Talk:Plymouth

Plymouth Gin?

Why hasnt anyone mentioned the great Plymouth Gin? Basic ingredient in a Giblet and all? The gin is the only reason i've heard about the town (with all respect:)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy McDandy (talk • contribs) 15:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Plymouth

It occurs to me that some cities have flags, but I haven't seen the Flag of Plymouth anywhere on the wiki, such as in List of British Flags. A quick look on the net found one verbal description, but no pictures. I remember the council used to fly a very large specimen from their main flagpole outside the civic centre, where they'd fly the stars and stripes on 4th July and so on. The flag is the shield from the coat of arms (possibly with simplified black towers) on a red field. Not being able to find one on the net leads me to thinking someone could make one, but yet again we'd need an RS. Stevebritgimp (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact walking today through Royal Parade there is a red flag, on a high flagpole at the rear of the Civic Centre, up on a roof. You never know, I might get a picture of it. Stevebritgimp (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do and upload to commons. Sam Davidson (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, you landlubbers, in a fit of madness at 2am I have now uploaded free crappy images taken from my iPhone back in December last year of the flag, and I've set up a page Flag of Plymouth, which might well have been speedily deleted by tomorrow. Anyway, what I think might be needed would be a nice svg file of the flag in a more schematic form, (which I don't know how to do), and maybe the more artistic could get a better picture. Please drop by the page and discussion page and have a look - cheers. Stevebritgimp (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Pilgrims as first American colonists?

This statement seems to be in error - first, there were other European nations colonizing before the English, and second, Jamestown, Va. was founded in 1607, Plymouth, Mass. in 1620. Amwyll Rwden (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - have changed, although now a little verbose. Hopefully my new version hits all the buttons. Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This statement has been replicated in four places: in the lead of Plymouth and History of Plymouth, in the history section of Plymouth and in a section within the History of Plymouth. I've found a reliable source to prove that it was the second colony and added it to the sections; didn't add in the lead, because it's little bit untidy. Vittel Salt (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Move request for this page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It has been requested that this page be moved to Plymouth, Devon - a discussion has been occurring at Talk:Plymouth (disambiguation)#Requested move. Feel free to comment. Knepflerle (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This request reached no consensus and was archived without any action. Vittel Salt (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plymouth (automobile)

{{editprotected}} Plymouth (automobile) and Plymouth Colony should be added to the hatnote, as two of the most likely targets (probably more likely than this city in Devon) 76.66.198.46 (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, could we possibly stop being so US-centric. The fact that some (but not all) people in the USA can't concieve of anything outside the USA being more important than something within the USA doesn't alter the fact that for most of the English speaking world, the City in Devon is the thing they think of first when hearing the name. Mayalld (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I read some of the requested move. I can't think of a better reason for a disambiguation page sitting at Plymouth. Two countries with clearly 2 or 3 answers with what belongs here. Both sides are right - in England the primary use is the city and in the U.S. the primary view is either the car or the city/Plymouth rock. Nationalistic views on both sides and no world view by anyone. How the U.S. city got to be included in the hatnote and the U.S. car didn't is beyond me. Royalbroil 04:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Plymouth (automobile) should be added to the hatnote, as one of the most likely targets (probably more likely than this city in Devon). NOTE: I am ***NOT*** from the US, from my IP address, you can tell that easily. In Canada, neither Plymouth Colony nor Plymouth England is primary usage of the term, it is the car company, so it should be at the dablink. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the logs, this page isn't semi-protected. This means that anonymous users without accounts can edit the article, as well as people with accounts that are four days old. It is, however, move protected. Anonymous users cannot move any articles, but users with accounts that are four day old can. As this article is move protected, only sysops/admins can move it. Jolly Ω Janner 16:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I've started putting some comments about this article on Wikipedia:Peer review/Plymouth/archive3 but then found out that the user who requested a peer review is banned, so I'm not sure what is going on & whether the comments are useful or other editors would be interested in them?— Rod ^talk 10:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've raised the issue of the banned user at the Admin noticeboard. All opinions are welcome there. As for the peer review, someone else would have requested it before long, so it might as well continue, thanks.  —SMALLJIM  16:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the level of interest that thread has gained from sysops (zero excluding Jim) I'd say ignore. Let's just improve the article on Plymouth and cut out the drama. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to be about anyway. 64.18.144.131 (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

OK I've added a few more comments - let me know if you want me to take another look but I think you could go for GA soon.— Rod ^talk 17:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jim, what's a back-formation? 64.18.144.131 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Back-formation. DuncanHill (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I don't know what half of the words mean in that article. The issue was raised on the peer review and I'm not sure how to explain it simply for the average reader (and to myself). 64.18.144.131 (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Duncan! 64.18.144.131 (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

union street

made a small edit to reflect the fact that on most evenings there is only one licensed premises left open (the Cherry Tree pub) in union street. On saturdays 90% of the drinking population can now be found in the drake circus area - voodoo lounge, roundabout, skiving scholar, cuba etc.219.83.84.42 (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is cited by a reliable reference (the BBC), which was published just a week ago. If you can find a reliable reference stating that 90% of the drinking population can be found in the Drake Circus area, I will be happy to add it in. Tis the season to be jolly (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

distance from london

i changed this because i know from 1000's of trips between the 2 cities that it is definately not 195 miles.86.137.47.66 (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Google Earth, the distance from the centre of Plymouth to the centre of London is about 190 miles. I do not understand why you added a hyperlink to Marjon's website. Jolly Ω Janner 23:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a (very old) road sign in Marldon (just outside Paignton) that says 189 miles to London. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Supposed tornado

Jolly Janner has added a sentence on a tornado that was supposed to have hit the city in 1810, citing a passing BBC reference. The article has already included this claim: it was added by an IP in Sept 2005 and removed in Feb 08 as uncited. I've removed the sentence again because the balance of probabilities suggests that this event took place in Portsmouth and Southsea, not Plymouth. The BBC probably made a mistake in attributing this event here.

We'll need some evidence for that claim, so here we go:

• List of European tornadoes and tornado outbreaks mentions two tornadoes in 1810: Fernhill Heath - Hampshire on 22 September "Widest known and perhaps strongest British tornadoes", and Southsea on 14 December 1810 "Perhaps strongest British tornado" (both uncited, but see next).
• TORRO's website has a page entitled British & European Tornado Extremes. It mentions the two most intense tornadoes to have known to have hit the UK: one in 1091 and "On September 22, 1810, another T8 tornado tracked from Old Portsmouth to Southsea Common (Hampshire)". The same page mentions that the widest tornado path was on the same day, at Fernhill Heath (Hereford & Worcester).
• A BBC Weather Centre page references the above TORRO page as do mentions in The Independent and The Times.
• Plymouthdata.info - a recognised good source - mentions some 19th century hurricanes and storms, e.g. this, but the only mention of a tornado is spurious.
• I've never seen a mention of a tornado in any of my reference books that cover Plymouth. You'll have to trust me on that.
• Most of the Google hits for "plymouth tornado 1810" appear to derive from that BBC article or the old version of this article, e.g. The Guardian. None of them seems to provide any extra detail. (Most of the hits refer to US Plymouths.)
• And the clincher, I think: The Edinburgh Annual Register for Dec 1810 (pp. 257-8) "The town and vicinity of Portsmouth were visited on Friday, the 14th, by that phenomenon of nature, a tornado. It passed in the direction of W. S. W. to N. E. and did very considerable local damage…"

So, there's some confusion over the date (TORRO has it wrong), but I think there's little doubt that it occurred at Portsmouth, not Plymouth. Happy to discuss if anyone wants to dispute these findings.  —SMALLJIM  00:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wow... You sure do some good research! I originaly spotted it on the Finish Wikipedia, which got me researching the topic, but your overwealming research has discouraged me, so I'd better removed it from the Finish Wikipedia too. P.S the recent vandalism to the article, which refered to you had nothing to do with me. I have no idea why it happened. Jolly Ω Janner 01:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, good. Since it was the second time that this supposed tornado had been added to the article, I thought it wise to blow it away as best as I could. The references should prove useful the next time someone decides to add it, too. Regarding the vandalism, I assumed that September outbreak came via /b/. Is that right?  —SMALLJIM  23:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, although I don't think the latest one was /b/'s doing. Maybe someone looked in the revision history and thought it would be amusing to repeat it. Oh well, have a nice day :) Jolly Ω Janner 23:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pennycross Primary School

This school doesn't seem to be notable so i have suggested a merge with this article or any related ones that can fit the info of the school article. JForget 20:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Try Honicknowle. City articles shouldn't mention primary schools. Jolly Ω Janner 20:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Agatha Christie

As a Frenchmen, it's not up to me to say what to put in this page.

But as a father, I can tell you that one of the few landmarks visited by my daughter during her visit of the city with her class was "Agatha Christie's Greenway house".

Shouldn't she be mentioned among the people and/or the places to see in the city ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.216.148.175 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tourist guide. We only write about notable residents or people who have contributed to the city greatly in articles about cities. Agatha Christie is more notable for Torquay and "Agatha Christie's Greenway house" is not a notable landmark. Jolly Ω Janner 21:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Agatha Christie's Greenway House is in Galmpton anyway, nothing to do with Plymouth. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation required

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to this article. No arguments at US or British centralism will be accounted for. Is there any reason this city occupies this article instead of Plymouth (disambiguation). I'd have thought at the very least the fact that more than just cities share this name would have precluded the lack of disambiguation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a lengthy archive of the previous request and an even older one here. The previous one reached no consensus: I believe mainly because some people felt it was the primary topic, whereas others felt it wasn't (in a nutshell). Jolly Ω Janner 18:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change and silence is agreement. There is no way that a significant enough portion of searches for "Plymouth" could turn up only the British city as a primary topic. The car company alone gets one third as many hits as this ambiguous title. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not discussing whether it should be moved; just informing you of previous requests. If you really feel that consensus will be formed this time round, then follow the procedure listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves to initiate the discussion process. Jolly Ω Janner 18:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've initiated it here, at the talk page of the article in question. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe you need to specify the name you wish to move this page to using the template {{subst:move|NewName}}: either Plymouth, Devon or Plymouth, England I think is what you're looking for. Jolly Ω Janner 21:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Is either style more accepted than the other for British articles? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Plymouth, Devon is prefered per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#England. Jolly Ω Janner 10:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Alrightly. Starting a new section to keep things clean. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Move

Plymouth → Plymouth, Devon — as both the place and the automobile could be considered primary topics, a dab is far more appropriate at directing users to the proper page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Plymouth (disambiguation) → Plymouth

Primary topic should also be used: see my numbers below. This article is not the most hit article named "Plymouth", and only commands about a quarter of the traffic of articles named "Plymouth". Not enough for a primary topic Purplebackpack89 02:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Plymouth, a British city of ca. 250,000 people, globally significant port for >500 years (implicated in the defeat of the Spanish Armada, site of the Pilgrim Fathers departing Britain, and a key port in the Transatlantic slave trade) seems more likely to be the primary topic than the (far smaller) city in the US established by the Pilgrim Fathers and far more likely than a brand of car only available in 2 countries. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

  Really, because I believe a car manufactured by Plymouth known as the Q was sold in England beginning in 1928. Also, Plymouth sold twice as many cars as people living in the English town, per year, after the 1960s. Both are very notable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a poor reasoning. Cars come and go just like people. If you totalled up the amount of people who have lived and gone in Plymouth, then the figure would be well into the millions... Jolly Ω Janner 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, cars and people come and go. However, 450,000 cars a year over 40 years, not taking into account that the number likely climbed, is 18 million. This is a major car marque, similar to... oooh, let's say, Lincoln. Lincoln Nebraska had a 2008 estimated population of... wait for it... 250,000! Lincoln is a second-tier car brand (a marque owned by Ford). Does Lincoln link to the Nebraska city, clearly the forerunner to the cars by half a century? Nope. Surprisingly it doesn't go straight to the British place either (though I'm sure you'd argue that's the primary topic). It goes to a disambiguation page, instead, which begins:

Lincoln commonly refers to:

• Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the United States
• Lincoln, Lincolnshire, England
• Lincoln (automobile), a luxury brand of the Ford Motor Company
• Lincoln, Nebraska, the state's capital
• Lincoln (surname), people with the surname Lincoln

Lincoln may also refer to:

Fancy that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The decissions for Lincoln has little bearing to this case. You made this move request individually rather than collectively as a set of move requests, so this case should be treated with specifics related to Plymouth(s). Examples of things done on Wikipedia (unless it's a policy) is not a way to base other decisions. Jolly Ω Janner 20:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, but common sense is. Two very important topics = no primary topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I, and seemingly Ilikeeatingwaffles, would not regard a car brand as a very important topic. Jolly Ω Janner 20:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Waffles, you need to have a better reason than "this city's been around longer" to justify primary topic. If you look at the

• Oppose - there would have to be a reasonable case in accordance with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Using the suggested criteria given the case for a move is too weak. Fæ (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This only meets one criteria listed on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (article pageviews, in which it receives around double the pagehits as the primary topic placeholder). Googlehits results are mixed for the first several pages of web[1] and news[2][3]. For an image search, the vehicle has clear supremacy.

I'd even propose a one month test. The results of the first two weeks would be ignored, and the results of the second two weeks used to see how "primary" the English city is in comparison to the vehicle or other Plymouth's. During the test, the primary topic would be the dab page. If in one month it is shown that the British place gets more results than the others put together, then it is the primary topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Having a large number of car pics on the internet is probably less convincing than having top listing in Google searches and the most common match on the first page of Google. I find the Wikipedia pagecount history fairly useful, the city appearing around 2½ times more visited than the car article. There is a basic taxonomic rationale, in that all other things called "Plymouth" originated from the English city and whether someone searching for "Plymouth" on Wikipedia would expect to find the original city first with a dab page link as a hat-note. I'm not that keen on just tracking the numbers against the suggested guideline criteria as some sort of proof, the guidelines themselves quite clearly suggest that "decisions are made by discussion between editors" and that such statistics can only support this discussion. You are free to tabulate or refine comparative statistics for everyone to consider, but I would recommend we let the discussion naturally evolve a consensus in the first instance. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You're correct. I've taken the liberty on that note to invite the automobile wikiproject into this discussion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing. Are you going to invite any other non-car-related project members to contribute in order to balance the discussion? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sure the other side of the argument would be more than willing to call to the British wikiproject. It's not a vote after all, it's the arguments made that matter. The move request will also bring plenty of neutral eyes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'll admit I'm partisan, but reading WP:PRIMARYTOPIC I feel that the argument is weaker than last time. I think the city is the primary topic, especially given the expansion of pages spinning off from that. Agree with Fæ that an argument against that looks weak. Stevebritgimp (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The argument is that its not the primary topic to anybody in North America. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

See below about primary topic Purplebackpack89 02:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support - Can't say I care very strongly either way, I reckon a disambiguation page would be the best way to go. If anyone cares, I'm Swedish, live in NYC, am a member of the automotive project, and generally loathe Plymouths (cars). Couldn't be happier that the brand no longer exists, but I still think that its importance as far as the encyclopedia is concerned is high enough to justify disambiguation. Would be interesting to see what it does to the page hits for the two topics.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I will second that. They really are awful cars (especially the Plymouth Voyagers with the exterior wood trim on the doors—ghastly). The Prowler is a close second though. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support (a disambiguation page) Should be noted that Plymouth, England got 49,896, but Plymouth Colony got 64,603 hits, and combined, Plymouth, Massachusetts and Plymouth (automobile) are viewed almost as much as Plymouth. Not to mention all the other stuff named Plymouth. That means the English city only commands about 25-30% of the traffic of titles named "Plymouth". Usually for a primary topic you need 50-60 Purplebackpack89 02:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - The car company was named after the American colony which was named after the British town. The car brand is defunct. Both towns have certain claims to history but neither town is particularly high in current global news (at least I don't hear anything about them here in Australia). Any favourite is more related to whether you are British, American or a muscle car fan. Disambiguation pages are exactly for cases like this where there is no clear winner. Let 'Plymouth' be the disambiguation page and all the others use their full name.  Stepho  (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support (a disambiguation page): I was going to oppose this, but "Plymouth" as the UK city does not seem to be "primary topic enough" to be assigned the un-dismabiguated title. This is a bit of a UK versus US situation, where the city is the primary topic in the former, with the car the primary topic in the latter. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Plymouth should be a disambiguation page. Age and population do not make a primary topic. DC T•C 05:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - we went through all this a couple of years ago, over at Talk:Plymouth (disambiguation). Plymouth is the major centre for the whole Devon and Cornwall region, so the widest guess for its metro population would be 1.6 million. It is also a major naval centre too, and as such has played a significant role in UK history. IMHO a primary topic over smaller settlements and the motor company.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's great and all, and I am sure one could come up with a similar rant for the automotive version, but the argument here is whether Plymouth as the UK city is the primary usage. The answer is yes if one was to consider only the UK perspective, but this is not the case elsewhere. Considering that 54 percent of Americans are "unaware that Sudan is a country in Africa" and 75 percent could not find Indonesia on a world map (according to the National Geographic Society), it would be safe to claim a similar level of illiteracy would apply to Plymouth in the United Kingdom. Now I am not defending this ignorance, I am just pointing out that the primary topic differs between countries, and therefore no single topic can be fairly assigned the un-dismabiguated title. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, the metro population is not significantly more than that of the city - 500,000 would be an overestimate.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Population and history are not major factors to be considered, and 1.6 million can't be right. Amakura, focus on the reasoning in PRIMARYTOPIC; using the criteria there, there CLEARLY is no primary topic Purplebackpack89 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Statistics are not the most important thing in the world, and there are other measures mentioned in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as useful guidance aside from the page views. Equating car production with population is a particularly poor comparison - you can't compare a car to a human in any meaningful way. In terms of incoming links: There are 3,320 to Plymouth, 656 to Plymouth, Massachusetts and 215 to Plymouth (automobile). This partially is a reflection of the fact that Plymouth, Devon is clearly the most important usage in a historical sense. A real problem underlying this dispute is a type of recentism, in that historical facts are irrelevant and its the current state that matters. In general, the opposes cite the historical importance of the Devon city, whilst the supports ignore this and look at the here and now. Stepho's comment "at least I don't hear anything about them [in the news] here in Australia" is an illustration of this. Which is more correct? The answer depends on what the readers are looking for ultimately - is historical or current info more important?
• One thing I would say is that extended discussion as to which topic is primary is a pretty clear indicator that there is no primary topic, which IMO is more decisive than any number of statistics. If this discussion reaches "no consensus" that should be interpreted as moving this page to Plymouth, Devon not a maintenance of the status quo - if the page was disambiguated and this discussion was to move this Plymouth to the primary page nothing would be moved.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Boring, but spot on (much more fun to argue about the respective value of Devon cream versus minivans with fake woodgrain).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:00ish, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No consensus on a proposal means the proposal does not have support. No action can be justified based on a lack of consensus. If this proposal fails to get support and the page is moved, then it should be moved back and probably discussed yet again... Fæ (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No consensus in the case of a disambiguation page would indicate an equally opposing opinion on what the primary topic is. Logically it would follow that no topic is the primary topic. I don't see the harm from trying it out for a month. The number of incoming links is only indicative of how many pages link to Plymouth (not to Plymouth, Devon, and how developed British geographic articles are. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The incoming links figures I quoted include those going via Plymouth, England, Plymouth, Devon (and also Plymouth, MA). A lot of the links to this page are British geography, but if you remove all of those you'd still get much more than the others. For example there's 174 incoming links just from articles about US Navy ships. Judging the significance of a link is extremely hard to evaluate but the very high figure for the Devon Plymouth is not merely the result of a higher quantity/quality of articles on British geography (it looks like there's hundreds of links from biographies).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The proposal under discussion is whether to move this page. A no consensus result is insufficient justification to move the page. If you wish to create a different proposal then please do so once this one is closed. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that's unreasonable and bureaucratic. The proposal is making Plymouth (disambiguation) the primary topic. Moving this page is the result required in order to act on that proposal. The discussion is "what is the primary topic for Plymouth"; not "do you want to move this article from its current title?". A no consensus result means nobody agrees on what the primary topic is, and that there is no primary topic. The only way to keep the article here would be to reach a consensus that Plymouth, Devon IS the primary topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Floydian, you have proposed to move this article (as well as the dab page together). If there is no consensus (sometimes 66% in agreement, but don't get technical) in agreement with your proposal, then your proposed move will not go ahead and everything will stay as it is. And yes, Wikipedia is bureaucratic and sometimes shit at decision making, I'm afraid. Jolly Ω Janner 00:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws, and using your own weaselly wording to get past the fact that not everyone agrees.[4]] Right before I posted that, you essentially posted that this can't be a discussion, it has to be a formal move request. So I made the formal request to appease you. The fact remains that this is at the heart of this discussion, not your slithering manipulation.[5] I made it clear at the outset, and am reiterating it now for anybody else who is unclear: This is a discussion about what the primary topic is, NOT a discussion of whether to move the current article. That is something that will happen consequentially. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 12:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Compromise suggestion There's likely to be seasonal variation in traffic: more looking for Plymouth colony than for the car or than for the English city in the fall season as the U.S. Thanksgiving Day comes up. And people think of muscle cars more in the summer. So set up a bot to rotate primary usage designation quarterly, with one quarter having the disambiguation page up.  :) --doncram (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not just have a Solomon-style "compromise" that has the disambiguation all the time. Purplebackpack89 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is just UK-bias. In Canada, the car company would be the primary meaning. In the US it would be the Plymouth colony and its rock or the car company. Wikipedia says that such matters should have a disambiguation page at the prime location. Instead we have a UK city, which doesn't even have a million residents, as primary. Millions of North Americans recognize the car company, much more than some UK city. 76.66.198.128 (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as per reasoning of Fæ and Amakuru. The incomming links and historical value is too much to be ignored. @doncram: Although I praise compromise suggestions (well done for making one!) and generally support a compromise, I think the one you suggested is not really workable and would not be satisfactory to either camp. Has anything like that been done before? Zangar (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Historical value is not a valid reason for a primary topic, and note that Plymouth Colony has almost as much historical significance. You need to base an argument on valid points, such as navigation utility Purplebackpack89 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Plymouth Colony would ever be referred to as "Plymouth", though. The article does not list it as an alternative name for the colony, so there wouldn't be any navigation problems there. The number of page views that the dismabiguation page gets is far less than Plymouth, indicating that very few people have to navigate away from this article once arriving. Jolly Ω Janner 23:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Or that they give up upon arriving at some unknown Plymouth... Or that they then proceed to use the search bar to find the other, properly disambiguated Plymouth that they were seeking in the first place. Too many unknowns. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support; no clear-cut primary topic here. Powers ^T 15:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The car has not been made for nearly 10 years. The first 48 hits on Google refer to the city (excluding 1 hit for WP).--Mhockey (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Bear in mind Google returns localised results - not surprising a Brit gets Plymouth, Devon dominating :)--Nilfanion (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Exactly. I get two results for UK, one for the NHL, two for Massachusetts, one for the university, three for the car (plus all the images) and one for the Plymouth Council of Canada. The fact that they haven't been made for 10 years means absolutely nothing. Chrystler refocused, hence why their cars all changed after Plymouth dissolved. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 12:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Incoming links favour this article, and I don't think that many are incorrectly targeted. However, more importantly this is the most viewed topic of the 4 most important (Plymouth, Devon, Plymouth, Massachusetts, Plymouth (automobile) and Plymouth Colony). The traffic for Plymouth Colony especially and to a lesser extent for Plymouth, MA is noticeably dependent on the time of year; due to the small matter of Thanksgiving. eg in March the stats tell a different story to at present: this page got 32k, Plymouth, MA 11k, the car 14k and the colony 22k. In December, the colony is most viewed (as this is a direct result of a mention on Main page it should be discounted). Now 32k (of 79k) is not decisively most of the traffic, but show this is the most important topic of the name and does get the most incoming links from other articles (Plymouth Colony gets 571 so combined for other 3 major uses is less than half to here, even if you discount the 424 template links (which may also have prose links) and include these for the others).--Nilfanion (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm doubtful that the automobile brand ever approached the city so far as primary usage of the term goes, always being just a budget brand of Chrysler rather than an independent maker, but now it's out of production its claim is even less. And Chrysler obviously realise this, or they would still use it! Andrewa (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)