Talk:Plymouth

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)

I'm not the best person to respond but since nobody else replied I've had a look and can't see any mention of Pennycross either in the Mull article or in the Mull talk page. If the home of the Macleans of Pennycross is notable then from what you say I'd expect there to be some mention of it in the Mull article. I think it's them there you have to convince as a first step, a search brought you here but Talk:Isle of Mull is a better place to discuss why that is 86.155.27.168 (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Pennycross on the Isle of Mull isn't a settlement[1]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move - 17 May 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

No clear consensus to move. Further extension of this discussion seems unlikely to bring about a resolution. After an extended period of discussion, we have (by my count) 22 editors in support of the proposed move, and 16 editors opposed (including one who sarcastically voted "support", and one low-participation IP whose opinion is discounted). This falls well short of the consensus generally needed to change a longstanding status quo. Of course, consensus is not a vote, but in this case, there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the coin. The UK city is clearly a highly important topic (though, oddly, the Massachusetts city is on the level 5 vital articles list, and the UK city is not), and has both historical and modern geographic significance. Given the variety of other important subjects, and the distribution of pageviews, there is a substantial probability that this title would best be served by a disambiguation page. However, as close as the question is, consensus has not been established on this point, in this discussion. bd2412 T 03:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• 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) --Relisting. bd2412 T 03:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. —  AjaxSmack  16:07, 20 June 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, and 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)
  • (3 weeks later, responding to my own comment) Support now. I've watched this conversation for several weeks and had to look back to see what my early !vote had been and found it's "only a comment". WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has been invoked on both sides, but I think on balance, "User experience" goes for making the disambiguation page primary so I have plumped down on the side of "support". This means something like 5000 links will need to be changed, ideally manually by a human who can pick the 5% or so that should be to a sports team, railway station, somewhere completely different or anything other than the British city article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:07, 7 June 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)

Yes, Rolls Royce is more famous than Plymouth autos, but of course Louisville is more famous, too. Your last sentence, in fact, is exactly my point. You had to look up Louisville! Imagine how obscure a place like Plymouth, England is. Lesser-known small cities like Plymouth are just inherently hard to assign primary topic to. Red Slash 14:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me. Are you asking me to consider how obscure Western Europe's largest naval base is, compared to a car that consistently sells poorly in its native country?--Ykraps (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Um I think Toulon is the largest naval base in western Europe Lyndaship (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I don't know why you would think that. Reliable sources seem to think it's Plymouth.[[3]][[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]][[9]]--Ykraps (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll let you do your own research. Plymouth is over 650 acres, Toulon is 662 acres. I guess how much over 650 is the question. Lyndaship (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

As you don't seem to know what those figures apply to, I think it best you don't do your own research and stick to what is said in reliable sources.--Ykraps (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Come on guys, be real. The point is just that Plymouth is a very significant base. Whether or not Toulon is bigger by area (and by how much and whether or not it's smaller in other parameters) is irrelevant to this RM. So, pax? Andrewa (talk) 07:51, 6 June 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 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 [[10]] 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.[11][12][13] 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[[14]] and the singer[[15]] 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?[[16]]--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)

The difference, of course, is that in fifty years the city of Atlanta will still be much more important than the series and will have far more pageviews. The color Pink will still be much more important than the singer and will have far more pageviews. In fifty years, Plymouth, MA will still be prominently featured in the first chapter of every history book about America. Red Slash 10:38, 5 June 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 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)
  • Plymouth, Massachusetts's long-term historical significance has little or nothing to do, really, with its population. Red Slash 10:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Maybe not, but its long-term significance is for one single thing, whereas the Devonian city has much longer-term significance for a number of things (including the thing for which the Massachusetts city is significant, which is why the latter is named after the former!). And is a much larger city into the bargain. The combination makes it the clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 8 June 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)

Respect to you Smalljim. I greatly admire when someone reviews his stats and presents the full picture. I'll quibble of course, firstly some 400 of those links relate to Football and only erroneously link to Plymouth as the site of Home Park (they should link directly to the Home Park article}, secondly over 600 are ship articles where most will just link to Plymouth as a place sailed from, then looking at people many again are passing mentions of the sailed from Plymouth sort. Not a significant link however even with this cheese paring (and I accept your assertion that other Plymouth articles would also lose links due to templates) its obvious that Plymouth(Devon) has many more relevant links. However it doesn't change my view given that my phone doesn't give me an option when I type Plymouth into wikipedia search so I have to land on Plymouth (Devon) before clicking again to the Plymouth I want through a hatnote. A dab page would be the proper landing, can you imagine a written encyclopedia which decides where you should go first before letting you look at the index? Lyndaship (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It's the nature of incoming links that most of them will be single mentions on specific points of an article that's mostly about something else. It's only in aggregate that they gain their power, especially when they appear in articles on many different topics. Regarding search on a phone, I'm no expert, but I tried using my old phone which has several browsers installed. One showed me a desktop version, which when zoomed in so I could see the tiny letters, worked just like the desktop with a drop-down list. On another browser the search button didn't work at all, and on a third typing Plymouth in the search box gave no drop-down, but on pressing enter I was taken to a page listing the possible matches. So on this tiny sample, it seems possible that your phone is using a browser that's not compatible with WP's enhanced search function. That is just a guess, though.  —SMALLJIM  14:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Very good points made, Smalljim and Lyndaship, I would like to take this further in a more appropriate forum, User talk:Andrewa/Why primary topic is to be avoided#Phones is one possibility. Andrewa (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

can you imagine a written encyclopedia... No, and it gets worse. Andrewa (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Seems correct. But I take it that you don't consider Plymouth Colony to be a contender? [17] JLJ001 (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 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)Blocked sock, but was already struck. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 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)

User:markdask, I that a joke? If so, it is too subtle for me. Sugar is not what most consider it to be, that title is a dab concept page. Sugar is not a fact. The product called sugar is sucrose and every other sugar has its own name. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sugar is quite an interesting case. The primary topic is probably sucrose by usage and common name, and similarly at least borderline by long-term significance. Is the existing article a BCA? Even that's a stretch, IMO; What we've done is favoured the more academic usage, and it's probably not the only time we've done this. But again IMO, it's a perfectly good result so far as reader experience goes. Andrewa (talk) 06:22, 31 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The rules are a communication device written by you, not a textbook written by someone else. There seems some support for raising the bar on P T or at least clarifying it, but we have no consensus on doing so yet. Meantime we can always appeal to WP:IAR. The bottom line is reader experience, not compliance to the rules. Andrewa (talk) 18:42, 30 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)Blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 21:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they mean they oppose the moves as proposed, as they believe that Plymouth, Devon is the primary topic of Plymouth, and that they agree with the various arguments above to this effect. Similarly, they really think that London, Bristol, Aberdeen and Cardiff should not be moved either. See sarcasm. Andrewa (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I genuinely cannot believe my !vote would need explaining...., Andrewa is absolutely correct with their analysis of my comment. –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Likewise... and my AGF was misplaced, they've now been indeffed as a sock, see above. Andrewa (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support just because it is the oldest doesn't mean the others don't have their own independent long-term historical significance. It may be the most significant topic, but PTOPIC is not most significant topic but the topic that is more significant than the others combined, which isn't the case here. Lot of the opposes are just silly false equivalences with say London or don't even give a rationale Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Galobtter, but you may have misread the second bullet of WP:PTOPIC. It doesn't say that the topic has to be more significant than the others combined. The topic has to have substantially greater (stuff) than any other topic (not all the other topics combined – that requirement is only in the first bullet, about searches).  —SMALLJIM  14:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I do know that the text does say that but I do take a somewhat higher standard (my !vote could be clearer on that), which I feel is closer to the intent of having a primary topic. I also don't think it has substantially more enduring notability, and it does fail the first aspect of page views too Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The English city is the ptopic per long-term significance over other topics. Suggest lengthy moratorium too, this isn't a New York situation, where the arrangement is out of kilter with the policies, it's simply a case of interpretation of primary topic, and it's not fair to keep hammering away at it with RM after RM until you get the result you want.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This RM was over a year since the last one (which closed as no consensus), which is ample time for any moratorium. I'd argue that this is exactly like the "New York" situation - treating a topic as the primary one when all evidence and the discussion itself shows that there isn't one. What wouldn't be fair would be kiboshing further discussion on this obviously controversial issue.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This RM wasn't proposed by someone unacquainted with previous discussions; you proposed it, knowing there was no consensus last time. In my mind, that is simply refusing to accept consensus. Now perhaps there is a cultural difference here, and that where you hail from it's acceptable but I agree with Amakuru that making move request after move request until you get your own way is bad form to say the least.--Ykraps (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Over time, PTOPICs can change. So at this point in time it appears that the nom has presented ample evidence that the city in Devon is no longer the the primary topic. It can easily be naturally disambiguated, and the base name moved to title the disambiguation page. In my opinion, this set of page moves should have happened quite some time ago. The time has come to make this happen.  Painius  ^put'r there  01:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per detailed and convincingly argued nomination as well as additional persuasive points made by ONR, Red Slash, Scott Davis, Dohn joe, Nine Zulu queens, Nilfanion, Lyndaship, No such user, SmokeyJoe, Yaksar, feminist, Ralbegen, Dicklyon, Galobtter and Painius. The putative WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has been placed above 54 other entries at the Plymouth (disambiguation) page and failed to rise overwhelmingly and incontrovertibly to the top.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't have time to set out in detail now but per the opposes above and because "Plymouth, Devon" sounds seriously unnatural and if disambiguation were necessary (which it isn't), it should be "Plymouth (Devon)". Comma disambiguation for places has got seriously out of hand. If you're from a part of the world that regularly says things like "Plymouth, Massachusetts" then it seems natural (and hence it's got its way into the MOS as the default recommended form), but here it not standard to append the county to city names in normal speech and text, making the proposed name look odd (and yes other articles have been disambiguated that way but it's time to stop forcing such a form). I think a lot of the protracted debates on these issues might be significantly reduced if nominators proposed forms that sound natural in the location's country and not in their own. Timrollpickering 07:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Unnatural? It’s not very hard to find “City, Region” introductions. for example. Plymouth, Devon, England, UK. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The disambiguation I suggested is what's recommended by WP:UKPLACE and is widely found in British sources. But regardless of which form of disambiguation is chosen, it does need disambiguation because the title is ambiguous and this isn't the primary topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
      • "Plymouth, Devon" is not in a "City, Region" format - that would be "Plymouth, South West England". Most of the examples that come up are generated from databases that give a string of tiers to the location rather than representing actual usage. The "Town/City, County" format in the UK is primarily seen in historic postal addresses (although Plymouth was one of the post towns that didn't need the county when others did) and this along with excessive application of the principles of USPLACE outside the US probably explains why UKPLACE recommends such a format. But it sounds unnatural, particularly with cities that are so prominent that what county they're in this week is forgettable. Timrollpickering 11:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
        • WP:UKPLACE for England says "Where disambiguation is required, placename, ceremonial county is normally used." That would be Plymouth, Devon, which already has hundreds of links. That formula is demonstrably used in local sources.[18][19][20]. "Placename, County" is not widely used in the U.S.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
          • As already said, UKPLACE has been badly influenced by USPLACE on this, which has been unfortunately copied to other countries and adapted for other governmental units due to too many insisting on comma over brackets disambiguation even when it produces names that sound unnatural. Of your three examples, one only uses "Plymouth, Devon" as part of a copy&paste postal address, another as part of a list of store closures that includes areas for the locations but nobody says things like "Colliers Wood, south London" as though it's a place name, and the third is an article also published in Cornwall making the argument that the Cornish Pasty actually originates in Devon and hence including the county in the sentence. Timrollpickering 17:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
            • I think this is somewhat off-topic to this discussion? And is best handled at the talk of UKPLACE instead? I'd note that Plymouth is a bad example for working out how to disambiguate British places, as it is both a major city and unique in the UK so doesn't need clarification in UK sources to a UK audience (like the AP exceptions for US place). If UKPLACE is to be revised, a better approach would be to look at how ambiguous smaller towns are treated. St Ives might be a good one - how do UK sources clarify which St Ives is meant?--Nilfanion (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support both moves. While all the other Plymouths may be named after this one, this one is no longer the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in most of the world. Bradv 03:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That opinion and the others like it would hold a lot more weight if you could present some evidence to indicate that the statement is true. In fact, such evidence as there is - incoming wikilinks and other wikipedias, for instance - strongly suggests that Plymouth is the primary topic in most of the world (see the data in the table above).  —SMALLJIM  09:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

As has been amply demonstrated, most of the available evidence shows that Devon, England is not the primary topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Primary topic.--Martilito (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support both עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. When I hear "Plymouth" I think of Plymouth, Massachusetts, which makes me conclude there is no primary topic here. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I've heard of Massachusetts, but I had no idea they had a Plymouth (location). Eddaido (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The nominator's evidence and rationale make it clear that there is no primary topic here, and that the city in England (while certainly important) meets neither of the thresholds for primary topic status. To be clear: for a subject to be a primary topic, readers must seek it more than all other topics combined, or it must have substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic. Stats make it clear that the British city doesn't meet the former, and the unquestionable significance and history of other similarly-named articles (notably Plymouth, Massachusetts, "America's Hometown") breaks the latter. I understand commentators not wishing the article about the city in Devon to lose its favored status, but if we're to follow the guidelines I think the title needs to be amended. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

One other point: Wikipedia suggests looking to other encyclopedias for title guidance, so I checked out the relevant entries at the Encyclopedia Britannica. They use a slightly different method of disambiguation that ours, placing clarifiers beneath the title rather than parenthetically after it, so it's not exactly apples-to-apples, but I still think it's pertinent to note that these are the two Britannica articles:
• britannica.com/place/Plymouth-England
• britannica.com/place/Plymouth-Massachusetts
╠╣uw [talk] 09:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't have primary topics at all. So you can't draw any conclusion from the fact that they don't have one for Plymouth. Notice that Britannica covers the colony and the Massachusetts town in a single article. The English town is the most likely desired destination only if you treat "Plymouth Colony" as a subject unrelated to Plymouth. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. Britannica does indeed appear to make some judgment about the relative significance of articles on cities of the same name, to judge from the following:

britannica.com/place/London
britannica.com/place/London-Ontario
britannica.com/place/Paris
britannica.com/place/Paris-Kentucky
but...
britannica.com/place/Plymouth-England
britannica.com/place/Plymouth-Massachusetts

That said, yes, Britannica's titling system is certainly different from Wikipedia's in a number of ways: for one, they append clarifiers to many of their articles by placing a subheading beneath the main title, thus leaving the main title line undisambiguated even when there are multiple articles for a single term. I just find it interesting that Britannica chooses to structure their articles as they do – and that they do it despite there being no technical reason they couldn't have it just at "Plymouth". ╠╣uw [talk] 13:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not the most likely destination even without Plymouth colony - 31.9% of the traffic.[21] And, of course, it's silly to remove it as that's a major, valuable use of the term "Plymouth".--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Both changes make sense. Plymouth, Devon is a more descriptive name vs "Plymouth" and would clearly avoid confusion with the other uses of the name. I don't think the Primary Topic argument holds weight given that several articles can reasonably make the claim. Springee (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Plymouth is a historically significant city in the UK. Far more people in the world will have heard of the original Plymouth than the American one. Combinedauthorities (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Based on what grounds? Plymouth, Mass is a historically significant city as well. The claim that more people have heard of the UK vs US one (ones since there are a number of Plymouth towns/cities in the US) isn't a good reason to have "Plymouth" direct to Plymouth, Devon. Think of this as a multi-way election where no one candidate can muster close to 50% of the vote. Based on what people have said I would agree that Plymouth, Devon is perhaps the stronger candidate vs the town of Plymouth located in Massachusetts but even that is debatable given the significance in American history. But that makes the case for making "Plymouth" a disambiguation page that much stronger. No one topic is the clear winner and several can make a very good case for it. In such a case it's best to not play favorites. Springee (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This whole discussion tends towards the US-centric, which is understandable as this is a US based encyclopedia. Plymouth in Massachusetts and Plymouth cars are well known in North America but much less so in the wider English speaking world. If the English fleet that sailed out of Plymouth to harry the Spanish Armada had failed to see it off, it is possible that England would have been incorporated into the Spanish Empire and the United States might never have been established.Charles (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I rather think this discussion tilts Anglo-centric - I don't see evidence that most readers around the world are familiar with any of the topics above the others. If the article had been created at Plymouth, Devon, I don't think it would ever have been seriously considered to be the primary topic over all the other uses.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Cúchullain: Agreed. It also strikes me that concerns about national centrism are an argument in favor of the proposed move — that is, to disambiguate both topics equally.

Charlesdrakew: Regarding Plymouth in Devon, certainly no one's suggesting it's not historically significant. It is. However, that's not the bar. Per Wikipedia guidelines, the bar one has to reach for primary topic status is to show that the Plymouth in Devon is significantly more important than anything else, or more sought-after than everything else — combined. Given the significance of other topics like the city known as "America's Hometown", as well as the traffic statistics that have already been introduced, I just don't see the city in Devon reaching that bar. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

As Nilfanion stated below, in a test of theirs, only 1% of the traffic to this page actually clicked on the disambiguation links to the American Plymouth and the car company - so practically everyone got onto the page they wanted. Plus, as shown by SmallJim above, the vast majority of traffic is directed to THIS Plymouth. What these admins have shown is that moving this page is redundant. There's no point. This should be made especially clear given how Nilfanion, who opened the 2017 RM, acknowledges that the status quo should be maintained as is. As for Cuchullain's use of 'Google books' to try and support their argument - literally all the results for any of the Plymouths have 0 reviews. Plus, results don't equal the number of books at all; they encompass of pages of the same books. Thus, it seems rather impractical to use Google books as a reliable measure of popularity (also because... well, no one uses 'Google books' anyway). Even if there are more books written about the American Plymouth or the car (which, as I said, Google books results don't actually indicate) - that does not matter. What matters is how many people read those books - and I'm pretty sure that there won't be many people reading books on any Plymouth anyway, which the 0 reviews clearly show. There have already been 5 attempts to move this page; as others in this discussion have stated, repeatedly requesting page moves until you get what you want is setting a bad example for other editors.Combinedauthorities (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not correct. Only a small fraction of people searching for a "Plymouth" - 24% - intend this Plymouth. The fact that not that many readers were bothering to use the hat notes is a problem of hat notes, not a sign that folks are getting where they wanted. Many would just hit the back arrow or type another search in, or just move on without getting the info they wanted. Google Books are one of the measures specifically recommended by PRIMARYDETERMINE and I'm afraid I don't see a lack of reviews meaning anything about whether there are more books about one Plymouth than all the others. At any rate we've gone through several measures, and the fact is that most of them - article traffic, Google Books, Google News, Worldcat, etc. support the claim that there's no primary topic among the Plymouths.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please can you re-read my response. I've clearly stated that a lack of reviews undermines the reliability of using Google books with regards to Plymouth - not just 'meaning anything about whether there are more books about one Plymouth than all the others'. I've also talked about how many people that read the books is the true determining factor of popularity, not how many books are written. Google Books may be recommended for determining primary topics in general - but that doesn't mean you can just use that for Plymouth. In addition - Google search results are localised. This means that Americans searching for 'Plymouth' will have Plymouth, Massachusetts as their first search result, with Plymouth Colony, Plymouth (Automobile make) and Plymouth (software) immediately after in the 'See results about' box - and I know all of this because I just tested it out. The Plymouth in Devon is nowhere to be seen on the first page of 'Plymouth' search results in the American Google. As for searching within Wikipedia... it clearly shows the other Plymouths in the search bar. Thus, as all indicators point to there being no noticeable confusion - what's the problem?Combinedauthorities (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Cuchullain Please do not misrepresent page views. They are the number of users acceessing articles, NOT number of users searching for articles. The data strongly indicates that most who actually read this article - or any other for that matter - arrive here by following a link (from elsewhere on WP or another website), or sensible use of a search engine (by which I mean checking the summary, before clicking the link). Naive searchers (those who don't check the search info, but click the first option) landing in error at this page are clearly a tiny fraction of traffic and the number of hatnote/dab users gives an order-of-magnitude estimate for that number, which is the one that actually matters.

Furthermore, if a large proportion of people after Plymouth Colony actually went through this page, the traffic for this page would show the same seasonal trends as that for Plymouth Colony - going up substantially around Thanksgiving. But it doesn't, again reinforcing that most traffic is unaffected by having this article here.--Nilfanion (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I know what page views mean, thanks. Here the evidence shows that of all the readers looking for a Plymouth, only a small number intend this one despite it being at the base name. That creates the likelihood that a lot of readers are being misdirected. You don't have to be "naive" to wind up at the wrong article, it has happened to me, at this page, coming off of Google, and I've been here 13 years. If we can reduce that with a simple, common sense addition of disambiguation (which is no detriment to the article, and will then also make mislinks easier to detect), we should. This is beside the long-term significance issue, where the evidence we have accords with the page view evidence that there's no primary topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

And FWIW, Plymouth, Devon's page views do spike around Thanksgiving.[22][23] The last two years it's been several hundred views over the previous week, a significant chunk of the article's average traffic. The same trend is not evident at the disambiguated articles Plymouth, Montserrat or Plymouth (automobile).--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that its likely that it is only a minority of people searching for a Plymouth want this one - hence my support. But please don't say something that clearly isn't true, which is that the pageviews show the number of searchers. Number of accesses far exceed number of searches. As for Thanksgiving, my comment was about long-term seasonal trends not the short-term around the date itself. Plymouth Colony gets at least 40% more traffic from August through to November - as that corresponds to the relevant semester, its likely to be driven by interest from US schools. If the same seasonal pattern was visible for this article, that would be a strong indicator that lots of people were going astray. But this article shows no increase at all. Spikes in daily traffic are often driven by other factors, especially main page links. On Thanksgiving itself with the Colony getting exceptionally high traffic, that is likely to cause a slight increase in views of this article (because this Plymouth is related through the Mayflower to the US terms, so some of the extra readers of those article will follow the links to here). That means the slight increase that does occur can't be positively attributed to a specific cause.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Also my use of "naive" and "sensible" isn't meant to be a comment on the readers themselves, but a couple labels to describe two ways of using a search engine. If you assume that the first link in your search gets you the right thing, first time, every time - you will sometimes be disappointed. If you double check all the search returns - your error rate will be a lot lower. A Google search for "Plymouth" clearly says its link to this article is about a city in SW England.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: You can count Google out, because as I have already stated, Google search results are localised - Americans searching for Plymouth will have Plymouth, MA as their first search result, and the car company, colony and software next - with no mention of Plymouth, Devon anywhere on the first results page. Combinedauthorities (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support, I'm Dutch and the first thing that springs to my mind when hearing "Plymouth" is the city in England. But this is global encyclopedia and in the discussion so far I have not seen any evidence that, across the globe, the city in England is much more important than other Plymouths. At best the English city is slightly more important, but that is not good enough for this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the English city is by far the most historically significant.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I've raised this RM at WT:DAB#A case in point. Andrewa (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe you're correct that this hasn't been closed because of the perennial, if infrequent, problem that we have a combination of 1) no consensus to move anything and 2) no consensus that there is a primary topic, which would logically default to moving the dab to the base name. I have closed similar cases in favor of #2 in the past, but it usually causes further conflict. Dekimasuよ! 19:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify that I would not find it a particularly improper reading of the discussion if the closer did simply see consensus to move the pages in the current discussion. Dekimasuよ! 19:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Might it not be preferable to run another RM quickly based on WP:IAR in the hope of getting a much stronger consensus? Altering 5,000 links would be a major exercise which might encourage so-far silent opposers to start agitating to have the move reversed. Remember the Prayer Book Rebellion ;-)  —SMALLJIM  21:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe... I don't think I can safely claim to be uninvolved, although I haven't !voted, but I'm really interested in the outcome obviously, and have never had any intention of either !voting or closing it myself for that very reason. 5,000 links is roughly what had to be corrected during the NYRM fiasco, so it's doable, and not a valid reason to compromise reader experience (however unintentionally). Andrewa (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a fresh RM simply to test IAR. The arguments for invoking IAR have been made within this discussion already, and if more discussion would help on that go ahead. A new RM wouldn't even test that anyway, as most of the !votes on a new RM would be based on the same logic as before, even if the nomination is phrased differently. What I would like to see is a consensus closure on this one, a no consensus close doesn't close the issue off. A consensus closure would give scope to do so.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree regarding no consensus close. But it's going to be a difficult close IMO... it's one of the messiest discussions I've ever seen! So still unsure about whether a fresh RM might help. Even if they're the same arguments, the format of the above is appalling. A Survey/Discussion format would have helped, perhaps? Andrewa (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No consensus? Is that big C concensus? What about the lesser forms? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If there's no consensus on what the primarytopic is, we really ought to default to disambiguation, no? Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Trouble is an RM is not "is there consensus X is the primary topic", but like any other discussion "is there consensus to change?". Things would be easier if it was, but that would be a substantial change to RM policy, and would make them quite distinct from any other sort of !vote on WP - as no consensus could still result in an action.--Nilfanion (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I also hope for a consensus close rather than a "no consensus", which won't head off the contention that's been building here for many years. I'd agree above comments that this is a case where a lack of a clear consensus that there's a primary topic just shows how, well, truly ambiguous the name really is. That said, I think there is a consensus apparent here when policy and strength of the arguments are taken into account.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

To me this RM became more a matter of the correct interpretation of the second bullet of WP:PTOPIC (mine may be wrong, though no-one's told me why), and an attempt to show that hard evidence is greatly preferable to mere expressed opinion, which is often affected by nationality. So I too think there is a consensus here, taking policy and strength of the arguments into account – but it may not be the same as the one you see. Incidentally I looked at the examples at WP:TPTM and was surprised when I clicked on one of them: Raleigh. It's illuminating to compare its RM from 2014 to this one.  —SMALLJIM  12:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a matter of whether this is the primary topic of the name "Plymouth". Plenty of hard evidence has been presented showing that it's not. For usage, it objectively gets only a fraction of the page views.[24] For long-term significance, the Google Books results (one of the measures recommended by WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY) show that "Plymouth, England", "Plymouth, Devon" and similar searches get fewer results (about 85k) than several other topics, including "Plymouth colony" (190k hits), "Plymouth County" (284k) and Plymouth car (3.4 million), and not significantly more than "Plymouth, Massachusetts" (73.5k); in my search, I went through 3 pages of a search for Plymouth without finding a single one for England.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I can certainly see why you'd favour Google Books over any of the other listed tools! But a moment's thought shows why that is a terrible metric in this case: the books it has scanned have mainly come from US institutions. Google Books is not intended to provide an accurate overview of everything that has been published. And do we even know how its relevance sorting works? No. To do the job properly would be a time-consuming trawl through hundreds of pages, making a decision on each item. But don't bother, for a list of books that have Plymouth in the title, try a simple search at https://www.worldcat.org instead. That has a far more balanced spread because it's the world's largest bibliographic database, free from Google's self-selection.  —SMALLJIM  22:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to get Ngram or Google Trends to work for titles with commas, but Google Scholar and Google News similarly show Plymouth, Devon with fewer sources than other topics (Google Scholar: [25] and [26] vs. [27]; Google News: [28] and [29] vs. [30] and [31]). Looking at Worldcat, it's a similar trend: [32] and [33] vs. [34]. And that's leaving out likely tens of thousands of hits for the car in all searches, plus all the other topics whose sources would add up. Now, there are always different ways to parse data, but it's clear at this point that there's no one topic is unambiguously the top one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I should have mentioned this in my last post but didn't in the pursuit of brevity, but of course Plymouth, Devon or Plymouth, England will provide few hits. The place is very rarely described in that way, in England at least: it's the only one we've got so there's no need to disambiguate. To do it properly you'd have to search for "Plymouth" alone and then manually assess each hit to determine which place (or the manufacturer) it's for – an unimaginable task. And a proportion of items will include detail about more than one of the topics - how would you deal with those: fractional hits? I must also point out that there is dispute about the inclusion of Plymouth Colony. No, in this case, such metrics will prove to be practically useless. Isn't the best metric the one that you've steadfastly refused to mention: incoming wikilinks? It's no. 1 in the list of tools that may help, at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY – dare I suggest for a good reason! And it provides at least a 5 to 1 advantage for Plymouth over any of the contenders (and that's a lead even if you want to employ your – I'm obliged to say dubious – reading of against "all others, combined").

Look – shall we stop this increasingly pointless feud, let this RM go whichever way it will, and try to improve things for the future instead, e.g. at WT:DAB?  —SMALLJIM  23:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see this as a "feud", but you are of course free to stop commenting if you wish. You are the one who brought up World Cat. Parsing though hits for just "Plymouth", the same trend is apparent: the first 50 hits for "Plymouth", I find 18 books that are about Plymouth, Devon, compared to 23 about Massachusetts, and the rest about the various other uses. Ie, another mark against the primary topic claim. Incoming links have been discussed several times here. They have their own upsides and downsides, and at any rate are only one piece of evidence for primary topic status among the many others we've covered. Again, one can pick and choose evidence to suit their argument, but at this point, it's impossible to argue that one topic is what most people and most sources intend. As such, the name is ambiguous and should be treated that way.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

There is relevant discussion at WT:DAB#Long-term significance vs usage, and each is relevant to the other. See wp:correct#But the rules are sometimes wrong. Andrewa (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I can see no possibility of consensus being reached here which is rather sad as it means that what ever was created first remains - compare the idea that there is no consensus for leaving things as they are. I don't like the primary topic concept at all, to my mind it should always be a dab page listing all possibilities. The various suggestions as to what makes a primary topic I find dubious, to my mind if we have to have one then only discovering what people are actually looking for are the only grounds. I still think a lot of the people landing on Plymouth(Devon) are being directed to a page they do not want. Therefore I am wondering if the proposal made (dab page for primary landing and Plymouth changed to Plymouth Devon or England) could be made for a trial period and then the page view figures would reflect what people really wanted? If after that period it was quite apparent that Plymouth (Devon) was the desired article by a large majority of the dab page I would support making that the primary topic again Lyndaship (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

At the time of the previous RM, I did a trial changing the hatnote links on this article to point at Plymouth (Massachusetts) and Plymouth (car) instead of directly to the correct articles. If I remember right it was ~1% of this article's traffic that was actually using the links. That means a trial is unnecessary, as regardless of the decision here we can use similar tricks to monitor traffic. IMO the number of users affected by our choice of primary topic here is minimal.

To me that provides strong justification for no consensus = maintain status quo. If we have consensus to change, then we have a consensus that change is an improvement. No consensus doesn't mean we don't agree on what the primary topic is, it means we don't agree that the proposed change is actually an improvement - and that a significant portion believe the proposed change would have a negative impact.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of what the primary topic is, there is good reason to disambiguate in terms of reader experience. See User:Andrewa/negative benefit#For example primary topic. Am I missing something there? (I was surprised too.) Andrewa (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a consensus here when strength of argument, the evidence, and the benefit to user experience is taken into account. It remains to be seen if the closer unfortunate enough to take this on will see it as such. I don't envy them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Not one for the fainthearted. Strongly recommend an admin close. (Page movers are probably more competent in this specialist area, on average, but sadly don't seem to carry the same authority in the eyes of many.) Andrewa (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Post-close comment

The above discussion illustrates the usual flaw in attempts to unseat an article from primarytopic position: only watchers of the one article see the notice of move discussion. All the other articles affected, that is, those linked from the disambig page, are not given any kind of notice, so the editors commenting tend to be strongly pre-biased toward those who are editors of the article already in primarytopic position. Next time we propose this move, I suggest we should put notices on all the other affected articles, to get a more balanced set of editors to comment. Then it will become clear that having this one arbitrary is primarytopic position is far from being supported by a consensus (actually, that was clear already). Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

While I'm extremely disappointed with a no consensus outcome, I think that's the only realistic reading of the above. Its likely to be the same result next time, as in every RM there has been a substantial grouping against the move with strong policy-based arguments. A few extra !votes in support won't change this from no consensus to consensus to move, and if those !votes are attracted by something the opposing side will call canvassing its asking for trouble. I'd note that the majority of contributing editors here have come via WP:RM, as those editors are more interested in titling. Editors of this article are more likely to have a strong reaction than those who edit the other articles, as "their" article isn't going to be changed by this. Notifications are also likely to increase the tribalism further, which doesn't help.

To get a different result here a different procedure is needed, not re-hashing the same thing again. For instance, if the guidance explicitly said "if no consensus there is a primary topic, then there is no primary topic" then this would have a different outcome. There have also been a couple others issues raised with regards to the guidance. I suggest primary topic guidance should be reviewed, and revisions considered, in light of this case. Also suggest a minimum of 12 months before this is re-visited.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this conclusion. I recall that numerous discussions were required before we finally came to the conclusion to disambiguate New York, and to move Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. Both were ultimately accomplished through regular move requests, with a broad marshaling of evidence, and with substantial notification of the community. bd2412 T 13:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

New York was hardly resolved by a regular move request. But what I mean here is that I believe this case has highlighted that the guidance is currently inadequate in some areas. For example, one issue debated here is the Primary Topic guidance, and should a case for long term significance be judged against the competing terms individually (as it currently appears to suggest), or collectively (as is done for page views)?--Nilfanion (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

So what people are saying is that because they don't like the result the process must be wrong? As repeated RfMs have failed to get them what they want, they'll gerrymander the process until it gives them the result that they want it to? DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes and no, ultimately a "no consensus" close doesn't resolve the issue. This discussion failed to get a consensus outcome (in either direction), and if this quantity of discussion fails to get a result its reasonable to examine the process. Notifications on any future RM should not be done in a way to try and bias the discussion - targeting groups based on their perceived preference is a bad idea.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Then the target for change needs to be the whole idea of a "primary topic". I've long argued for disambiguating everything, both to avoid confusion and to avoid perceived or real national biases, but until anyone can get that to fly (which they won't, it upsets too many people to discover that their local Hicksville isn't the most important Hicksville in the world, or that an American elk isn't an elk) I don't see any point in the repeated, inevitably unsuccessful, attempts to move this particular article. DuncanHill (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be better if editors worked on actually worked on improving articles instead of threatening to keep reopening this discussion until they get the outcome they want. This is closed. Move on.Charles (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The "no clear consensus to move" invites working toward a clear consensus, especially since the majority could have been read as at least an "unclear" consensus to move. I was pointing out the reason for the lack of clarity was likely to be the flaw in the process the invites primarily people with an interest in maintaining their primarytopic claim, even when the evidence suggests getting away from that. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikiprojects Automobiles, Massachusetts, United States, and Caribbean/Montserrat were all informed, and could be assumed to have members less likely to wish to maintain the status quo here. DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note that the reason perennial proposals are perennial is not merely that the same people keep trying to move the discussion over and over again, but that new editors, possibly unaware of any previous discussion of the matter, see the status quo as a problem and propose a solution. As long as new editors are allowed to begin editing Wikipedia, some will eventually find this article and conclude that it is not the primary topic, and propose to move it. bd2412 T 13:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

One could hardly describe User:Cuchullain as a new editor. DuncanHill (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

New to the *discussion*. I'm comparatively new to it - I only came in at the tail end of the 2017 RM - and moreover, many of the other participants were new.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"only watchers of the one article see the notice of move discussion". Not entirely true. I happen to check WP:RM almost every week and contribute to any discussion I feel strongly about. I suspect many other editors do too, considering the number of editors who contribute to multiple RM discussions over multiple topics. Anyone can do that if they feel so inclined. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussions like this are very much influenced by members of the associated wikiprojects who either have the article on their watchlists, or see it in their project's auto alerts. In some cases, such as this one, it can lead to an unbalanced discussion heavily influenced by local sentiment. Contrary to some comments above, there is no problem with alerting other relevant WikiProjects; in fact it's recommended. While a move doesn't affect the other articles directly, the present status quo does affect them by confusing readers's searches, incoming links, etc. In this case, some other projects were notified, but it was very late in the discussion. When this discussion inevitably comes up again, one thing that should change should be notifying all relevant projects from the beginning.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You should raise that with the person who started this discussion, he's the one who didn't bother to notify the projects he is complaining weren't notified in a timely manner. DuncanHill (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm the one who started the discussion. I didn't think to notify the other projects. I would have done so if I'd thought about it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I should remind you Duncan that when I raised has this been notified to other projects on Cuchullains talk page you did not support it Lyndaship (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I made a comment about the lack of input from people ending up at the "wrong" article suggesting that people were in fact not ending up at the wrong article. I did not oppose other projects being informed, nor did I try in any way to prevent you or anybody else informing such projects, nor would I. You don't need my support or permission to tell other projects. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I admire User:BD2412 for closing the RM discussion after months in which no one dared. If this were a routine move like, say Nostril → Nostrils, I think this would be a clearly acceptable outcome. However, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC moves are a little different given an admonition that once appeared in the guideline: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no '(disambiguation)'." Good luck. (Disclosure: I opposed the move.) —  AjaxSmack  20:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I applaud your willingness to question and evaluate the outcome in an unbiased manner. However: "that once appeared". That controversial sentence was removed the very next day for a reason. It can be seen as misleading to use that omitted wording to support your point. Combinedauthorities (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I greatly respect BD2412 and think it was a perfectly understandable, if disappointing, close. I think there was a rough consensus for a move given the weakness of most of the oppose votes, which are largely just arguments by assertion that this city is the primary topic. It may be time to tweak some of the relevant guidelines as folks above have noted: obviously, the second bullet of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should make it clear that an article should be more significant than all other topics combined, and not just come in slightly ahead in a foot race against each one individually. It would probably also not be a bad idea to revise the WP:DISAMBIGUATION guideline to reflect the now-removed point that AjaxSmack highlights. This is definitely a case where the fact that the matter was so debatable reflects that there's no one topic that could be considered primary for most people.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, fix the rules to give you what you want because you can't accept your failure. Go for it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, fix the rules to remove barriers from getting readers to the material they want, because that's what we're all supposed to be doing here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

With respect, it seems like you and various others have been happy to repeatedly use the rules of RMs to try and force a page move, even though they have failed each time (though both sides present reasonable arguments) and numerous, valid pieces of evidence have been presented (which I'm not going to reiterate) highlighting why a page move is unnecessary and a waste of time. Combinedauthorities (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a perennial discussion because it's a perennial problem. While some editors don't think the status quo is a problem, many others - the majority in this discussion - do, with far better evidence on their side.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I have yet to see any of this "far better evidence" Combinedauthorities (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

If you've read the discussion, you've seen it, whether you personally accept it or not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I can just as easily say "if you've read the discussion, you've seen the far better evidence presented for maintaining the status quo, whether you personally accept it or not". What you are saying is only your opinion. That's all. Combinedauthorities (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I almost fell off my chair when I read your comment, Cuchullain: "...and not just come in slightly ahead in a foot race against each one individually." All this discussion and all that at WT:DAB and all your RM work and being an admin for years, and you haven't recognised the word "substantially" in the second bullet of WP:PTOPIC? I honestly hope this blind spot has only been manifest in this RM and not the other work in which you've "closed and participated in hundreds of RMs" (you, on this page, 25 May). Please tell me that the above was just a careless typo, written in haste!

Moving on – let's be clear about this case. There is sufficient doubt that Plymouth has more long-term significance than any of the other candidates for there not be a clear need to move it from the primary topic. Six RMs show that clearly. There may, though, be a case that it should move to remove the lingering doubt that having it here is less than optimal. As I suggested above, the next RM should be on the basis of WP:IAR for the unusual circumstances of this case.

I'd probably support that, but for what it's worth, I also think that a further application of WP:IAR should make the move be to Plymouth, England, not Plymouth, Devon. This is simply because many readers of the encyclopedia (outside US, UK etc) will know that the place is in England, but not that it is in Devon. "Plymouth, Devon" is not a common description of the place, compared to how "Plymouth, Massachusetts" is for the other one. For instance, when presented in the drop-down list from the search box, a suffix "Devon" would not help less knowledgeable readers spot it as the one they want.  —SMALLJIM  16:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I find your current position on this bizarre Smalljim. If you think it should be moved, just say so and explain why. If you think it shouldn't be moved, say that instead. The grounds the nomination uses are irrelevant: Getting the correct outcome is what matters, not the logic used to get there. In any event, most !votes in a future RM will inevitably base their comments on primary topic, regardless of the nominator's phrasing. What benefit does going round in a loop give to anyone?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Nilfanion, I can see how it may appear bizarre, but like you earlier I've been negotiating my way through a gradually-revealing and changing landscape. I haven't travelled as far as you and have taken a different path around the obstacles, but at least we do have one thing in common: we are prepared to change our opinions based on what we learn.  —SMALLJIM  21:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Smalljim: To repeat, for like the 40th time, I don't believe that the present wording at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, let alone the spirit of the guideline, suggests that articles don't need to be the most significant to be considered primary topic. But others (including you) apparently read it that way, leading in the present case to a no consensus close, and a situation where an article that's not clearly more significant, and certainly not more sought after, remains at the base name. If the guidelines can be read (or misread) in that way, they should be clarified. Of course, I suspect that many will oppose any move here regardless of what the guideline says, but it would be easier for the closer to judge !votes against the guidelines.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to keep repeating yourself, Cuchullain, because no-one (especially not me) is claiming what you're arguing against.  —SMALLJIM  21:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I would love to be the one to draw the line here, Smalljim, but I'm guessing you would prefer to keep slugging it out with Cúchullain irrespective of the fact that an Irish legend long predates every variation of undernourished Jacobean.

1200 years ago some backward people named the flow of water from the Devon moors to the south English coast - they called it Plym. They could have called it anything but there it is - the only river on the planet named Plym. And as the English language evolved the bunch of savages who lived on the coast came to regard the place as the mouth of the river - who would have guessed?

And then a few of those savages jumped in a boat - called themselves Pilgrims - and sailed to a place they chose to call their own, though the name they chose, Massachusetts, might have been the name of the place before they arrived - the name given by some less savage people. So today there are people in Massachusetts who want to distinguish their Plymouth from the Plymouth. What is the point? How many Plymouths are there or, more correctly, how often have people like Smalljim sought to reinterpret history?

Plymouth is not "Devon" or "England" - Plymouth is a river that existed long before the various savages that would claim history for themselves. Mark^Dask 23:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, OK, I accept that we're all savages. But how that history relates to the primarytopic question here remains obscure. Dicklyon (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Plymouth, Massachusetts/Plymouth Colony can easily be found as the colony is linked in the lead anyway. In addition to the fact that Americans seem to take the state as being part of the name per WP:UKPLACE. As has been noted this city is relevant to those interested in the American topics due to the Mayflower, as noted not knowing about it is akin to celebrating Christmas and then claiming never to have heard of Jesus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It is hilarious to see such a long discussion about this here - & not a lot else to improve the article. After seeing it I looked up impala & was relieved to see an animal rather than a car - though the car can be found by including its maker in the search. From River Plym < The name Plym is thought to have its origins in Old English and means the "plum tree" (Cornish ploumenn), from a back-formation from the name of Plympton. The port of Plymouth took its name from the river. > But the river appears to have taken its name in turn from a place a little further up river which in ancient times was famous for growing plums. I looked in vain at the Plymouth Massachusetts article expecting it to be at the mouth of its own River Plym but no mention of any such river there - or any plums. I am reminded of my father's first visit to the U.S.A. many years ago when he was offered an "all American cheese" called "Cheddar" by a family who'd had absolutely no idea that Cheddar was a place in England... An encyclopaedia ought to be educational and not just a place for keeping people in their own echo chambers - why not allow for some serendipity? 86.155.27.168 (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC) From Plymouth Colony < The area where the colonists settled had been identified as "New Plymouth" in maps by John Smith published in 1614. The colonists elected to retain the name for their own settlement, in honor (sic) of their final point of departure from England: Plymouth, Devon > So most of this debate stems from the fact that unlike New Yorkers & New Zealanders ( who have their own New Plymouth ) the good people of Massachusetts dropped the 'New' bit at some point without a thought for the confusion this would cause centuries later when the world wide web was born. Bizarrely neither the Plymouth Colony article nor the Barnstable County article make any mention of the derivation of the name Barnstable, the residents in this case evidently eschewing 'New Barnstaple' as too much of a mouthful, opting instead for a subtle change of spelling to make the distinction. In short I think there is quite a good argument in an international encyclopaedia for 'Plymouth' to lead to a disambiguation page but then would Plymouth, Devon UK still be at the top of the page? My argument would be yes because it's logical educationally to lay things out in a manner that indicates the derivations, Plymouth UK is Plymouth 'original' 86.155.27.168 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes the Devonian city would likely be on the 1st line just like Preston, Lancashire is on the Preston DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The Abercrombie redevelopment

Currently the post-WW2 reconstruction is mentioned twice, once under "Plan for Plymouth 1943" and again under "Urban form". I was thinking about ading more material on this subject and, without any advice to the contrary, I'd probably start by moving the two sections together. What do others think though? Is it ok to rearrange the article to bring the reconstruction material together or is it better to leave it as it is? --Northernhenge (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

current usage stats (WRT move discussions)

Cf. Talk:Plymouth (disambiguation)#current usage stats --Joy (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Plymouth Newspapers Plymouth Chronicle

Hello, I am in the process of creating a page for the Plymouth Chronicle here Draft:Plymouth Chronicle If there is any chance of getting some help with the creation of this page I can add it to the newspaper section for this article. LouisCSV (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)