From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Plymouth has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cities (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject England (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject UK geography (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Devon (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics connected with Devon. If you would like to participate, you can visit the WikiProject Devon project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Plymouth is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Plymouth at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

Population in 1911[edit]

The graph in the Demography section appears to show that the population of Plymouth was at its greatest in 1911. If that is true, I think it should be mentioned in the text of the article together with some explanation of why the population went into decline. JonH (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The graph is based on a mistake in the source data (here). The error comes from incorrect handling of the merger of the three towns (Plymouth, Devonport, Stonehouse) into one (Plymouth). The 1911 entry for "Plymouth" is the combined pop of the three towns, not just Plymouth proper (112,030). Correct data is at Vision of Britain.
The data needs to be handled much more carefully: The population of "Plymouth" didn't exceed 50,000 until 1861; the graph shows the composite population of the three towns before 1921.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The present Plymouth includes Devonport and Stonehouse. Are you suggesting a graph should be used, which uses "Plymouth", as it was known at the time of each census? I have noted the error and will amend the graph soon, along with any other changes. Jolly Ω Janner 06:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the best treatment is to be honest. At minimum an explanatory note is required in article (that it shows the Three Towns in 1801-1911 and Plymouth after). I'm going to think a bit more about this and expand on this later.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Modern Plymouth is not just the Three Towns, its also places like Plymstock too. That is the same as any other city - their growth absorbed other places. Historical figures quoted for cities are for the city on its boundary at the time, not its modern boundary. So for consistency, Plymstock shouldn't be included as part of Plymouth until it was formally added to the city.
What makes the Three Towns unusual is that the secondary town - Devonport - was about as big as the core town, and was founded solely as an offshoot of Plymouth. I have seen lists like these in textbooks, using a footnote to describe the circumstances of Plymouth (but cannot immediately find an example). If reliable sources can do that, so can we.
With that in mind, IMO there are 3 options: Showing the population of the Three Towns before the merge, just showing Plymouth proper throughout, or starting the graph at 1921. The first two options require an explanatory note to say either that before the merger it shows the population of Plymouth, Devonport and Stonehouse or that the doubling in 1921 is result of the merge. IMO #1 is best choice.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Plymouth which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move at 22:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus to retain the current titles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

– People who type in "Plymouth" may be wanting to look up any one of a number of different things, not necessarily the city in England. I'm sure a great number of them will want to look up the town in Massachusetts, of pilgrim fame. Others may want to find information on the car. Still others might want to know about any number of places (mostly stateside) and other things named Plymouth (for example, Plymouth is the name of a suburb of Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA). By having the unqualified-name article head a disambiguation page instead of a "primary topic," it can be a general subject that can serve as sort of a "gateway" to more specific topics that happen to have similar names. (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have changed request to correctly use the {{Move-multi}} template, which based on nominator's wording was the desired effect. — MusikAnimal talk 06:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please also see Talk:Plymouth/Archive 1, where this same debate was brought up at least seven other times. — MusikAnimal talk 07:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See Also Talk:Plymouth (disambiguation)#Requested_move. Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. This is the original Plymouth and is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Charles (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Simply being older than other Plymouths doesn't make it the primary topic. In addition to other settlements named Plymouth, there is also a brand of automobiles with the same name. Hot Stop 23:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's fine as it is. The other arguments do not work well, especially given the way we routinely disambiguate US place names. DBaK (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unless compelling evidence can be provided that overturns the four five previous, extensively-discussed and rejected requests. See above, Talk:Plymouth/Archive 1 and Talk:Plymouth (disambiguation).  —SMALLJIM  00:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I reject the arguments brought up here against the move, but... Plymouth is no small town in England. This is not Bath or even Cheddar (which should change). And there's no silver bullet against it; the Mass town is not big, the car brand is not a very famous one as far as car brands go, etc. When someone types in Plymouth, what do they want? And this city is significant enough that I'd say it's probably the city. Weak oppose. Red Slash 02:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support UKBIAS. Clearly the triple topic of Plymouth Rock/Plymouth Colony/Plymouth, Mass. is extremely likely in the United States, and this Plymouth in Devon is not very likely. While in Canada and with car buffs, the car company/brand is highly likely. In previous discussions, it was discovered that the car company is also likely in Australia. Just because it's older and in the UK does not make this the primary topic. Just because the US has a likely topic does not make it excluded because its American. The previous rejections came from what appears to be a tidal wave of British editors. It's lacking a worldwide perspective. Evidence was produced previously in the earlier discussions and ignored. -- (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – Per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, a topic is primary for a term if, with respect to usage, it is "more likely than all the other topics combined" to be the topic the reader expects. In our case, what would be expected from the reader appears to be strongly associated with their location. We shouldn't make assumptions and should respect other worldly views. If you ask me, thats makes Plymouth a perfect candidate for disambiguation. — MusikAnimal talk 06:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    MusikAnimal, since the last RM here, WP:PRIMARYUSAGE has been rewritten, no doubt to reflect a change in consensus (compare the December 2010 version). It's now less prescriptive than it was and your quote from it forms just one of two 'major aspects that are commonly discussed'; the other one considers "long-term significance". Can you argue a case from that, perhaps? —SMALLJIM  17:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed I failed to reference that clause, but in my opinion the same argument still stands. What is considered as having "substantially greater enduring notability" in the long-term would seemingly still be dependent on location. Here in the US, many of us would assume Plymouth, Massachusetts, as evidenced by this and prior debates. As mentioned in my comment to Tbhotch below, I think the situation here is somewhat unique. We are trying to infer what is the primary topic when it is bound by location, and also the need for disambiguation – not a normal title change. Plymouth is different than say, joker which we can all agree probably has no primary topic, and rice which clearly does. Viewpoints on these terms do not vary based on location. That being said, I think both WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TITLECHANGES may need clarification on what to do for location-based topics. — MusikAnimal talk 17:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:TITLECHANGES. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 06:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    This is a very relevant policy, which in fact I was not aware of at the time of my vote. It is not clear however how this and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE would apply to an issue regarding British/American disambiguation. I think the debate surrounding Plymouth is in many ways unique and WP:TITLECHANGES may not necessarily supersede WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. — MusikAnimal talk 15:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
TITLECHANGES is an exceptionally poor reason for opposing an individual request. It's far too easy to read the first sentence and stop there. It explicitly does not apply when there is a "good reason to change it." If you don't think there is one in this case, explain why. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually Tbhotch may be pointing out this sentence to us: "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." Sensible advice, which no-one else is going to follow, of course :)  —SMALLJIM  20:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
That, and the fact of all the mixed reaction this RM has gained, which is leaning to a "not moved" result. Since I commented much more opposers have appeared (not saying that thanks to me) giving their own reasons why it shouldn't be moved. Even if this is not a PRIMARYTOPIC or PRIMARYUSAGE any attempt to move the title "Plymouth" is now under the TITLECHANGES territory. If this RM is closed and anyone wants to open another, it must be considered this title is "one controversial article title that has been stable for a long time, and there is no real good reason to change it" (reworded by me), as ambiguity is not a vital reason. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For what it's worth the town 'of pilgrim fathers fame' of course refers to Plymouth, Devon, from where they set sail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pterre (talkcontribs) 04:18, 24 February 2014‎ (UTC)
  • Oppose - welcome the new editor IP to Wikipedia, but oppose per all the reasons of previous discussions. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Mainly because I can't see the point of the previous seven discussions if this keeps coming back. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – This is not a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The Plymouth in Massachusetts has a similar status, and the current title assumes that the Plymouth in England is better-known than the one in Massachusetts (which, to many Americans, is not true). --Epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We've had this out several times before. What's changed now? Nothing. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    Actually the wording of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE has changed since the last move request - see my comment to MusikAnimal above. On first reading, I'm not sure which side the change benefits, if either.  —SMALLJIM  17:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - an IP can't start a move discussion. Radiopathy •talk• 15:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Wrong, move discussions can be started by any user. Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This article regularly gets more hits than both the Massachusetts town and the automobile manufacturer combined. Neither of those topics are of much interest to those who live outside the USA; Plymouth automobiles are virtually unheard of and the small town in Massachusets is of little significance to non-Americans. There are clear hatnotes for those that arrive here in error.--Ykraps (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: this is most likely the article people are looking for, and is the original place. Thanks, Matty.007 19:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    To build on this, why would a city with 250,000 inhabitents need to be distinguished from towns with 50,000 inhabitents? Matty.007 20:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think population size can be a determining factor as to why one city is more notable than another. For instance, Jacksonville, Florida is home to roughly 836,000 residents, while Las Vegas has under 600,000 yet is considerably more famous. Obviously these cities don't share the same name, but it helps to exemplify that population does not equate to notoriety. — MusikAnimal talk 01:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm trying to think of something new to add to this discussion about this as opposed to rehashing old stuff. There's 3 significant topics, each of which is significant in different ways:
    • The MA town's significance is dominated by a single event - the Pilgrims - which has lasting, long-term significance. Everything else about the town pales in comparison, and its unlikely anything else will significantly affect its notability. Without that one event it would be insignificant compared to the English city.
    • The English city's significance comes from a wide variety of factors, like its size, long-term historical significance and regional importance (all of which are greater than the MA town). Its enduring notability is less predictable, as its not based on a fixed event, and it could swing up or down (but not in short term without a major event).
    • As for the car marque. Its defunct, so its significance is generally reducing with time - the last Plymouths are likely all but gone from the roads. The older models like the Barracuda have longer term significance, and those models are what gives the marque its long-term significance. Presumably, unless the brand is revived, its notability will tail off to a baseline level over the next decade or two.
    Of course, all of that is looking into the WP:CRYSTAL BALL. What can be said is nothing drastic has happened since the last RM. So the significance of both the MA town and the English city should be similar to then, while the car marque has become marginally less important. The net effect is the case for the English city being primary topic is marginally stronger than last time. That change won't be enough to change it from non-primary to primary.
    A more practical thought: Modifying the hatnote could provide meaningful data on how many of the hits to this article are erroneous (like how Lincoln points at Lincoln (president), instead of Abraham Lincoln).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support English Wikipedia is neither British nor American. A simple search for "Plymouth" on several engines from my US IP address doesn't even bring up the British city on the first page of results. I think claiming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is rather anglocentric as the British city is only likely to be the primary target of a search within British territories. And to argue size of the city? At a population of 260,203, Plymouth doesn't even break UK's top 25 urban areas. I don't think it's a knock on British editors to think this is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because in the British Isles it likely is. But outside of there, Plymouth Rock has a very large cultural recognition, as does the car brand, and not just in the US. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 09:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    And you have US-bias showing there :) A US-based search returning topics of interest to US readers, should be expected - it doesn't tell you anything about non-US requirements. Its easy to overstate the significance of things relevant to yourself. The Pilgrim Fathers are a key event in US mythology, so its only really in the US that the details are known. Outside the US (and maybe Canada) there will be awareness of the event but not its fine details. eg The story is about their first year in Plymouth, but to Brits the best known bit is "The Pilgrims sailed on the Mayflower from Plymouth". That boosts the significance of the English Plymouth, in addition to other events associated with it (eg the Armada).
    As for the car outside the US, in those countries it was marketed it will have higher recognition than the MA town. The Pilgrims might be better known than the brand, but the association of that story with Plymouth is dubious outside the US. Its harder to judge if the car or the English city will have higher recognition in those countries. In UK context, Plymouths were never sold in UK meaning the car has near-zero recognition.
    What would be most helpful is a technical solution - the desired topic for the term "Plymouth" is clearly strongly influenced by location. Search engines localise to maximise useful returns, why can't we? MediaWiki has the ability to localise IPs, to give us regional messages (eg wikimeets), so why can't we get that sort of functionality to our content? If that was feasible, then in the case of Plymouth where the term has obvious regional preferences, UK readers get this article as before, while US readers wouldn't waste time clicking away from here - it would be win-win.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    I don't understand why you think claiming this article to be the Primary Topic is Anglocentric. This article is clearly the Primary Topic because it is (quote)"...highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." And this is born out by the page view statistics here [[1]], here [[2]] and here [[3]]. It has long term significance and, as the largest naval base in Western Europe, it is of international importance. To claim that Plymouth, Massachussets or Plymouth (automobile) is primary is US-centric. Plymouth's aren't even that popular in the States!--Ykraps (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    Well, the fact that you don't get any UK Plymouths is likely down to your search provider, as I do on Google. Population may not be the best indication of importance, but a city that is 5 times bigger than a town is going to be the more wanted article. Matty.007 19:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    I wasn't arguing that my US results were the WP:primary. I was clearly arguing that WP:PRimary doesn't exist with this term and that US searches clearly differ from UK searches and WP:PRimary favors neither. Average Views of Plymouth Mas (around 350-400) and average views of Plymouth auto (around 450) are not "primary to" but combined are roughly equal to average views of Plymouth UK (around 800-900). The fact that my argument opened with "English Wikipedia is neither British nor American." and was challenged with comments about me claiming a US topic was WP:Primarytopic suggests a strong bias in the reading of what I wrote. I suggest UK authors look at the numbers and not just assume their city is the primary topic worldwide even though it is almost certainly the primary topic in the UK. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    Remember the world is not UK + US. The last sentence of your initial comment does show a US-centric viewpoint (in that you assume that Plymouth Rock and the car brand have a very large cultural recognition worldwide). The story of the Pilgrims probably is known globally, but that those events happened in Plymouth? Much less so. As for the car, why would it be known where it wasn't marketed? To say the US terms are globally recognised, and restrict the UK term to Britain, is a big assumption. With regards to searches, neither US or UK searches are insightful, but I'd be interested in those from elsewhere.
    As for data points, Special:WhatLinksHere is also relevant. This article has about 4300 incoming links, whereas the car attracts 420 and Plymouth, MA, about 1000 - which reflects the "long-term significance" of the English city.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Plymouth cars were not a US market only brand and I am not US-Centric for saying so. Accusing me of such only highlights the nature of this discussion. For instance, the Chrysler LeBaron was produced and sold in Mexico, several brands like the Arrow Truck and Colt were rebadged as Mitsubishis and sold in Japan, the Plymouth Fury was produced and sold in Australia, and the Plymouth Caravelle among others were widely sold in Canada. Additionally, what links here is a very poor measure of the intent of people's search. Actual views are a much better measure, but also fall short of measuring WP:Primary Topic. Other things need to be taken into consideration, like the extensive history of Plymouth England, but also the role the Plymouth Colony played in Anglican and Protestant history. I'd also like to note that the Plymouth Colony has an even greater number of average views than Plymouth England. I really think the argument for Primary Topic falls short here, but only if you can step away from a British focus. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
My point was its a leap without evidence to say the Rock is well known globally. I know Plymouth was not a US only brand - your comment initially (you have now expanded it) spoke only from the US view of it, not global aspects, and there were clearly some markets where the name was never used. The Japanese aren't really that relevant as they were rebadged, and so not known as Plymouths, and in any case Japan isn't really significant to a discussion of English usage; while the Fury and Caravelle certainly are relevant.
Plymouth Colony isn't directly relevant to this discussion, nor are other terms like Plymouth Argyle, Plymouth Colt or Plymouth Rock. That's because the colony was "Plymouth Colony" not "Plymouth".
What links here isn't a great measure, but is one that speaks to the long-term significance factor of primarytopic - not the usage factor.
With regards to page view counts, its a proxy to the measure we really want but don't have (those who get there via internal searches, not external searches and not wikilinks). Given that, anomalous spikes should be ignored if they can be clearly attributed to main page traffic. Plymouth Colony was the first Selected anniversary on Dec 21 and linked on Feb 17; that also accounts for the Dec 21 spike for Plymouth, MA, so 8k views of the colony should be ignored, and 1500 for the MA town. I can't see a causal connection to the Jan spike for Plymouth, Devon, but the anomalous traffic there was 2k additional hits.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood but appears you are saying that the only places where cars bearing the Plymouth marque were sold are; USA, Canada and Australia, which I grant is international but hardly global! Also I would suggest that the numbers sold are a better indication of the brand's significance and the fact is Plymouths didn't sell well outside the US (or inside it for that matter). By the way Plymouth Colony doesn't get more hits than Plymouth, England (see my response below), and as Nilfanion has pointed out, the Plymouth Colony isn't known as Plymouth and is therefore in all probability irrelevant.--Ykraps (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support perfect example for applying the yogurt principle. The argument supporting the move has much stronger basis in policy and guideline than the argument opposing... the claim for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here is tenuous as best, hanging on to "long term" significance on a very thin thread (also a great example of why we should never have added that caveat to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). This move has been proposed numerous time. Most importantly, if the article is moved as proposed, there will be no strong argument based in policy/guidelines to move it back. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS may not be here because of a similar attachment to the status quo that Yoghurt held for 7 years, but the debate over that title finally ended when that title was moved. The debate over this title will also end only when it is moved. Hopefully the closer will do the right thing. --B2C 04:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    • We need to remember that there are far more English speaking people living outside the US than within. With its longstanding naval and trade and migration history this Plymouth is likely to be better known around the world than any US Plymouth or the car which I never heard of till now.--Charles (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    • B2C, I've read your essay and I, too, trust that the closer will correctly judge the value of the arguments made here against our Ps & Gs in an attempt to determine community consensus. That will include taking account of the vastly greater current and historical global importance that Plymouth has over all the other Plymouths. To move Plymouth from the primary topic would indicate that it is of similar significance to the American settlement/town and the automobile brand, and looked at globally, that's simply not the case. Back in the 2010 RM discussion I argued that what I called "breadth of relevance" is the best criterion for determining the primary topic. That concept has now been adopted by the rewording of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and I think what I wrote in 2010 bears repeating as a reminder of Plymouth's enduring significance:

Plymouth is the primary topic because of the great number and variety of other topics to which it is relevant. Despite what any statistics might say, breadth of relevance is the best way to determine which topic is the most likely to be searched for by readers.
To emphasise this breadth, note that Plymouth is the location of some of the earliest Homo sapiens evidence in England; it was a prehistoric tin trading centre; it was the home port for Tudor and Elizabethan explorers such as Drake, Hawkins and Gilbert; the Mayflower set out from here; it had a pivotal role during the English Civil War; Napoleon Bonaparte was brought here after Waterloo; a pioneering lighthouse and breakwater were designed and built here. In WWII it was an important embarkation point for D-Day and it was the subject of the Plymouth Blitz; until WWII it was one end of the transatlantic liner route, and for over 60 years its Union Street was known as the "servicemen's playground" where sailors from all over the world were entertained by internationally famous performers, etc. It's been home to many famous people, including Scott of the Antarctic. Today it has a renowned university, the largest naval base in Europe, over 500 years of military defences, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, the National Marine Aquarium, Plymouth Gin, the British Firework Championships, and it's a ferry port and a regional TV centre.
What do the competing topics have to offer in comparison to all that variety? [4]

IMO this is a strong evidence-based argument, far better rooted in our guidance than unsubstantiated claims about tenuousness and thin threads :)  —SMALLJIM  11:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The strong evidence supports an argument that relies on the dubious premise that ""breadth of relevance" is the best criterion for determining the primary topic". I don't accept that premise. It may be true in many cases, but it's not necessarily true in any particular case. Until this article is moved to a disambiguated title will we be able to know how often it is intentionally sought. Right now people land on this article regardless of which use of Plymouth they are seeking, and there is no way to know if this is the topic they are actually seeking.

I think the smartest thing to do is to move it, and then give it a few months. We can always revisit if this article is shown to meet the primary topic criteria. --B2C 16:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Shame on you B2C! How can you possibly argue that this is not the WP:Primary Topic? In addition to its long term significance: It gets more page hits than Plymouth Massachusetts and Plymouth (automobile) combined (In a 90 day period; 84,000 [[5]] against 37,000 for the Massachusetts town [[6]] and 42,000 for the automobile company [[7]]); it has more links (5,500 [[8]] against 1,500 for Plymouth, Massachusetts [[9]] and 500 for Plymouth (automobile) [[10]]. And, although I personally don't like the idea of using interweb hits for reasons I won't go into here, using my search engine and adding &pws=0; the English city gets the most hits. It is therefore, according to the Primary Topic guidelines, the perfect example of a Primary Topic! Added to which it has international significance.--Ykraps (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
B2C, I'm suggesting that my old "breadth of relevance" criterion is materially the same as the second 'major aspect' of WP:PTOPIC – the aspect that you've already indicated you disapprove of. I suppose you personally don't have to accept what our guidelines say, but per your own essay you can't expect a community consensus to be swayed by opinions not based on policy or guidelines.
On the other hand, a temporary rename just so that valid data can be collected on intended page views is a good scientific approach, and one that I wouldn't disagree with (unless someone can explain why it wouldn't be a good idea, and as long as everyone played fair!). It's been pointed out before that page hit counts, like those collected by Ykraps, are susceptible to the claim that many readers choose Plymouth when they really want one of the others. I don't think that's much of a problem myself: we're only really talking about the searchbox here, and its drop-down list helps readers make the right selection (though that drop-down list shows some interesting features worthy of further comment: e.g. Plymouth Argyle F.C. appears second here, even after just typing "ply").  —SMALLJIM  18:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Born2cycle, pipelinking User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle as "Perfect example of applying the [User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle|yogurt principle]" so it is not immediately clear this is a rejected draft which was removed from essay space to user space in an AFD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule is no better than the WP:YOGURT redirect to User space essay that was also deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_7#Wikipedia:Yogurt_Principle.
A pipelink such as this goes against the spirit of the redirect deletions, and it prolongs the issue. A User space essay which has been removed from Essay space should be clearly visible as such - a User space draft, the opinion of one editor. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
{{small|In ictu oculi (talk · contribs), I note that pipelinking to a user space essay is not listed at this description of when not to use pipelinks. Please stop trying to apply imaginary rules to me; setting standards to which no one else is held. Do you really think I'm the first or only to pipelink to a user space essay? Please! Hover your cursor over the link and the full link is visible. There is no attempt to hide or obscure anything here. I use pipe links for the same reasons they're used anywhere else, to preserve "the grammatical structure and flow of a sentence". --B2C 23:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You may indeed be the first to do this in this way. I have never seen any other editor repeatedly pipelink in such a way to a personal essay which has been removed from Essay space to User space by AFD and continue to do so after a second Redirect deletion discussion. As far as I know this is unique. I have been watching RMs for 2-3 years now and have never seen any other editor do this, and you are doing it repeatedly after a redirect deletion discussion where one of the factors was the way the redirect potentially misrepresented a User space draft. If you wish to argue "Support - perfect example of applying the User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle" then write "Support - perfect example of applying the User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle". Please do not approximate to the same effect as the deleted WP:YOGURTRULE. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I am willing to spend a few minutes to find two examples of pipelinks to user essays. You can find your own.
  1. getting your way at Wikipedia, [11]
  2. no featured articles, see No 40 [12]
By the way, just because the essay was deleted from WP space does not add some special limitation to how it can or cannot be linked as compared to user essays that have not been deleted from WP space. --B2C 05:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Updated --B2C 06:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that User:Ykraps' shaming of B2C above conveniently left out the article trafic for Plymouth Colony, so I'll just add it here (89,666 views past 90 days) since it is slightly greater than Plymouth, Devon (84,000).Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It was not 'conveniently' left out it was overlooked because firstly I have never heard of Plymouth Colony and secondly it didn't appear to be important enough to even warrant a hatnote. In my efforts to be fair and smooth out anomalies, I showed a 90 day spread of statistics which unfortunately when used to show traffic for Plymouth Colony, includes over 6000 hits for 21 December (the day the pilgrims landed). Normally spikes like that aren't taken into account but even if we agree to accept them; Plymouth, England still gets around 20k hits a year more than Plymouth Colony. My shaming of B2C is to do with his usually incessant banging on about page view stats during move discussions and his complete ignorance of them this time around. As you have forgotten to mention incoming links to Plymouth Colony I feel I should point out that there are around 1500.--Ykraps (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Clear primary topic and per common sense. A very prominent, famous, historic city of a quarter of a million people (by far the largest Plymouth and the third largest city in Southern England) after which all the other Plymouths are named. Also one of the most important bases of one of the world's largest and most prominent navies (which was for a long time the world's largest and most prominent navy) and therefore one of the main bases of sea power for the most significant maritime empire in history. And the largest naval base in Western Europe. Absolutely no contest. That's not Anglocentric; that's common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Let's not get carried away - according to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom I make it the eigth largest city in southern England - perhaps you meant south-western England? But absolutely it should be the primary topic. Pterre (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe I quite clearly said city, not urban area. They are entirely different things. A city or town is an individual settlement with a single local authority, whereas an urban area is a collection of cities and towns that more or less run into each other but are still independent settlements with their own local authorities. It is indeed the third largest city in Southern England after London and Bristol. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that User:Ykraps' shaming of B2C above conveniently left out the article trafic for Plymouth Colony, so I'll just add it here (89,666 views past 90 days) since it is slightly greater than Plymouth, Devon (84,000).Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This appears to be a duplicate comment of one above. I'm not sure whether it is deliberate or just the result of some over excitable editing so I'll just repeat my response: It was not 'conveniently' left out it was overlooked because firstly I have never heard of Plymouth Colony and secondly it didn't appear to be important enough to even warrant a hatnote. In my efforts to be fair and smooth out anomalies, I showed a 90 day spread of statistics which unfortunately when used to show traffic for Plymouth Colony, includes over 6000 hits for 21 December (the day the pilgrims landed). Normally spikes like that aren't taken into account but even if we agree to accept them; Plymouth, England still gets around 20k hits a year more than Plymouth Colony. My shaming of B2C is to do with his usually incessant banging on about page view stats during move discussions and his complete ignorance of them this time around. As you have forgotten to mention incoming links to Plymouth Colony I feel I should point out that there are around 1500.--Ykraps (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposed move will do nothing to enhance any visitor's ease of finding the desired topic. The hatnotes currently at the top of the article are are well chosen, and dumping everyone who types in "Plymouth" onto a dab page won't reduce the number of mouse-clicks for anyone. In terms of the English city being the primary topic, Necrothesp's comments sum things up very well. Rivertorch (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Support Plymouth, England over Plymouth, Devon on the basis that Plymouth is, now and historically, a major English city and port, and Plymouth more famous and better known than Devon itself. General prefer all places to be titled Place, Region, but if this is not to happen generally, the biggest reason to pause in disambiguating Plymouth, in denying it "PrimaryTopic" status, is the observation that all other Plymouths derive from this one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Being the root name derivative is not a big reasons for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC decisions. If it was, then we wouldn't have Boston, Paris, Mars, or Pluto, and countless other articles at base names that are derived from other uses. --B2C 17:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with both of your sentences. Originating vs derivative use is very important. No consideration dominates others absolutely. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
You can disagree about whether derivative use should be a consideration in determining primary topic, but you can't disagree about whether it is. There is no basis at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or in convention for the claim that derivative use is a consideration at all, much less a "very important" one. --B2C 21:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Derivative use speaks directly to long term significance. It has basis in the guideline, and has been a decisive consideration elsewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
"Plymouth, England" violates the agreed-upon naming policy for English settlements requiring disambiguation, which is "Placename, County" not "Placename, England". See the relevant section of WP:NC for places: Ambiguous place names within the United Kingdom should use the county as the disambiguator; see Wells, Somerset (not Wells, England, which is a redirect). (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
That is a good point. However, while musing on the possibility of cities being always formated City, Region, it may be sensible for ancient famous cities, cities historically more significant than their county (as currently named), to be named as belonging to the higher level. We have Compton, Plymouth and Ermington, Devon. Plymouth, unlike Ermington, is a city of great historical international significance, greater than Devon itself, and so is worth of being listed at the national level alongside London. As current Wikipedia policy stands, cities of this level of significance are afforded "PrimaryTopic" state if required, and so the question doesn't arise. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talkcontribs) 05:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The current convention at WP:UKPLACE is an exception to the common practice at WP:NCGN#Disambiguation, that "Places are often disambiguated by the country in which they lie, if this is sufficient", but is itself subject to an exception: "When the city and the county use variants of the same name (and disambiguation is required) disambiguate with England for clarity throughout the English-speaking world". There has been debate as to whether this exception should apply to Lancaster, Lancashire, but the principle of clarity throughout the English-speaking world is a good one, and perhaps the exception should be extended. Whether this would be suitable case is another matter, best answered by those outside the UK, the question being whether it is sufficiently clear that "Plymouth, Devon" is the city in England.--Mhockey (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also the small American town Plymouth, Massachusetts was named in honour of the British city which is over five times bigger. Also we have a disambiguation page for a the other towns named after Plymouth. IJA (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Plymouth refers to more than 20 cities around the world, and that's why there is a disambiguation page. But there a reason why a city should be more relevant than the others and that's why WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clarifies it. Plymouth in Devon is 5 times bigger in population than the second Plymouth (in Masachussetts). Otherwise Lebanon, or even Rome, Moscow, or Athens should all bring to a disambiguation page (which should NOT be the case). KazanElia (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per Necrothesp. Clear primary topic. The city in Devon has an extensive history and significance that the others simply do not enjoy, and the hatnotes that exist are perfectly clear for those people looking for the other main topics. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Outside Massachusetts, the place in that state is more commonly referred to as Plymouth, Massachusetts than plain Plymouth. The city in England is rarely referred to as Plymouth, Devon or Plymouth, England. So WP:COMMONNAME is also relevant. The reasons for these usages lie in relative size and relative importance, as well as differences in US vs UK usage. The "first use" and "extensive history" arguments, though obviously not conclusive (e.g. Boston), but they do have a bearing on how often, in current and historic sources, plain Plymouth is used to refer to the English city. So the English town Taunton is the primary topic, even though Taunton, Massachusetts is a similar size.--Mhockey (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Vastly more history, vastly more significant worldwide, than anything else with this name. Why should we even consider the car brand? No US place with this name gets nationwide use without the state attached or without some sort of context: if you start talking about something happening today in "Plymouth", people will think you're talking about the one in your state (if they've heard of it; many Plymouths are only known by the locals), or they won't know at all which one you're talking about. Conversely, "Plymouth" without a qualifier will be known throughout the UK, and perhaps in other countries as well. In other words, people in the USA are more likely to search for "Plymouth, STATENAME" than for "Plymouth" when they're looking for an American Plymouth, while people in the UK are more likely to mean this place than anything else when searching for "Plymouth", and I expect that the latter is true in much of the rest of the Commonwealth. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


After doing a quick scan of the article (And using the F+ctrl function) I have come to the conclusion that there is no real mention of the fishing industry based in and around Plymouth. I believe the article could do with covering this aspect of Plymouth, at least in the greater scope of the cities industry, but what do other editors think?--Plymothian Devonian (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)