6] It's definitely fine for there to be separate articles Plymouth, Massachusetts (the city) and Plymouth Colony (the colony that included the town and surrounding area), but however it's handled, it's clear that most "Plymouth" traffic is intending a use other than the British city.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
            • Note my position in the previous request, which is unchanged. I prefer to not count the arguably partial matches like the colony or the football club. That's mostly tactical: The full matches, by themselves, are enough to eliminate the English Plymouth's claim on the usage criteria. By discounting the partial matches, and emphasising the full, that negates some of the oppose comments. There's also a very real problem with counting both the Massachussetts town and the colony - they have such heavy overlap its reasonable to expect a good portion of the traffic for one of those articles to visit the other. It won't be all the traffic, but as the terms are not independent a calculation like (805+430)>957 is invalid..

            The real debate on centres on the long-term significance criteria, and the problem is the criteria is "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic" and not "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic combined". The English Plymouth probably wins by that standard on all the individual head-to-head comparisons (but would easily lose against the combination of the others)--Nilfanion (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - This Plymouth has the most incoming links and a vast majority of the traffic, but more importantly it has greatest historical significance. It is the largest naval base in Western Europe and, for much of history, was the largest naval base in the world. It is inextricably linked with Francis Drake, the Armada, the voyages of James Cook, John Smeaton, Scott of the Antarctic, the Plymouth Blitz, D-day landings. No other Plymouth comes close - Plymouth automobiles are virtually unknown outside North America and the story of the pilgrim fathers is a mildly interesting but isolated event in the otherwise unremarkable history of Plymouth Massachusetts.--Ykraps (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The British Plymouth demonstrable does not have a majority of the traffic - it's at 24% even among just 10 uses (and there are more than 10 uses).--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you read my comment above about partial title matches?--Ykraps (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Ykraps, you don't really do your case any favour by saying something the data doesn't support. Devon = 955, Massachussets = 416, automobile = 662, Montserrat = 394. Devon is under 40% just with those four full matches, it will drop further if you also include other full matches like Michigan..--Nilfanion (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, what I meant was that out of all the Plymouths, this one gets the most page views. I don't believe that's a reason to make it the primary topic. I have always argued against using page views, even when a topic is "...much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought". I would much prefer that greater credence be given to the "...long-term significance, greater enduring notability and educational value" criterion.--Ykraps (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the educational value criterion as well. As I have said previously: "The English Plymouth has the greatest long-term significance. However, is that significance greater than the combination of the key location in the story of the Pilgrim Fathers, the only current capital destroyed by a volcano, a significant car brand and dozens of other places around the world? I think not." I do not believe you have objectively assessed the points you single out: You appear to be boosting the English and devaluing the American: For instance, Scott was born in Plymouth but little of what he did is associated with his birthplace. In contrast, the Pilgrims are one of the best known national myths of the US. The Mayflower is more strongly associated with the Devon city than Scott - amongst Englishmen! - and is much more prominently commemorated in Plymouth.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not just that Scott came from Plymouth; Thomas Vere Hodgson the expedition's naturalist and Edward Nelson and Dennis Gascoin the biologists also came from there. If this was just about people who lived in Plymouth, I would've mentioned Richard Grenville, John Hawkins, Martin Frobisher, Walter Raleigh etc. The only thing that can be said about the American Plymouth also applies to this one. As I said in the previous discussion, the criterion is not "...greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic combined but even if it was, yes, I believe so. And I don't think you can accuse me of " boosting the English", when the D-Day landings are not only enduringly notable for Plymouth but the whole world.

Different places can have different relevance to the same events. IMO, the Mayflower gives the best example of that - sure they sailed from Plymouth to Plymouth, and both places are linked to the Pilgrims as a result. The story of the Pilgrims is intimately tied up to their activities when they got to America, while the English place is merely the place they sailed from. Therefore the Pilgrims contribute a lot more notability to the American town than they do to the British one. To say "Pilgrims associated with Plymouth and Plymouth, therefore they are equal on that particular event" is absurd. The same is true of the Terra Nova expedition - which is much more strongly linked to the Antarctic itself and to other ports, or D-Day (the beaches and the assembly ports for the assault fleets). What is certainly true is the cumulative effect of all those major expeditions/voyages leaving Plymouth does pile up and gives a lot of the city's notability.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

But this isn't about whether Plymouth is more notable than Antarctica or Normandy. This is whether it is more notable than other Plymouths, and as you say, all these things add up.--Ykraps (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record, looking at the top 10 uses without Plymouth Colony, Plymouth, Devon only receives 31.9% of the page views versus 24.6% when it's included. Still far short of the majority mark. And of course there are more than 10 uses, and the Plymouth colony is a major use of the name regardless of where the article is located.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this page hit nonsense your only argument? Because if it is, I would like to know why you are apparently so unconcerned about Apple and Pink both occupying the primary topic, even though the corporation[[7]] and the singer[[8]] get more hits. Is this because there are no towns in the US of those names? And are you similarly unconcerned about Atlanta because it is the primary topic even though the TV series generates the most traffic?[[9]]--Ykraps (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Several compelling arguments are in the nomination. Page views is a big one that has not been countered, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the general idea of helping readers navigate to what they're searching for - in this case, most are not searching for this topic. As for "Apple", WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling reason to avoid a move here. That said, I'd probably support moving Apple (disambiguation) to the base name Apple based on the traffic patterns and significance of Apple Inc..--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, and Atlanta?--Ykraps (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Very disappointing to see this argument re-hashed again. Oppose per obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 185.203.122.9 (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately there will always be an element of editors who are unable to accept consensus. They just don't like it and so initiate move request after move request, hoping everyone will get so tired of it, they cave in and agree to their demands.--Ykraps (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This may be nitpicky, but I find it hard to understand how a discussion which had about double the participants in favor of the move, but was closed the other way (in no way faulting the closer for that determination) is somehow a done deal with a clear consensus...--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Because it's not a vote!--Ykraps (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support To make this explicit (per my comments above and at previous RMs). I want to add something has changed since last time: This article, on the English Plymouth, has seen its pageviews drop by 25% over the last 2 years. The other major competing terms (the car, Massachusetts and Montserrat) have had stable pageviews. I'm not sure on the cause (two possibilities are a reduction in incorrect hits, or WP usage dropping in the UK), but it definitely doesn't strengthen the case for the status quo.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

So you would support moving Apple to Apple?--Ykraps (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not equivalent. An equivalent action would be making Apple a disambiguation page. Which I would support. JLJ001 (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

As you have yet to make that move request, I am disinclined to attach any credence to your comment.--Ykraps (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Pageviews are not the be all and end all, but to overcome a weak pageview position there needs to be really strong evidence for long-term significance. The problem with Plymouth is its not two alternatives but several. If it was a simple head-to-head (ie UK city vs US town), I don't think there would be much of a problem. --Nilfanion (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons stated last year. I see no reason to raise this again after such a short time.Charles (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (Hohum ^@) 00:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support given the wealth of different Plymouths users might be looking for and that Plymouth Devon is not the overwhelming desired destination. Lyndaship (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. While I understand the exasperation, it does not a particularly compelling argument make, while pageviews and search results presented by the nominator and other posters do. The English city pageviews and search results do not raise significantly about other topics to be called a "primary topic", not even by a stretch. Not all WP:PERENNIAL proposals are without merit, and perhaps fulfilling some of them will make them go away. No such user (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support To start, I will point out that I live in Plymouth, England. I truly think that my Plymouth is vastly more important than any of the places named after it. The historical importance is undoubted. And more articles link to it. These Americans who think their town deserves any mention are clearly deluded. And no one has ever heard of Plymouth cars, and no one cares about them. Also Plymouth Colony is obviously a different name. Who are these people saying my city isn't the most important Plymouth? How dare they!

Now I put this sightly offensive bias aside. Disambiguation pages are cheap. I have carefully considered this, and I have examined all the arguments made. I can't see why the Plymouth page shouldn't be at a more precise pagename, it will help prevent linking mistakes for example.It will make it easier to find non-English Plymouths, and that is good for the readers. There are enough interesting topics not connected to the English city that it would be more useful to have a disambiguation page than not. PRIMARYTOPIC bullshit aside, Plymouth, England is not significantly more important when looking at the collective interest of the Anglosphere. As evidence by the fact it does not have significantly more links, pageviews, or importance than the collective weight of the other Plymouth topics. Additionally since a disambiguation page will at the worst present readers with a single extra click, and will in 94% of cases make no difference to the readers, "why not?" become an obvious point. I for one don't mind personally, other than the perceived slight against my home.

In short, a disambiguation page would be more useful than not. I support the move. JLJ001 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom, even just for the point about hatnote relief. Titling with “, Devon” in no way is detrimental to the article, unlike the hatnotes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • PrimaryTopic arguments are lawyering and missing the point, “Plymouth, Devon” is a better title. Better for PRECISE, CONSISTENCY, RECONGISABILITY. This Wikipedia cultural thing that the “most important” topic be at a base name with respect to other disambiguated articles is really perverted, it has no basis in serving any reader. The arguments bases on searching confuse titling with search engines, very confused, search engines are very good, they use far more than the title text, and they continuously optimise. Historically, “Plymouth, England” was dominant, and “Plymouth, UK” has a recent decades surge in popularity, but “Plymouth, Devon” is the clear most normal introductory use for the last 50-70 years. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated last year. One of the most important cities in the south of England, one of the most important and historically-significant ports in Britain (one of the world's great seafaring nations), and one of the largest and most famous naval bases in history. Plymouth County and Plymouth Colony are referred to as Plymouth County and Plymouth Colony, not as Plymouth, so those arguments are spurious. Plymouth, Montserrat, is the capital of a tiny island. Plymouth, Massachusetts, is a fifth of the size of Plymouth, Devon. The Plymouth car is little known outside the United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support If this was a discussion of which is the most important subject, it would be a different matter. But it's not. Primary topics exist when there is an overwhelmingly clear page that is the most notable, and can be assumed to be the intended target for readers searching the term. After all, the purpose of disambiguation is as a navigation aid, not for Wikipedia editors to hash out personal views of what they feel is most notable. In this case, what is abundantly clear is that that the majority of readers looking for pages titled Plymouth are not looking at this one. I'm one to argue that page views are the top way to measure primary topic. But even if we totally disregard page views, this does not remain a cut and dry situation -- it's very clear that even if the British city may be the most notable in some eyes, it's not like it is the only subject to potentially be considered. To dismiss this as simply "clear primary topic" is not helpful. As a separate side note, I do find it funny that the same users arguing that we should ignore factors like city population in move discussions like Durham or Rochester seem to have suddenly changed their mind... Yaksar (let's chat) 17:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Not significant enough, though close. feminist (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per arguments above about usage — the Devon city seems to me to have been convincingly demonstrated not to meet criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Ralbegen (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support – clearly no topic qualifies as primary here. Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've taken some time to come to this opinion, after reading the arguments here and re-reading those in the last RM. People have complained that no new evidence is being presented this time round. Well here's some, taking my comments from the previous several RMs a bit further.

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has two criteria. Meeting either is sufficient for primary topic status. The first is triggered "when a reader searches for that term". Since we can't measure that, we tend to use page views as a proxy measure. Ever since the introduction of the search box drop-down which lists the most likely hits, page views probably are a decent proxy for searches, but we don't know for sure. Anyway, Plymouth clearly does not meet that criterion, so we move on.

The second criterion refers to "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Not "all other topics combined", as some continue to wrongly base their arguments upon (there have been at least two here).

"Greater enduring notability and educational value" is unmeasurable directly, of course. In a controversial issue like this it's clearly not enough to simply voice a personal opinion on the matter, as some have done here. We need evidence and I believe we can get that from an analysis of Wikipedia itself. We can use various indicators: the number of incoming links to an article provides direct evidence of its educational value – its relevance to other topics. The relative size of each article under consideration, how many edits it has attracted, how many references it has, and the number of page watchers all show how much attention WP editors have been prepared to lavish on it – some indication of the topic's significance relative to the other contenders. The relative number of page views is also worth considering. Finally, assuming that the criterion does not only apply to the anglosphere, the number of other language wikipedias that have articles (and also the metadata of those articles, especially the number of incoming links) will provide further evidence.

Here's a table showing most of the above (apologies if there are any errors):

Article	Incoming links (article space)	Size (KB)	No. of edits	No. of references	Page watchers	Views (30 days)	No. of Wikipedias
Plymouth	< 5500	124	4.8k	217	200	28k	86
Plymouth, Massachusetts	< 1500	71	1.7k	117	77	12k	39
(*) Plymouth Colony	1007	124	2.9k	191	198	20k	36
Plymouth (automobile)	< 1000	41	769	24	80	21k	23
Plymouth, Montserrat	< 500	11	348	3	58	12k	60

For me this evidence – particularly the number of incoming links and the number of other wikipedias which have taken the trouble to create an article – shows that Plymouth still amply meets the second criterion of having "greater enduring notability and educational value" than any other topic associated with the term.  —SMALLJIM  13:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Most of those many links are via popular templates; I wouldn't read much into that. And it's clear that the Devon city is not close to having a majority of page views, which should be an absolute requirement for a primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I've always found it annoying that it's difficult to exclude incoming links that derive from templates. But because a few people (ping Lyndaship) have mentioned it I've calculated a figure without them. You are wrong: there are still almost 5,000 incoming links to Plymouth. You can see them here (there will be some errors). Look at the huge range of topics covered by those articles – what better measure of enduring notability and educational value can there be? I haven't rigorously applied the same process to the other articles, but the indications are that at least 200 should come off each of the two US places.

Regarding your second point, what you're actually saying is "which, in my opinion despite what the guideline says, should be an absolute requirement...".  —SMALLJIM  18:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Seems correct. But I take it that you don't consider Plymouth Colony to be a contender? [10] JLJ001 (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well that's called Plymouth Colony, isn't it? We can't start considering everything that has Plymouth as the first word! (*) I've added it to the table anyway.  —SMALLJIM  14:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, "Plymouth Colony" is often called just "Plymouth".--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Not according to its article. Isn't that what matters?  —SMALLJIM  16:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Plymouth Colony is only ever referred to as just Plymouth when it's absolutely clear it is the colony being discussed. In the same way that an unqualified Cheddar only refers to the cheese when one is standing in the dairy produce aisle of the supermarket asking for Cheddar, for example. Plymouth Colony is obviously a partial title match and therefore not relevant.--Ykraps (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Type in Cheddar on wikipedia search and it takes you to the dab page! Lyndaship (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

For one thing, Plymouth Colony does repeatedly refer to the subject as just "Plymouth". For another, what matters is what readers are likely to be looking for when they type "Plymouth", and a wide majority are looking for one of the other uses.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That Plymouth Colony is repeatedly referred to as Plymouth in an article entitled Plymouth Colony, doesn't surprise me in the slightest. What would surprise me is if you said Plymouth out of context and everyone thought you were talking about the colony. They wouldn't of course because your argument is nonsense.--Ykraps (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not nonsense in the slightest, do you really think saying "Plymouth" to an American living in Massachusetts would make them automatically think of Plymouth, England? JLJ001 (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it would make them think of Plymouth, Massachusetts and not Plymouth Colony which is a partial title match! What is confusing you here? Or did you not read the thread properly?--Ykraps (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Unless I am gravely mistaken, Plymouth Colony no longer exists, but was an historical colony on the site of which is now the town of Plymouth, Massachusetts. In American culture the two are considered the same place (because they are), and known only as "Plymouth". Both pages would probably be titled "Plymouth" if it was normal Americans naming them rather than the strict academic naming standards here. JLJ001 (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

JLJ001 is correct. Someone from the U.S. is almost certainly going to think of the colony/city when "Plymouth" is mentioned. Partial title match is referring only to topics that aren't called by the search term alone. In cases where "the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title", the topic is factored into disambiguation. Plymouth Colony, like Plymouth, Massachusetts, is demonstrably referred to as just "Plymouth" including repeatedly in the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That's ridiculous! They are not the same place; one is historical. If someone says London to me, I don't imagine a Dickensian scene with Gin Alleys, Jack the Ripper, Oliver Twist and Mary Fucking Poppins, I imagine London as it is today! If you want me to think about the former, you will have to say Victorian London or something similar.--Ykraps (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the inherent problem with only looking at your own opinion. Numerous people, (especially abroad) will imagine London as whatever they have peciced together from TV. But the point is that "Victorian London" and "London, England" are essentially the same physical place, and both would just be called "London" by a great many people. Even if you and me may be more precise with the wording. The readers are normal people from the normal population, with different ideas on what they think a topic is called based on who they are and where they are - this is what a disambiguation page is for. JLJ001 (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Leaving aside your self-contradicting arguments about whether a place in time physically exists or not, and your psychic journey into the minds of other people, which has its own inherent problems; You do realise there is already a Plymouth (disambiguation) and that what we are discussing here is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, don't you?--Ykraps (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The use of 'Plymouth' to refer to 'Plymouth Colony' in our article and in books is akin to using just a person's surname to refer to them within their own article – for convenience. I'm sure that 'Plymouth Colony' is never referred to in a generic context as simply 'Plymouth' without first mentioning the full name.  —SMALLJIM  00:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Ergo

The use of 'Plymouth' to refer to 'The City of Plymouth' in our article and in books is akin to using just a person's surname to refer to them within their own article – for convenience. I'm sure that 'The City of Plymouth' is never referred to in a generic context as simply 'Plymouth' without first mentioning the full name.  —JLJ001 (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not a valid reversal here, of course. It sounds as if you might like to read Andrewa's proposals over at WT:DAB. A number of interesting and relevant points have been made there.  —SMALLJIM  20:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right. That is interesting, and also possible time saving since most of my intellectual ammunition seems to have already been spent by other people. JLJ001 (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

See User:Andrewa/negative benefit and User:Andrewa/Why primary topic is to be avoided, JLJ001 and Smalljim and anyone else interested, I'm still developing those ideas but they are relevant to this RM obviously, as is the outcome of this RM to my thoughts on the matter. And comments on my user talk pages very welcome, or I see that the section at WT:DAB is still open for comments too. Andrewa (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I will be interested to see what the outcome is here, there is no clear cut agreement either way. JLJ001 (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What should be clear to all is that we're spending a great deal of effort on such discussions. What is less clear until you investigate the scenarios in detail is that there's little reader benefit either way, and often the supposed benefits are the exact opposite of actual reader experience... what appears at first sight to be a benefit is a negative one on investigation. But then the most interesting thing is, the current P T system has a far more significant hole in it in that unambiguous redirects, which are a far more significant help to the reader, are generally only created in controversial cases like this one (so there is at least that benefit to these discussions!). Andrewa (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

On a slightly off-topic note, there is a literal hole in the shortcut... But yes, essentially the entire issue is a massive discussion for very little differenceJLJ001 (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

My phone does not give a drop down list of suggested destinations, if I type in Plymouth it delivers me straight to Plymouth (England). I wonder how many of the 28k views in the last 30 days have also been dumped on this unwanted page before they became one of the direct 21k viewers of Plymouth(Automobile)? As to the 5500 incoming links a significant number are generated automatically by Plymouth (England) being listed in Templates such as Template:Swansea having UK Cities included in it which results in articles like Llangyfelach (electoral ward) linking. Furthermore many links are from ships and the text causing the link will just say "sailed on patrol from Plymouth" - hardly significant, then I see there are redirects from Plymouth,Devon and Plymouth,England included. The article size is distorted by the large amount of photos included. The number of references is not a fair guide as a quick glance shows many of them from the council and someone has been very diligent citing things. Edits yes ok but I do notice a lot of simple individual edits instead of doing a lot at once. Page watchers valid argument I think. Number of wikipedias, can't check but is it relevant to what is primary topic on wikipedia.en? Looking at your list of edits I see you concentrate on Devon topics Lyndaship (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that those measures are a better gauge than page views, but they certainly don't make the case that the English city is more significant than all the others combined. It doesn't reach the level of majority in any of the stats, and would be even less if Plymouth County, Massachusetts and the many other smaller articles were all included. If anything, it's evidence that the page view stats are on the money that this city doesn't exceed all the other uses combined.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Look, I don't think theres any argument that Plymouth, England is the most relevant topic. The argument is whether it would be beneficial to the readers for there to be a disambiguation page, given there are other legitimate topics which have the same basic name. In my view a disambiguation page would be beneficial, since after combining all the links and interest and all other measures, at least 50% is not interest in Plymouth, England. JLJ001 (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: page views are not an end in themselves, they are a proxy for searches which are the important factor in meeting the first, usage, criterion (which Plymouth does not meet) of WP:PTOPIC. The other criterion, significance, is an alternative way of meeting the primary topic requirement that cannot be ignored. This is what I'm trying to demonstrate using evidence. It only requires that the topic has more long-term significance than any other topic, not "all the others combined", as you have repeatedly claimed. If I'm wrong in my understanding, please show me where.  —SMALLJIM  16:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a straight choice between Plymouth (England), and a page which carries all the other Plymouths on it. So it seems highly reasonable to look at all of them combined. If this was a battle between Plymouth (England) and Plymouth (car) then it would be pretty obvious which is most relevant, but that's not the discussion. JLJ001 (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you're claiming that each additional place that has Plymouth in its name nibbles away at the long-term significance of Plymouth, the city in England. I don't think that can be supported as an argument within the guideline, so the only way that could be made to work would be to invoke WP:IAR.  —SMALLJIM  18:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, I don't see that your measures signify that this topic has more long-term significance. I've closed and participated in hundreds of RMs and I don't believe I've ever seen them used that way before, especially against the page view stats or Google Books results. But even if they did, they certainly don't show that the city has more significance than "than any other topic associated with that term". If anything, I'd use the same evidence to show that this Plymouth is not the most significant.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, the guideline: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term", emphasis mine.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why you're emphasising those words – as far as I can tell you're restating my argument. You do understand those words to mean any other topic individually, not all the other topics combined, don't you? In other words Plymouth has to show substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than Plymouth, Massachusetts, substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than Plymouth (automobile), etc. Each one individually. My table is intended to provide some evidence that that is the case.  —SMALLJIM  19:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not how the guideline has historically been employed and interpreted. And, again, those statistics are not measures of long-term significance anyway.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that explains a lot. Dare I suggest then that some people have been interpreting it wrongly, because the wording is quite clear. The first bullet (usage) mentions "...than any other topic" and separately "...than all the other topics combined", whereas the second bullet (long-term significance) only mentions "...than any other topic". Nilfanion has pointed this out to you too, here - 2nd para.  —SMALLJIM  19:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's always been clear to me, and most other editors, that "any other" means, well, any other. Perhaps the wording could be tweaking to make it clearer, but that's always been the intent. It's not like we should be picking a primary topic that isn't the most historically significant of all, especially when it's also not the most sought after.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not clear to me based on how the criteria is written. The two parts should be written identically if they have identical intent. The usage is clearly "potential primary vs everything else". While the significance is clearly phrased differently.

I'm cautious about trying to make significance an aggregate assessment, as it is very hard to rate objectively. Significance isn't something you can really give a numerical value to, and potential proxies like incoming links or city populations are obviously limited. A subjective head-to-head comparison is easy enough. You can look at the articles on two different subjects, develop an opinion on which of the two is more important and be able to explain that. Its a lot harder to do the same with a lot of articles subjectively.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Then that's an issue with the guideline's wording; of course the intention has always been that something needs to be the most significant of all to qualify as the primary topic, especially in contravention page views, Google Books results, etc. It's effectively impossible to quantify long-term significance. What's most significant to some often isn't for to others, especially in cases like this where there are many important topics coming from several countries. So we get stuff like a list of statistics that claims to measure significance but doesn't, and arguments that something doesn't actually have to be the most significant, or the one that most readers are actually looking for, to be primary topic. It seems that it would be far simpler to do what we usually do in situations like this and disambiguate the term.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree on your first sentence: If that's what the second criterion is meant to say, then it should say it explicitly. Its current phrasing is ambiguous with two possible interpretations. I also agree its impossible to quantify long-term significance. Where I disagree with is your final conclusion, which IMO says that because we can't quantify significance, we can't use it and so should base our decision on the usage only. That negates the whole purpose of having two criteria. The long-term significance criterion is generally fine, as its perfectly possible to compare two different subjects and discuss them to determine which is more important - you don't need numbers for that, you just need a rational conversation. It fails in a case like this one, where there are a bunch of important terms so at least 4 terms need to be evaluated.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is the issue - it's easier to gauge long-term significance when there are only two or a few topics and one is very clearly more historically significant. It falls apart in cases where there are many historically significant topics across several countries.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I've assumed that the second criterion says just what it's intended to say – it has remained unchanged for over six years. There's no problem dealing with long-term significance no matter how many contenders there are unless you try to make that second criterion require something that it doesn't. In this case we say, "considering the relevant qualities, does Plymouth win against Plymouth (Massachusetts)?" Yes. "Against (automobile)?" Yes... and the same for each of the others in turn. If it has won against each of them, then Plymouth meets the second criterion and can stay as the primary topic. If it fails against any one, then it can't. There's no need to try to add together in some unspecified way the relevant qualities of all the other contenders and apply the sum against the existing primary topic because that's not what the guideline says you should do, and it surely isn't what it was ever intended to require. Some people obviously don't like that, but I don't see how you can argue against it within the existing wording. And, most importantly, it is a process that will give a reasonable result.

The difficulty arises, of course, in assessing the relevant qualities of substantially greater enduring notability and educational value. That's what my table was intended to help determine. Of course it's not a perfect answer – we all know that there isn't one. But the factors there (and there are no doubt others) do give clues, especially the incoming links (ideally analysed to remove unimportant ones, as Lyndaship pointed out) – which gives an indication of how many other topics this one is relevant to; and the existence of articles on other wikipedias (ideally expanded by consideration of other factors such as their incoming links) – which gives a global view of how relatively significant each topic is considered to be. It would be a lot of work to do it properly; and would anyone pay attention? Another approach would be to try to enumerate the different aspects of each topic, which I attempted to do for Plymouth in 2010 (see below). You could even try for rational conversation, as Nilfanion suggests.

There are several ways of assessing whether a topic meets the second criterion. All of them are better than resorting to arguments that boil down to nothing more than WP:JDLI.  —SMALLJIM  23:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should rely on a literal interpretation of the guideline, for this case. That criterion was developed with for a quite different rationale - as a safeguard against populism. It is developed to be used in the case of a modern popular subject competing with a historically significant term. Without it, the popular subject would beat the important one (eg Madonna or Apple). Plymouth is a quite different scenario, as there are multiple historically significant topics, and the debate is about their relative significance. Resolution of this case means going beyond the text of the guideline, and could help create a more robust guideline for similar cases.

To make it worse, there are substantial national effects - what is "more significant" to a reader is biased by their nationality. On a related note, I would dismiss other Wikipedias out of hand. This is the English Wikipedia, and its historical significance to our target audience - English language readers - that matters. We don't care what French language readers want, as they have nothing to do with this project. Only a multilingual project, like Commons, should consider all languages. Its also worth remembering that a clear result on the usage criterion, and a different, but still clear, result on the significance criterion gives justification to both of those outcomes, but doesn't mandate a decision for either option.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Well stated. It's certainly true that in this case readers from different countries will have very different experiences with which is the most historically significant topic. For American readers, Plymouth, Massachusetts/Plymouth Colony is absolutely the primary topic. For people in Montserrat, it's Plymouth, Montserrat. For Canadians, it may be the car, etc. Plus, the second part of the guideline was never meant to be read in isolation from the first part. This isn't a case where some new pop culture topic beats out a more significant topic in page views for awhile; all those topics have substantial long-term significance. When there's this level of legitimate variance, disambiguation should be the default option.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Plymouth is literally the mouth of the actual river Plym. The port is over 400 years old, from whence the original pilgrims sailed forth. It existed hundreds of years before the beginning of the industrial revolution. All else identifying online, (and on Wikipedia also), is subsidiary to the place (city) itself, from whence all other entities derive the name. When I searched Plymouth on here, there it is - first entry. Plymouth needs no redefinition; the only inconvenience to the average user being e.g. "0oh look...it aint just a car...I've learned something". Plymouth aint just a (city), its a place, a history, a time; its Plymouth. Mark^Dask 12:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Please don't take this as a personal slam against you. But your argument, as really pretty much all of the oppose ones here, would be a perfectly good argument if this was an AfD and we were arguing the notability of the UK city. But we aren't. We aren't even arguing that another subject is more notable. We are trying to determine if this subject can be considered overwhelmingly more of a likely target for readers than every other page of the same name, combined. I could just as easily say "as what is considered the 'hometown' of the founding of the United States, and the origin of its most notable holiday, Thanksgiving blah blah blah." As for if all entities can be considered just derivatives, by that logic we wouldn't have Boston at Boston. It's one thing to say Nashville Airport is derivative of its city, but quite another to argue that when one thing is named after another it is permanently overwhelmingly less notable. Your last point makes a great tagline. But I have yet to see convincing evidence that the subject can be overwhelmingly considered the primary by our standards, and not just a clearly very notable topic that shares the name of other notable, perhaps slightly less, but still notable, topics.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"I have yet to see convincing evidence..." - get over yourself Yaksar, I have yet to believe in fairies; it don't mean fairies do or don't exist; it only means you have a rather vaunted idea of your own opinion - no offense intended. I will respond lower down. Mark^Dask 18:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"We are trying to determine if this subject can be considered overwhelmingly more of a likely target for readers than every other page of the same name, combined." That's only the first criterion of WP:PTOPIC (slightly mangled, as the criterion only refers to searches). Those who, according to you, are making invalid arguments are doing so based on the equally valid second criterion. Perhaps you're not really aware of how much long-term significance, enduring notability, and educational value Plymouth has – could I direct you to what I wrote on that issue back in 2010, here? What I described there as "breadth of relevance" is now substantially the 2nd bullet of PTOPIC. (Scanning the article now, I see there's quite a bit more that could now be added to that summary, but it will give a taster: read the article for the full effect!)  —SMALLJIM  16:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

But why does that mean there shouldn't be a useful navigation page for the 2/3 of people who don't want to read the articlRequested move 17 May 2018e on our fine city? JLJ001 (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Three points in response, JLJ001:

1. I've directed my !vote and subsequent comments to the RM proposal as put to us. After some consideration, I strongly disagreed with the premises of the proposal (and many of its supporters) since I had a strong suspicion, turned into near certainty by yesterday's discussion, that it was based upon a distorted view of the wording and intent of the guideline.

2. Regarding the claimed 2/3 of the readers who are at Plymouth without intending to be, I don't think the position can be anything like as bad as that. For evidence consider Plymouth's pageviews: say it's a conservative 20,000 a month. If 2/3 of those were unwanted visits, some 13,000 people are affected each month. How many of them would take the trouble to complain? One in 100,000? That would represent one complaint every 7 months. But apart from the RMs, which are clearly not invoked by mere affected readers, the last complaint on this page was in 2010. OK there may have been a few elsewhere and that's a very error-prone calculation, but it certainly doesn't indicate that many people are being inconvenienced.

3. But here's the important response to your question: if someone was to propose that Plymouth became a dab page based on WP:IAR for the unique circumstances of this case, I'd now strongly consider supporting it.

 —SMALLJIM  18:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Plymouth should be a dab page based on IAR for the unique circumstances of this case.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Smalljim: Put more elaborately, while I don't believe the guideline's letter or spirit says what you say, I can see how you could read it that way. As such, if the letter of guideline can be taken to suggest that the status quo is preferable here, given the fact that it's demonstrably not the main topic sought for, the high number of other important topics, the considerable risk of confusion for many readers with the present name, the national variance, the fact that no British reader could be inconvenienced by having the article at Plymouth, Devon, etc. - then it is the rule that is wrong, and it should be ignored in favor of the readers.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: Thanks for those further comments. I think we may be edging towards agreement here, though a new RM would be needed to properly test the application of IAR. Our disagreements might not then ultimately matter in this unusual case. Importantly, though, I still cannot understand how you have interpreted the second criterion – would you take a few minutes to set out in some detail how you have applied it to this case, as I did above? (at the outdent). If you did this I'd hope to appreciate it better – you've not yet given me anything much to understand: "I don't believe the guideline's letter or spirit says what you say" doesn't really help! It's never a bad thing to explain something to someone who is trying in good faith to understand.  —SMALLJIM  23:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thankfully IAR is so short even I know this one. "is a disambiguation page the most useful option for the readers in the instance?" The answer is yes, because ~70% of readers are not looking for this article when they start typing "Plymouth" into the search box. JLJ001 (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Smalljim and JLJ001 you are both mangling the obvious. Sugar is in fact sugar. It does not become regularly disambiguated because Japan is selling a product called sugar that happens to be about sex with a doll. Plymouth by any other flavour does not make the flavour Plymouth. The various derivatives of the name Plymouth are listed when you type the name Plymouth into da box - why would you want to "qualify" the original when every derivative is already listed? Truly - no more conversation needed - Plymouth does not need to be broken down into popcorn in order for it to fit into the impossible classifications you both are chasing. Give it a rest - move on. Mark^Dask 19:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I am losing the thread here. To be honest I think Smalljim is probably correct, but I don't know enough about the rules to have a particularly intelligent conversation on their interpretation. My original view was based on the presentation put forward by the nominator and proponents to having a disambiguation page. This seems a good idea purely based on it argument for it making sense. However it is my view that Plymouth England is more significant, therefore if this means it should not be disambiguated, then that is fine. JLJ001 (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"More significant" is far short of the criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Lets move London, Bristol, Aberdeen, Cardiff whilst we're at it!. </sarcasm> Oppose obviously per PRIMARYTOPIC as well as per all of the Opposes above me. –Davey2010^Talk 18:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Humor aside, it's hard to decipher your opinion, could you clarify? JLJ001 (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)