Talk:Plymouth/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

The hat note is poorly written on Towns in the U.S.

It says "for the town in the U.S." and links to Plymouth, Massachusetts. There are 20 towns in the U.S., and they are listed in the Plymouth disambiguation page under "other uses." I would suggest that the hat note is poorly written. I submit it should be changed to something like, "for the notably historic town in the U.S." or something like that. As there is all this ongoing discussion about related issues, I did not want to unilaterally make the change. But I am suggesting it. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Stan

Done. I changed it to "Massachusetts town" DC T•C 14:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Location map

Plymouth/Archive 2 is located in Plymouth
Plymouth/Archive 2
class=notpageimage|
Plymouth Hoe

I've uploaded a map of Plymouth using the OS data, and have put it into a location map template - Template:Location map United Kingdom Plymouth. Map shows location of Plymouth Hoe... Makes a change for some productive edits to this page(!)--Nilfanion (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Good job. Are your .svgs saved so that I can edit them to make maps highlighting the wards within Plymouth (referring to this one). Jolly Ω Janner 23:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The blank map is available on Commons File:Plymouth UK ward map (blank).svg. The SVG paths have the names included in the data, so identifying each is easy enough (just modify the colour of the fill of each path to whatever). Suggest File:<ward> Plymouth UK ward map.svg as file names. If fuller instructions are needed I'll be posting that later this week.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Already uploaded a test at File:Location map of Drake (ward) within Plymouth.svg and used in Drake (ward). Not sure if the file name or description are perfect, but, as I said, this was just a test, before this is applied to the rest of the wards. Jolly Ω Janner 23:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does plymouth take me to this article?

Why does plymouth take me here when I search for it? I was looking for the car and I got swept away to a city in England I didn't even know existed. I admit that the link for the car is at the top of the page (along with several others) but I don't think this is appropriate. Can't Plymouth take me to one of those synonym pages with a bunch of links to the different things that relate to that same word? Just my opinion but this isn't very intuitive. --138.162.8.58 (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh I didn't read the massive months long issue above. Still seems a little silly though. Is a synonym page really such a bad thing? I didn't realize it was a badge of discrace to have something as ambiguous as Plymouth, that could be any of a dozen or more different things, go to a list of things it could be so the reader could choose for themselves what they want. But what do I know I don't really edit here. I just read what im lookingn for and go away. --138.162.8.58 (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, see all the reasons previously discussed in the talk archives. As you noted, the first line in the article makes the disambiguation specific and clear, it is hard to imagine why any reader would still be confused or not find the layout intuitive. Fæ (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, yes too bad you didn't stop by a little sooner we could have used the extra vote. And that is a matter of opinion Fae. There are still many of us that don't agree and I like the IP's point that having a DAB page isn't a badge of shame and we are here for the readers, not the writers. IMO 2 very good points from a passer by sniping comments. Not tryin gto rehash an old argument or rub salt in an wounds just passing by myself. --Kumioko (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Rather than passing by, you are welcome to propose an alternative more intuitive layout if you feel that the most common style used to present disambiguation links at the top of the article is not simple enough for the layman reader. Fæ (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Its not the link at the top that concerns me or how its displayed to the laymen. I am in the camp that agree that having an ambiguous title like Plymouth, with several completely different meanings, shouldn't favor one thing or location. I don't think it should go to the Car, the location in the US, the location in England, or anything else. It should go to a DAB page allowing the reader to decide where they want to go. Theres no point in arguing about it now though. The arguments from both sides were made and England had the showing to win the vote. I'm not happy about the outcome but its something I can live with because I believe in the system. Sometimes it doesn't come out the way we think it should but thats life. I was comforted when I saw that IP comment though I have to admit. Although in hindsight having the discssion on this page rather than a neutral location like the Village pump was likely a large reason for the folly. Lesson to be learned there I think. --Kumioko (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting edit: [1]. Look at the username and the IP - coincidence, maybe. GyroMagician (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Shame. If Kumioko hadn't have commented on here too with his account, I may have believed the IP edit to be legit. Jolly Ω Janner 16:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
That is interesting I admit. If you are familiar with that IP its a generic IP for the Entire USMC and US Navy (a couple million users). Its an interesting coincidence I think but hardly surprising. For what its worth though that is a real comment and not done by me. I only responded initially because of the Edit summery. --Kumioko (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that this is somebody posting from a US Navy computer that doesn't know of the existence of the city with the largest naval base in Western Europe? Must be a Marine I suppose. Blakk and ekka 17:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
LOl, Maybe, remember not all of those 2 million souls are military, some are civilians and contractors working in positions were they would never go overseas. If you asked them some would say the largest base in Western Europe is Pearl Harbor. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Kumioko, you're suggesting that it's a complete coincidence that you happened to respond to the comment of an anonymous passerby who has the exact same IP that you were using on April 13, 2010? That's incredible. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I consider this an argument for keeping things how they are. The IP user has clearly learnt something new which to my mind is a good thing.--Ykraps (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Allowing for serendipitous learning is great, but it should not hinder efforts to provide expeditious navigation to specifically sought topics for our users. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Born2cycle Im not even going to dignify that with a response (especially since I explained why that is above) on the first comment and exactly my point on the second. I am sure this will come as a shock to the residents of Plymouth, England but most folks in the US and other parts of the world are likely looking for something other than Plymouth England and I doubt they had them in mind when they named the car (I believe it was the last name of the person who started the company if memory serves) so to say that all other things are named after that is rather silly and somewhat egotistical. --Kumioko (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
(comment) The name of the car came from the Plymouth colony of the Pilgrims who journeyed to North America on the Mayflower. The car had an image of the Mayflower on its radiator. You may wish to note that Plymouth colony (or New Plymouth) was named by Captain John Smith, an Englishman who would have always associated the name with Plymouth, England. Fæ (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Are we not re-hashing a discussion we've all just had? GyroMagician (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Plymouth Prison, Revolutionary War

I'd like to get something rolling with this location. Any experts in this area? http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2002_summer_fall/pows.htm

Twillisjr (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean an article on the prison itself? As there is one on HMP Dartmoor which housed American POW'S (but in the war of 1812, as the Prison was built just over 20 years later than the aforementioned war) you could, or someone else, take note from that. --Τασουλα (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Population in 1911

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)

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

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. 128.206.196.209 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 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)
 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)
 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. -- 70.50.151.11 (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 (talk • contribs) 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)
 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 [[2]], here [[3]] and here [[4]]. 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? [5]

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 [[6]] against 37,000 for the Massachusetts town [[7]] and 42,000 for the automobile company [[8]]); it has more links (5,500 [[9]] against 1,500 for Plymouth, Massachusetts [[10]] and 500 for Plymouth (automobile) [[11]]. 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, [12]
  2. no featured articles, see No 40 [13]
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). 86.164.202.1 (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 (talk • contribs) 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.

Fishing.

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Plymouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Plymouth urban area

I have just come across the Plymouth urban area, which is an area of urban form stretching out of the city's boundaries. It is defined by the ONS and its population was published in 2011 as 260,203. This is a very small discrepancy with the city boundary's population of 256,384. The reason I'm posting about this here is that urban areas (AFAIK) have their population recorded every 10 years at the census (the last one being 2011), whereas local authorities i.e. Plymouth's city boundaries have annual population estimates (last one being for 2014). The 2014 estimate for Plymouth was 261,546! This could create some confusion, as it is higher than the urban area population. As a result I've omitted the urban area population from the infobox and lead section. As previously mentioned the urban sprawl for Plymouth seems to be quite small and perhaps not all that notable. This information is conveyed in the demography section, although if more information is found about where exactly the urban sprawl extends, it could be conveyed into geography too. Just posting this for anyone else to share their thoughts. Jolly Ω Janner 19:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The urban sprawl is Woolwell/Roborough, Langage and a small part of Staddiscombe outside the city - Woolwell will account for most of that. The Sherford development will be much more significant.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Plymouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Citadel aerial photo

I've just nominated the Citadel aerial photo for deletion (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal Citadel, Plymouth.jpg). Unfortunate, as we have no free image from above...--Nilfanion (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a few on Flickr. You have to get past all the uploads by Graham Richardson and the American towns. Jolly Ω Janner 08:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
There aren't any free ones of the Citadel, that particular subject really benefits from an aerial view. (By the way, that Flickr search is incorrect - should be This).--Nilfanion (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge

Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, like this one.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod talk 16:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Devon?

The introduction states "Plymouth is a city on the south coast of Devon, England," however, Plymouth is not actually part of Devon anymore. Shouldn't this be rewritten? Though historically part of County Devon, politically it is not. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It is part of the ceremonial county, and long-standing consensus is to treat unitary authorities as part of their "parent" county. This reflects how these places are usually described - Plymouth is in Devon, Blackpool is in Lancashire, Derby is in Derbyshire etc.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Plymouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 April 2017

The following is a closed 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: no consensus. The arguments for a move were well researched, but the points brought up by those opposing bring enough policy-based opposition and raise enough questions as to what the meaning of the research done shows, that I cannot find a consensus to move this page from its longstanding title at this time. Several of the supports supported per the length of the hat note, which were discounted by opposers, and can be discussed outside of the RM process. Those opposing also raised questions about the second prong of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There were supporting voters who addressed this, but it was a point of disagreement within the discussion to which there was not a clear consensus. Finally, there was disagreement within the discussion as to what the page view statistics meant, and a consensus was not reached as to whether they were a reason to move the page as suggested. Because no consensus has been reached on the topic of this move, it defaults to staying at its stable title. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

– While it is an important city and probably the most significant term of this name, the city in England does not meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and so should be disambiguated. This can be seen from pageview analysis which shows that the English city does not attract anything close to a majority of views (its under 40% if just the top 4 terms are considered, and drops to 30% when looking at all terms). Previous discussions, like the last in 2014, tend to devolve into in a head-to-head comparison of the places in Devon and Massachusetts - a contest the one in the UK "wins". However, there are more Plymouths than just the towns at the start and end of the Mayflower's voyage. Nilfanion (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Further information:

As a result of the last discussion, a link to Plymouth (automobile) was added to the hatnote; which seems reasonable given the popularity of that subject. A hatnote pointing to two other subjects, plus the dab, was considered sustainable. However, the single fact that convinces me the English Plymouth is not primary is the traffic for Plymouth, Montserrat. The Montserrat town attracts about as many views as one in Massachusetts. That surprised me when I discovered that, but it leads me to two alternative conclusions:

  1. The Montserrat town is every bit as important as the Massachusetts town
  2. The Massachussetts town is more important than the one in Montserrat, but because Plymouth Colony is a separate article the figures don't show this.

If 1 is true, the Montserrat town should also be included in the hatnote. I firmly believe a hatnote pointing to three alternative topics is not sustainable - so a disambiguation page is the only viable option. On the other hand, if 2 is true, then some of the traffic for Plymouth Colony needs to be included with the Massachusetts town. In that case, the relative lead for the English Plymouth evaporates and, again, this points to having a disambiguation page. We shouldn't ignore all the other Plymouths either, as when combined they attract about as much traffic as Plymouth (automobile).

I've also gone through all the links to this article, correcting any errors. Most of the errors were for the car brand, but there were links to several of the towns as well. This article has over 4,800 incoming links, while Plymouth, MA, has c 1,100, Plymouth Colony c 1,000, Plymouth (automobile) c 650 and Plymouth, Montserrat, less than 150. To me that confirms that 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 have also looked for anomalies in the recent traffic. Of the three biggest spikes this year, 2 were clearly the result of Plymouth Arygle's FA cup ties against Liverpool and probably represents a combination of people looking for Argyle, and people looking for the city Argyle is based in. The remaining spike was the result of a main page link to Plymouth Colony, and is not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that the traffic wanting to find out about the football club would have benefitted from having a dab.

I have also done a bit of investigation to get supplementary information, by altering the hatnote links to Plymouth (Massachusetts) and Plymouth (car). As the only way to get to those pages is from the hatnote on this article, it gives a decent estimate of misdirected traffic. Each of those pages get 15-20 hits a day, and when you factor in the 20 hits a day for the dab, that suggests about 50 people per day get this page incorrectly (pageviews). That's interesting, but I don't think it's useful to this discussion, as its not possible to gauge what proportion of the pageviews of Plymouth itself were from people using WP's internal search. However, if this page is moved that information will also be available, and that data might justify a reversion of the move.

Finally, please can I ask participants here, to also join in this related CFD on Commons, which also seeks to disambiguate Plymouth. That move should be assessed in a different way to this one. Unfortunately, Commons struggles to get any real involvement in page-move discussions.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

As Consensus can change, so the fact that this has been (repeatedly) discussed before doesn't mean this RM should be ignored. What elements of the previous discussions are applicable? More detail than just "see previous" would be good, as circumstances may well have changed in the past 3 years.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, clearly by usage, and the other uses have great historical significance too (not that that should even be a factor IMHO). --В²C ☎ 23:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The three-fold natnote is a much bigger problem than adding ", Devon". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this move 2601:541:4305:C70:3901:808B:8C9F:CE3C (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This US-centric proposal has been extensively discussed before and I do not see that anything has changed to justify having another go.Charles (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Please step back from thinking this is US vs UK, and consider that I made this request as an inhabitant of the English Plymouth. There is new evidence presented here about Plymouth, Montserrat, which has nothing to do with the US. IMO it now has enough traffic to justify including it in the dab, which is non-viable and means a dab is the only option. Isee two significant changes between the traffic from 2015 and the last 90 days. Firstly that the Montserrat town is the only term to have seen an increase in traffic - its had a 60% increase, while the others have stayed stable or declined. Secondly, the relative lead for the English place has dropped away. In 2015, the English place got the same traffic as the other 3 terms combined, which includes the Thanksgiving boost for the American town (without that boost the English Plymouth would have had an overall lead). Its now getting under 70% of the combined traffic of the other 3. The case for the status quo is clearly weaker now.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The question is why have the Monserrat searches increased for a rather obscure place. Seems likely to be a short term uptick caused by the volcanism being covered in a school sylabus or documentary. As I see it Plymouth in Devon is still the original, largest and most significant. That apart the other Plymouths are already disambiguated. Not convinced that change is needed.Charles (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The increase for Montserrat has been sustained since in Jan 2016 and has remained at a new, higher, level since then. Its gotten to the point that Montserrat place gets more interest than the US town on semi-regular basis, which is why I say it should be treated as on the same level as the US town (ie hatnote link). If that hadn't changed, I probably wouldn't have started this discussion. I don't think the cause is school-related, but I'm not sure why. If it was schools, I'd expect that to spike at some point, like the US town does around Thanksgiving, and tailoff in the summer holidays. And if it was school-related, I'm not sure that would mean discounting it - wouldn't the fact its on a syllabus somewhere give it increased importance? It was a pretty obscure place, but when it was destroyed 20 years ago it gained enduring significance from that.
While I agree that the British Plymouth is "the original, largest and most significant", but there's a difference between that and saying it should remain here. The problem isn't that the US town is equal to the Devon one (it isn't), but that there are a number of terms that are quite significant, and when they are combined they do wipe out the British lead. The fact the others are disambiguated already isn't really pertinent - of course they are, they couldn't be here as well :)--Nilfanion (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Very weak support. WP:PTOPIC states that the primary topic is one much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined – now, if we apply a literalist reading, and go by pageviews alone (which is justified here, I think), the Devon Plymouth receives almost exactly 50% of pageviews of all items from the dab page... which makes it an edge case, as can be seen by the number of RMs. What we don't know for certain, though, is how many readers arrived there by searching and divert to other Plymouths... (who likely make up a sizable chunk) and we can find that out only by moving this page. I'm still not certain if it's worth the hassle per WP:TITLECHANGES though... No such user (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
No such user, how do you get 50%? The current data is under 40%, if you just include the top 4 items from the dab.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: I was looking at the link [14] provided by yourself, starting from 2015-01-01, where it receives daily average of 1606 out of 3277 total for the top four. In the process, I also took a glance at Plymouth (disambiguation) views, which received some meager 18 views daily, indicating that only a small percent of users were looking for something else. No such user (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
That data ends on 2015-12-31, and the figures are different today (see the link in the initial nomination or my reply to you). About 50 people get this page in error, including the two hatnote links. I agree with your initial comment, we won't really know the figures unless we do move - we just can't know how many people searched for "Plymouth" and wanted this article.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This argument about page hits is a complete nonsense: Boston occupies the Primary spot even though it doesn't get "significantly more" hits than the band.[[15]] and New York state is the primary topic for New York even though the city gets far more page views.[[16]] What this tells us, along with this conversation here [[17]] (and many others like it), is that most Wikipedians don't think page hits alone should determine Primary Topic.
This Plymouth is clearly the Primary Topic: It 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. Is it more significant than the significance of all others combined? Not that that is a criterion, but fuck, yes!--Ykraps (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Let me clarify: I don't think that page views are the primary criterion of determining a primary topic (and I indeed argued otherwise at the Jump RM). However, they are one of important factors to consider. In this case, I think that they are a fair measure: we have an original, and still rather important, Old World placename Plymouth, from which a range of other, non-ephemeral, meanings has been derived; that's pretty similar to the Boston case. (The New York case is still highly controversial and I wish you haven't pulled it as a comparison). The difference here is that the original Plymouth, unlike the original Boston, still has the first place in the "importance rankings". Whether that first place still amounts to the status of primary topic is the point of contention here, and I grant that it is a close call. No such user (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Evidence illustrates that the current situation is a WP:SURPRISE, even if it may have not always been one historically. Similar displacements have happened on Wikipedia over time, such as Gouda and Angus. And yes, Plymouth (automobile) seems to keep the word "Plymouth" in people's minds in some parts of the world, so definitely shouldn't be discounted by the current situation. Steel1943 (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Nominator's research, arguments, and charts and graphs are certainly convincing. (Also, unless I'm missing something, wouldn't people going through the process "Plymouth -- oops wrong page, I want the car not a British city, [click]" count as viewers of the page for Plymouth in Devon, thus artificially inflating numbers for that page?)
Plymouth in Devon is a large and old city, but Plymouth Colony is big deal in America -- it is certainly what most people in America (a populous country) think of for "Plymouth", that or the car -- the town of Plymouth Massachusetts is not chopped liver, apparently Plymouth in Monserrat is also popular, the Plymouth automobiles are a big deal, and in addition there are over 30 other entries on the disambiguation page, each of tiny interest but taken together not completely negligible. Can't see the city in Devon being primary topic in the face of all that.
Most of the Oppose arguments seem to be of the nature "we've been over this before" which is not very convincing. Plymouth in Devon is the original meaning, which counts maybe a little but not much in my book. Plymouth in Devon is not a more serious or encyclopedic subject than the other Plymouths. Support. Herostratus (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
In America, yes but this is supposed to be a global project! 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) 07:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (noting that there is a lot of work required changing inbound links before the second move to position the disambig page) There certainly appear to be articles about plenty of things and places that are widely read and not the city in England. --Scott Davis Talk 06:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a classic case where there's no one primary topic - no one topic is "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" to be the one sought, nor does the British city have more long-term significance than all of the many other things of the same name.--Cúchullain t/c 19:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
To support the nominator's compelling evidence, even just out of 10 topics, the British city gets only receives 26.8% of the page views, despite being at the base name.[18] It doesn't meet either criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; this example is as clear cut as any we've seen at RM in some time.--Cúchullain t/c 14:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This city meets neither of the criteria to be the primary topic. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An historic city, the third largest city in the South of England, the largest naval base in Western Europe and one of the largest in the world and one of the principal bases for what was for centuries the world's pre-eminent navy, one of history's most notable ports, and the city after which all the other subjects are named. And not the primary topic? Only Americans (and clearly the proposer!) could possibly think this was the case! Note that the car is an American topic and not well-known to those outside North America. If we accept this proposal then we may as well accept that Wikipedia's principles of equality between countries are a nonsense because American topics will always take precedence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not denying the importance of the English city here, but "primary" is not the same as "most important". If you have 5 important terms, and one has a clear lead - you shouldn't stop there and say "OK that one is primary". You'd want to check that its lead is so big that its utterly dominant over the others. Its also obvious that only Plymouth could possibly be primary - the English one. If we completely ignored its existence, we would conclude there is no primary topic for Plymouth - the two American terms are roughly equal (and there's still a bunch of other terms).
In this case, my argument focuses on the Montserrat town. Why? Because the data shows that both the Montserrat town and Massachusetts town deserve equivalent treatment. Consensus has clearly established that the MA town gets a hatnote link from a primary-topic English Plymouth. Because of its equivalent importance, that means the Montserrat town should also have a hatnote link. However, a 3-way hatnote is ridiculous so that's not an option. That means changing the established "MA town gets a hatnote link from a primary-topic English Plymouth". Removing the link to Plymouth, MA, is also a non-starter - that link attract as much traffic as the disambiguation page! That leaves one alternative, which is removing primary topic status from the English city. That also matches WP norms, so is the right option.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for several reasons.
1. An indication of the relative enduring notability and educational value of topics that need disambiguating can be gained by counting how many different language wikipedias have articles on the topics:
  • Plymouth - 84
  • Plymouth, Massachusetts - 35
  • Plymouth (automobile) - 22
  • Plymouth, Montserrat - 57 (!)
This is good evidence that the world in general thinks that Plymouth is by some way the most significant topic. It reinforces the evidence provided by counting incoming links (already set out above). Both these elements reinforce my opinion (expressed in both the 2010 and 2014 RMs and recited again by Ykraps and Necrothesp above) that Plymouth should stay where it is because it amply satisfies the second bullet of WP:PTOPIC.
2. I'm not convinced at all by the stats arguments: the guidance says "...to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term", which is very different from just counting page hits. Although Plymouth doesn't have the lead necessary to clearly satisfy this alternative, we don't know and never have known the real figures required by the guideline. IMO some of the !votes already expressed should be discounted for this reason.
3. In addition, on a pragmatic level, I feel that to embark on the large link-renaming exercise that would be be necessary if Plymouth was moved (4,800 links) a really strong reason for the move should exist, backed up by a really good consensus - lest the move is overturned on review. Even the proposer has apparently decided that his discovery of Plymouth, Montserrat has just about tipped the balance away from the undecided position that he held in the previous RM. There are no strong arguments for the move, but there are strong arguments for retaining the status quo.
 —SMALLJIM  22:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
For the most part, the links wouldn't need to be switched back in the event of a putative move being reversed - such redirects are pretty much harmless. Its only really the few template links that would need to go back again (making point 3 irrelevant). I have concerns about pageviews, but established consensus is clearly that they are the best way of measuring the "popularity" aspect of primary topic. I'd also point out that in the event of a move, the data we really want would finally be available, that could justify reversion (or amply confirm that it was right). I'm sure an actual move would not be WP:THELASTWORD on this.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Meets both primary topic criteria. Some of the discussion above reflects the problem with page views very well. Andrewa (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Smalljim, Necrothesp, and Ykraps: My biggest concern with your position here is that "the English Plymouth is the most important because of all these things about it" is an absolute, not a relative, argument. I'm extremely dubious about that, and think this has to be judged in relative terms. Consider the following thought experiment:
  • Every other Plymouth in the world has the same significance as the Massachusetts town, and every article attracts a similar number of readers. That's 29 articles which each getting 500 views daily
  • On basis of links to Plymouth (Massachusetts), 15 readers per day for that article incorrectly come here first. If that's true for the rest, that's 435 people a day getting here in error.
  • The English Plymouth is unchanged in terms of its own true readership and its significance. Because of the extra misplaced view, the traffic increases from 1,000 per day to 1,400.
  • In this scenario, the English Plymouth gets a mere 9% of total traffic, and fully 30% of the traffic viewing the page is for another article.
  • Anything less than 40% of the traffic for this article get here via internal searches means the majority of internal searches are for something else.
  • In practice, I expect that figure is very much lower - 10% maybe? In that case, barely 20% of people searching for Plymouth actually want the English one.
  • However, the English Plymouth is still "the largest naval base in Western Europe, the original, strongly associated with Drake etc" - in other words, every aspect of your position is still true.
In this (ridiculously contrived) case, would you still reach the same conclusion and say the English Plymouth is primary? Or would the 29 other Plymouth's swamp it? To me, that demonstrates a relative argument would be so much stronger.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I've understood your point here but your argument seems to be based on traffic alone. Historical significance is absolutely a relevant argument, far more so than page hits, that's why we have apple point to apple and not Apple inc despite what this says [[19]]. If your so worried about people having to make an extra click to get where they want to be, I suggest you concentrate on getting New York moved back to New York City so you can save up to 20,000 people a day that enormous effort and stop worrying about the meagre 400 here.--Ykraps (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
My point with this is historical significance should be gauged in relative terms. Consider "the fruit is the most important term, its the original and been around for thousands of years" vs "the fruit has more lasting significance than the company, its been around for thousands of years not a couple decades"; the second makes a much stronger case for apple. My scenario demonstrates that there has to be a point where a number of moderate terms can overwhelm the major one, the traffic figures are there for comparison and as a crude way to evaluate relative importance. I don't think for one second that the English Plymouth could say "its more important than dozens of places, all as important as the Massachusetts town": If Plymouth, MA, is only 10% as important as the English one (which feels low), then 29 places just like it would be 290% as important as the English town. Back to reality, while Plymouth is #1 is it more important than the combination of the Massachusetts town, the Montserrat town, the car brand, the colony and all the rest?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I've replied below under a new Discussion subsection.  —SMALLJIM  14:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that Plymouth, Devon, is the most significant, most important, original, from-which-all-others-derive Plymouth, but that is not a good reason to not title it logically as "Plymouth, Devon", especially noting that doing so means that the following:

    This article is about the city in Devon. For the Massachusetts town, see Plymouth, Massachusetts. For the car brand, see Plymouth (automobile). For other uses, see Plymouth (disambiguation).

    can be removed from the top of the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see why the hatnote is a problem.Charles (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
A hatnote is a minor problem (as it wastes space at the most important point in an article), but I don't think that's too significant. However, Montserrat's traffic would justify the 3-way:
"This article is about the city in Devon. For the Massachusetts town, see Plymouth, Massachusetts. For the car brand, see Plymouth (automobile). For the Montserrat town, see Plymouth, Montserrat. For other uses, see Plymouth (disambiguation).".
I think that's bad, as its now so messy it starts be unusable and the list on a dab is much more clearly laid out.
The real problem with hatnotes is if a lot of people have to use it to get to where they want. 50 people use this one every day - is that a lot? (I honestly don't know how to evaluate that, as it depends how many of the 1,000 hits here were from internal searching)--Nilfanion (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You fail to see that a three line hatnote interrupting the article for readers who want this article, including all downstream users, I think that is odd. The other side, I fail to see why ", Devon" in the title is a problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    • One line at the top interrupts nothing and takes very little space. This is a waste of time.Charles (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Nilfanion, there's a problem with your assumption in your original posting that all the hits from Plymouth (car) and Plymouth (Massachusetts) come from the hatlinks on Plymouth. Both those pages have existed for ages, and the stats show that (car) was gathering about 500 hits a month before you changed the hatlink to point to it - from UK searchers, perhaps? (Massachusetts) only gathered 5 a month, so that is where the increase has been seen. You concluded above that these figures don't tell us much because we don't know the equivalent figure for correct searches for Plymouth, but we're talking about such a huge difference in figures that it's hard to conclude that mis-searches could be a significant factor. And of course this is what bullet 1 of WP:PTOPIC is concerned with, not page views. I should also add that we don't know that people clicking on the hatnote links indicates that they got the wrong page: they may well have found what they want and then gone back to the top of the page to browse a hatnote link out of interest. We could only resolve that by examination of the server logs to see if they clicked away quickly.

Contrast all these bullet 1 uncertainties with the relative (not absolute) and very clear evidence that's available under bullet 2. Back in 2010 I listed over 20 significant and independent aspects that made Plymouth important. Relative to that, Plymouth (Massachusetts) has one really significant aspect and a few others (largest ropemaking company, oldest museum, etc); the car brand is, well, a car brand, one of many; and Montserrat is only famous for its destruction. That's why Plymouth "has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Note that wording too: it doesn't say 'more enduring than all the other topics added together', which seems to be the standard that you're requiring.  —SMALLJIM  14:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The routing that ultimately matters to primary topic is "how many people arrived here, by using Wikipedia's internal search for "Plymouth". There are at least 3 other routes: wikilinks, external search engines and links from external websites. I'm pretty much certain that almost all views of this article will come from one of those other routes. None of those routes actually care about the URL, and would still get there with no issues no matter where we placed it. If anything, people using those routes benefit from this NOT being primary, as the hatnote could be dropped and let them get on with reading about Plymouth.
Its certainly possible that some of the people using the hatnote links are people curious about the alternative topics after actually seeking this page. I've discounted that as there is another possibility - that people loading this article incorrectly don't use the hatnote at all insteading giving up or using an alternative route. I think its reasonable to assume these two offset one another.
Before I made the tweaks to the hatnote here, Plymouth (car) was linked from a few articles and I'm pretty sure that its traffic was from wikilinks. "Plymouth (car)" is not a natural search term so I doubt anyone would actually use it ("Plymouth car" is possible). My guess can proved right or wrong over the next few days: I've removed the "trap" links, and instead pointed the hatnote to the main articles. If it drops off to zero, we know that that traffic was (almost) exclusively from this article's hatnote.
Something else I can infer from that data is that about 2.5% of the readers of both of the Massachusetts town and car brand articles came here first. That might be a hint as to what proportion of traffic actually uses Wikipedia's internal search. I'm aware I might be suffering from confirmation bias there (as I expect it to be low), but I consider it reasonable to assume that 90% of readers get here wanting to learn about the English city do so via Google or wikilinks. If 10% of people actually after Plymouth came here via internal search that's 100 of 1,000 daily. If 50 daily want a different Plymouth - that's a sizeable proportion. If 2.5% of people after the English Plymouth use internal searching, then only 33% of internal search users are actually getting the right article.
What I do know is that if the page is moved, we can generate solid data that could prove the move was wrong.
With regards to point 2: It really should be the "more than the other topics together", in line with with the comparable phrasing used for point 1. Sure that's a change, but point 2 was added due to the classic case of a modern pop-culture subject competing with a historic encyclopedic term (eg Avatar vs Avatar (film)). I'd be cautious about being dismissive of the car brand, its a different sort of entity to a location, and while that makes comparison harder but it doesn't mean it automatically is lower-grade to the places. IMO, its reasonable to treat it as on a par with the MA town.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2017 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Plymouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead image

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

Coat of arms

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

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

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

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

In general coats of arms should appear with their blazons in an information-imparting context, such as this. (Thus I'm not suggesting the Queen should add the blazon of the royal arms to the image on her State Coach, etc). A grant of arms by a herald of the College of Arms is technically a series of words (blazon) not an image, thus it is a highly important piece of information. The image is dictated by the blazon. I take it you are not a student of heraldry, and that's fine, as you dismiss the blazon as a mere "description". If it were merely that I could understand your point. The writing of blazons is actually a highly disciplined procedure which requires much studying to master. It is only by knowing the blazon that one can identify the bearer of coats of arms, as I know from personal experience of this particular shield, which I had seen on a building in North Devon but was unfamiliar with. I blazoned it as Argent, a saltire vert between four towers sable and input that exact form of words to google search which matched the wording to various heraldic sources identifying it as arms of Plymouth. Try googling "four black castles between a sort of sideways cross on a white background, oh yes and the cross is green" and see if you get anything. I spend a lot of my wikipedia time identifying coats of arms in images without any captions, and I can tell you that the only way to start the identification process is to write a gramatically correct blazon which can then be googled. So having written the correct blazon and come up with the answer I sought, it is somewhat disappointing to have it dismissed as a mere "description" unworthy of inclusion. It frequently is the case that people with no understanding of heraldry dismiss it in this way. These are not logos - I can understand you don't need a "description" of the Conservative Party logo under that image "A scribbled oak tree", that would be absurd and would serve no purpose. Wherever else coats of arms appear in wp they have a blazon, I can't see why articles on cities should be different. Moreover, arms are only borne by persons, natural or legal, not by "cities". A corporation is a legal person, a fictitious "body", and thus is able to bear arms. It is sloppy to say "arms of the city". See for example "Plymouth Corporation Insignia and notes on the Mayor's Chain and the Medal attached..."[20]. But I am willing to omit that if it's a problem. Thus the format for coats of arms in articles on cities needs to be brought into conformity with general wp practice on heraldry, i.e.: state blazon under image. If you don't want it in the info-box it can surely appear in the body of the article. Please don't assume that wikipedia is set in aspic and that there is no room for improvement in many areas. Articles in wp ostensibly about cities can be greatly improved by input in specialist areas apart from geography and street-planning. For all the above reasons I have reinstated the blazon in the info-box, which adds precisely 6 more words.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am no student of heraldry, but I am aware that the words of the blazon are the grant of arms. That would mean that if I created my own version using a different shade of green to you, both would be equally valid.
I also would point out again that the full CoA and not just the escutcheon is significantly more valuable and is therefore preferred. I imagine you agree with that too. If we had that, then including the blazon for the full arms, including the crest and supporters, would be several lines long. Furthermore my opinion is that text is of no interest to 99+% of readers.
With regards to the Corporation of Plymouth: That may have been the organisation that was orignially granted the arms. However, it does not now exist as it has been abolished. The successor organisation is Plymouth City Council, and any references should be to the current entity that holds the arms.
I would urge you to persue the inclusion of blazons in an appropriate central discussion venue, as that would be a sea change to many articles. Could you point me to a general purpose article, not one focused on heraldry, that includes a blazon and includes that blazon in the infobox? Can you point to any that have not been written by yourself? I've had a look at several different articles about cities and notable people (eg Elizabeth II or Winston Churchill) and the blazon is not included, even when there is a section to describe the relevant things.
My ideal end goal here would be to have the flag of the city and the full CoA displayed in infobox, in the style of Birmingham. I am aware the relevant graphics do not presently exist but that should be the objective we are working towards. I consider the escutcheon to be a halfway step (clearly better than nothing, and clearly inferior to the full CoA).
I have asked for broader involvement from WP:UKGEO here, and I would urge removal of the blazon. I will do so unless there is a consensus against my position (not just two editors disagreeing).--Nilfanion (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Although the four towers are there for a reason ("castle quadrate" – in text) I don't think there's anything particularly notable about the blazon to warrant its inclusion. For consistency the addition of blazons to such arms in infoboxes should either be done widely or not at all. Flag and full CoA and better lead image (per next section) would seem the way to go.  —SMALLJIM  15:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Many years ago I set up the Flag of Plymouth page. Perhaps the logo and blazon could be added there, and a link from here to there added (currently the Plymouth page doesn't link there). Someone had made an .svg of the red flag but that got deleted. From online research there is precious little information on it, and it doesn't appear on flag lists. I have a feeling that writing to the council to get them to acknowledge their own flag might be necessary before they get too tatty to fly. Of course that is not a WP issue but a real world issue. Stevebritgimp (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plymouth/Archive_2&oldid=1190311194"