Talk:Gouda, South Holland

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gouda, South Holland article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Netherlands

	Netherlands portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
	This article is supported by Dutch municipalities task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Untitled

umm guys this is austria's flag. just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.119.225.112 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. They are indeed almost the same, only Gouda uses a darker red:

Gouda
Austria

PPP (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

I find the info on the etymology somewhat confused and strange. Any reference for the claim that the town takes the name after the family? What one normally would expect is the castle (possibly) being given a name after the river, and the family owning the castle and the town growing up around the castle both taking their names after the castle. Uppland 10:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 August 2015

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: moved to Gouda, South Holland, dab page moved to the base location. Clear numerical majority in favour of the moving the city article away from the primary topic. Most of that support centred around the first of the criteria laid out at primary topic, usage, which clearly favoured the cheese. Those opposing made a reasonable argument that, as the name of the cheese derives from the city, the city meets the long-term significance criterion. The fact that two primary topic criteria would favour two different articles being the primary topic lends credence to the argument that there is no primary topic. With the guideline favouring neither article and the majority of participants at least agreeing that the city is not the primary topic, my judgment is that there's a consensus to move this article and replace it with the dab page.

This is something that should probably be reconsidered in six months to a year to see how the move has affected things. Jenks24 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– For me, there is a bit of an WP:ASTONISH-ment factor here that the primary topic for "Gouda" is not Gouda cheese. I mean, I didn't even know that the name "Gouda" in "Gouda cheese" came from this city. In fact, due to the fact that Gouda and Gouda cheese receive almost literally an equal amount of page views, it seems that others seem to share this opinion. For this reason, I believe that the disambiguation page Gouda (disambiguation) should move to the ambiguous title Gouda so that the reader can determine if they are trying to look for the city, the cheese, or any of the other various options on the disambiguation page that are not really contenders for the primary topic designation. Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC) (Changed move request slightly given the argument for the cheese being the primary topic via evidence below [but not presented be me.]) Steel1943 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While there is a settlement of a few thousand souls in South Africa named Gouda, mightn't it be preferable to use Gouda (city) to disambiguate it from Gouda cheese ? — AjaxSmack 00:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating the new title as I proposed seems to be a precedent with most cities and settlements. For the specific precedent for the ", South Holland" disambiguator, see Category:Cities in the Netherlands, specifically Nieuwpoort, South Holland. Steel1943 (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that most cities aren't disambiguated with a geographical dab when they are being disambiguated from other places (Nieuwpoort, South Holland is being disambiguated from other places named Nieuwpoort). However, this case is different. Like Cork (city), Ariel (city), and Rhodes (city), the city needs to be disambiguated from other topics that are not cities. If you look at the Ariel dab page, you'll see a very similar situation to Gouda. A few places with only one city and other meanings unrelated to geography. Ditto with Cork. In the case of Gouda, readers are better served with with a dismabiguator that says "this is a city, not a cheese" rather than simply tacking on a province name (after all, the cheese is from South Holland, too.) — AjaxSmack 01:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AjaxSmack: I see your point. In that case, where the city article moves to doesn't matter to me (though I still have a bit of preference for my proposed option.) Either way, my goal here is just to displace the current primary topic. If you'd rather it move to Gouda (city), you won't get any grief from me. (Withdrawing this part of my opinion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)) Steel1943 (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will, on the other hand, get grief from me, and from WP:NATURAL, which prefers natural disambiguation to parenthetical. RGloucester — ☎ 22:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PLACE#Disambiguation, either Gouda, South Holland or Gouda, Netherlands should be used if moved (I think the former is more in line with what is normal for Dutch municipal and/or town names). Your argument is that the cheese is the primary topic for Gouda, yet you would opt to have the main page as a disambiguation page. I support your proposal, but I would suggest checking traffic after this move. If most people would then click through to the cheese, rather than the city, the cheese should be the primary topic and be placed at Gouda itself. CRwikiCA talk 13:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's 100% in line with my opinion, given that it is difficult to prove any primary topic at the present time, given the situation of the page views ... until there is more proof about where readers are going after being forwarded to the disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, there is no clear primary topic due to the present page name. O N R (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not quite persuaded cheese is the primary topic. The nominator has not really presented evidence other than their personal impression. Maybe its a culturally-specific. I personally knew of Gouda the town (it comes up intermittently in art and history) before I ever heard of "Gouda cheese". But more to the point, I don't have the impression, nor do I see evidence, that it is common to use the term "Gouda" in the singular form when referring to the cheese (i.e. without the word "cheese" attached to it). The usage is usually the composite term "Gouda cheese", not simply "Gouda". Even cookobooks tend to use the double term. "Gouda" is a town, "Gouda cheese" is a cheese. The term "cheese" in the latter title is already acting a sufficient disambiguator between the two articles, and any lingering doubts can be resolved by a hatnote. Walrasiad (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In the English-speaking world, the cheese is the clear primary topic. Calidum 03:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask people making this claim to please start providing evidence of it. I'm in the English-speaking world, and I don't agree. Moreover, it is worth reminding this is an encyclopedia. "Primary topic" does not mean "popular in casual speech among clueless young Americans". It means primary topic. Apple gadgets may be more popular in casual conversation than the fruit, but they are not the primary topic for "Apple". If you didn't know Gouda was a town, an encyclopedia is where you learn it. Gouda is a significant town of historical importance. It shows up promptly and prominently on the first page of any internet search. In the singular form, the town is not dominated by the cheese even in internet popularity contests. So if you make that assertion, I would like to start seeing some evidence. Walrasiad (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable request. As an Australian, may I in turn make a request that you cease the personal attacks on our friends the Americans. Now as for evidence, perhaps look at Google images... I wonder why the preponderance of cheeses? Interested in your theory... or do your results vary from mine? My first hit not of cheese was number 115, [1] which is of a piece of Gouda pottery (which was a redlink, I'll fix that, and the pottery doesn't even get a mention in our article on the city, which should also be fixed, any volunteers?). I know it's not the most usual sort of evidence, but it looks so clear-cut that I think it deserves some sort of answer. Andrewa (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your gallant effort to defend our honor. That said, my point still stands. Not sure what you intend with pictures - surely many online markets, sellers, cooking sites,will have pictures of Gouda cheese? Why not try a regular search? At least here the town shows up first! If you're trying to say that cheese is popular, I have no doubt. But popular does not mean primary. Walrasiad (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree... popular does make primary. That's exactly what one of the two criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says: A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is 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.. There are many reasons that the town might show up first; Your search like many others I tried seems an ambiguous result to me. But the image search result was unambiguous. If we could get a similarly clear result favouring the town, then we'd have to say there's no primary meaning I think. But nobody has come up with one yet, including me, and I've looked hard. Andrewa (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partial support, agree that the cheese is the primary topic in English, so Gouda → Gouda, South Holland should occur, but the DAB should stay where it is, and we should instead move the article on the cheese. Should we relist to consider this, as several above have also suggested the cheese is the primary topic? I've posted a heads-up in case we do. Andrewa (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: If this option is considered (which I partially support), instead of Gouda cheese moving to Gouda, Gouda should become a redirect to Gouda cheese so that the cheese article's title can retain its natural disambiguation. Steel1943 (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at WP:DABNAME, which says in part The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page, as in Jupiter (disambiguation). So if there's no primary topic the undisambiguated name is used as the name for the disambiguation page. Andrewa (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with WP:DABNAME; that comment is a bit of an "apples to oranges" comparison to my comment. I was referring to WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Of course the disambiguation page would stay at Gouda (disambiguation) if a primary topic change is decided, but I do not believe that Gouda cheese should move to Gouda if it is declared the primary topic. Instead, per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, "Gouda" should redirect to the cheese. Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. While you could arguably say there is already a consensus, discussion is ongoing and alternate proposals are also being discussion, so I see no harm in giving this another week. Jenks24 (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria two: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". Frankly, the city has a more enduring significance, the cheese merely being a product of the city's history. There is no justification for the awkward construction Gouda, South Holland, which has never existed on the encylopaedia and is unlikely to be a search term. The city of Gouda is primary topic, the cheese merely a sub-topic of the city. Remember, the primary topic is not what first comes to mind. RGloucester — ☎ 17:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So... You would ~~redirect Parmesan to Parma and~~ move Cheddar, Somerset to Cheddar? Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) (struck out part that is proven otherwise elsewhere.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at this point in the world's history, I would say that both the cheese and the city have long-term significance, especially considering that somehow, the city's notability became either equally or less ... notable ... than the cheese's. (Compare this situation to the example I provided above ... the fact that Cheddar is a disambiguation page.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on cheddar, but it cuts both ways... If we were to move the cheese article to the undisambiguated title, or even redirect to it as is also suggested above, then we should revisit Cheddar. Andrewa (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's not clear from the page views that there is a primary topic. The city gets 16,000 views, while the cheese gets 22,000. I would assume that a few (but certainly not most) of the city's views ultimate are intended for the cheese, since it has the advantage of being un-disambiguated. I don't think there's a good case for the cheese to be primary, though, so I would support moving the disambiguation page here. Cheddar is a good precedent. kennethaw88 • talk 02:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons given by Walrasiad & RGloucester, … not persuaded cheese is the primary topic … usage is usually "Gouda cheese", even in cookbooks … the adition of "cheese" already acts as a disambiguator (which is clear in search boxes) … and RGloucester's "has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" … no justification for awkward construction Gouda, South Holland, … and "the primary topic is not what first comes to mind". I was surprised that 'Cheddar' dabbed since the same criteria apply. I suspect that (worldwide) Hollywood more often refers to ' American motion-picture industry' than to the place, however present use seems correct. … … btw, I'm a Brit, but I can remember being young and stupid enough to be amused that a place called 'Cheddar', had named itself after a cheese! America doesn't have a patent on youthful stupidity (yet?). Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, an alternate destination for the city article's move was suggested above: Gouda (city). However, Gouda, South Holland would be the standard for the title per WP:PLACEDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pincrete: Also, your opinion sounds like opposition to the counter proposal presented above to declare the cheese the primary topic. The original proposal is to displace the current primary topic and move the disambiguation page to that title. Per your comment in the discussion section below, it seems like you are not necessarily opposing the original proposal? Steel1943 (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification, I don't see need or value to making ANY change. If a change were made, Gouda (city) or Gouda, South Holland and primary topic/rename 'cheese' would be clearest. I've put an 'about the city, for the cheese see' plate on the article, to help those who end up in the wrong place and counter any 'WP:surprise' factor. I don't see the problem this proposal is solving, hence my oppose.Pincrete (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've made it quite clear that you believe this, but I'm still puzzled as to why. Two questions. Firstly, do you believe that the city is the primary topic? Secondly, do you believe that there are reasons for departing from our normal naming and disambiguation conventions in this particular case? My personal answer to both of these questions is of course no. But I'm uncertain as to what you believe. Andrewa (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to repeat myself, yes I do believe the place is the primary topic, even if it is not the most common (informal) usage. I cannot think of precise analogies, but Neapolitan is the adjective of Naples, not this or this, Bolognese means of/from Bologna, not the stuff people put on spaghetti … ditto many everyday usages. We aren't asking the reader to navigate some tortuous path to get to the article about their favourite cheese/ice cream/pizza/coffee/wine/sausage etc, merely to recognise a (marginally), more exact term. Pincrete (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll reply below in #Primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I've presented a little evidence above that the cheese is the primary topic, but I'm moved to ask, is there any evidence that the city is? It seems to me that it's the cheese if anything. If that's true we should have some sort of move, the current setup would only be appropriate if the city were judged the primary meaning, which seems unlikely. Andrewa (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa, if by evidence you mean 'Google hits' etc. the answer is probably no, the cheese is probably ahead, but there are arguments to 'primary' other than 'counts'. Java software may well have more hits than the coffee blend from which it took its name, which in turn was named after a place, but the place still has more 'lasting significance' in encyl. terms IMO. Very few people referring to 'Gouda', (or cheddar etc.) would not know that this was 'short form' of 'Gouda cheese', perhaps a few end up at the place through not knowing there was a place. The rename seems to be solving a problem that doesn't exist, and creating ()ed names where none are needed. This was the basis of my decision, rather than thinking the place was better known than the cheese (which it probably isn't).Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree about part of the comparison above made in regards to the word "cheddar". At least in my personal experiences, I have almost never heard of cheddar cheese referred to as "cheddar cheese". Probably 95% of the time, I've heard it called "cheddar" with no other words attached. In fact, I can say that for the majority of cheeses, but it is probably a custom exclusive to my geographic region. Steel1943 (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Steel1943, I agree that 90% of us 90% of the time wouldn't bother to say 'cheese', but even more of us would immediately recognise the longer form, recipes would use it, trade organisations would use it. Standing at the coffee counter, or when the subject is coffee, I might well say 'Blue mountain' or 'Costa Rican', context allows the 'short form'. I would immediately recognise 'Special offer Gouda' as referring to cheese, unless it was on the travel agent's window. Pincrete (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(replying to Pincrete 11:31, 21 August 2015) The problem is that the current setup is only appropriate if the city is the primary topic, and nobody has presented any evidence that it is despite my request which was the whole reason for starting this section. Some who oppose the move of the article on the city even concede this point, and at the risk of arguing from silence it seems most unlikely that the city is the primary topic. It's not a very big problem but it still should be fixed. Andrewa (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to Andrewa, I think I have said that there are arguments to 'primary', other than 'hits' or 'ordinary speech', especially as in this instance a simple solution is found by adding 'cheese' to the title (do readers not know it is a cheese?). Compare Bordeaux and Bordeaux wine, admittedly that place is bigger, but the logic remains the same IMO. Pincrete (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that the case of Bordeaux has any relevance at all. the point is not that it's bigger, that again is irrelevant. Surely you aren't suggesting that the city of Gouda is as well known as the city of Bordeaux? Evidence? Andrewa (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"admittedly that place (Bordeaux) is bigger, but the logic remains the same IMO." Pincrete (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, again it seems that you're using a significantly different sense of primary topic to that in the relevant guideline, see below. Andrewa (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not utilising a different sense, I'm employing the 'encyclopaedic and educational context', and the 'commonsense' logic in addition to 'hits', though even 'hits', away from informal contexts, would usually say 'Gouda cheese'. It seems that the fans of Roquefort agree with you, but those of Stilton don't. Meanwhile, this word hasn't yet become either this, arguably most common use, nor even this. Commonsense would lead ME to argue that the addition of cheese/sausage/wine etc. to titles is, painlessly, more exact (which is also a guideline). Pincrete (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indentation and stringing

Everyone not familiar with it please read WP:THREAD which says in part Generally colons and asterisks should not be mixed. Each colon (or asterisk) represents one level of indentation (my emphasis).

But when we do start getting into a mess like the above, I strongly recommend not to restring other people's comments, it most often just makes it worse, and others will want to follow the dialogue, notably but not only the closing admin in this case. I'm not going to revert the restringing of mine, again I think that would just make it worse (so please don't do it for me) just note that it did occur and that I don't agree with it. Andrewa (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic

Just to restate, I still don't think that anyone has presented any evidence that the city is the primary topic of Gouda, and invite those opposing the move of the city article to do so. If you feel that you have already done so and don't want to repeat yourself, a diff or at least a timestamp to identify exactly where would be helpful.

There are many arguments above that dispute the cheese being the primary topic. That's a much weaker assertion; Perhaps there is no primary topic. We need to be clear what is being claimed.

There are also arguments above that the current setup should remain even if the city is not the primary topic (as Wikipedia uses the term). Again, we need to be clear if that is the argument. We do have the policy of WP:IAR that allows us to ignore policies and guidelines if we have consensus that following them would not be the correct course, but that is not to be done lightly. Andrewa (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the survey above: I do believe the place is the primary topic, even if it is not the most common (informal) usage. I cannot think of precise analogies, but Neapolitan is the adjective of Naples, not this or this, Bolognese means of/from Bologna, not the stuff people put on spaghetti … ditto many everyday usages. We aren't asking the reader to navigate some tortuous path to get to the article about their favourite cheese/ice cream/pizza/coffee/wine/sausage etc, merely to recognise a (marginally), more exact term.

This seems to me to be a significantly different sense of primary topic to the one currently described in the relevant guideline. Andrewa (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also from the survey above: I think I have said that there are arguments to 'primary', other than 'hits' or 'ordinary speech', especially as in this instance a simple solution is found by adding 'cheese' to the title (do readers not know it is a cheese?). Compare Bordeaux and Bordeaux wine, admittedly that place is bigger, but the logic remains the same IMO.

I think it's just complicating things to appeal to ordinary speech, but it does have some support at WP:UE if in slightly different words. Interested in other opinions on this.

But in any case, in ordinary speech the term Gouda would mean the cheese to most English speakers. If I asked Do you like Gouda? would you think I was asking about the place, or the cheese? Of course the context would normally give some hints as to which was meant, but in the absence of such clues, it would be the cheese IMO.

The case of Bordeaux is not so clear, again in my opinion. It might favour the wine, but not nearly so clearly. Andrewa (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for other opinions on this. I don't want this to be a wall of text. I'm seriously trying to untangle the arguments above. Hoping the following sections might help. Add to them please! Andrewa (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two points in the criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC includes:

* "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.".

* "Not "what first comes to (your) mind"".

Your examples seem to very much play on "ordinary" speech, in a very particular context - both cultural and food-related. You seem to defend on popularity in that context and very much on "what comes first to your mind". That is not how you determine a primary topic.

I would like to remind that when Steel1943 proposed this RM, it was because he was surprised, that he didn't even know that Gouda cheese was named after Gouda! He experienced an educational moment on Wikipedia. He actually learned something on this encyclopedia. It seems odd that he (and you) seem intent on depriving everyone else from experiencing that same educational moment. For Jove's sake, why? What is being gained? Walrasiad (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when I made that point about "not knowing that the cheese was named after the city", I meant that it seems that over time, the cheese has become equally, if not more, historically important as the city. For some cases on Wikipedia, this has already been established (example: Cheddar), but for other cases, this will never be the case (example: Swiss should never become a redirect towards Swiss cheese). Steel1943 (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around other food articles, the picture was mixed. Inumerable foods take their names from villages/cities/regions/countries, and 'primary use' is very locale/speciality dependent. I agree that here the issue is borderline, I came down on the side of 'Gouda', 'Gouda cheese', because the clarifier is so painless. Pincrete (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Actually, I'd move cheddar too, it seem to me that there's a primary meaning and it's the cheese. But it's borderline, as is the claim (which I also make above and below) that the cheese is primary for Gouda.

But what is quite clear from the evidence and lack of it is that there is no case at all for regarding the city as primary, as Wikipedia uses the term, for Gouda. Andrewa (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that the cheese is the primary topic

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=gouda+-wikipedias&tbm=isch

Now the relevance of this has been challenged above, and I confess I was getting desperate for some unambiguous evidence when I tried it (see sections below). But the results are overwhelming, and deserve an answer IMO. Andrewa (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is unambiguous evidence that people trying to sell cheese post more pictures!Pincrete (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True. And you could similarly say that all google tests don't really measure English usage. But they are accepted as evidence (not proof) of English usage. Andrewa (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that the city is the primary topic

Absolutely none that I can find, and despite many requests above nobody else has provided any either. Andrewa (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those who think the city is primary for the one-word form, and Gouda cheese is a painless disambiguator, have put their arguments above, so no one should be surprised if this section remains empty!Pincrete (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, there are many arguments above supporting the use of the one-word title for the article on the city. But as far as I can see, none of them provide one single shred of evidence that this topic is primary, as Wikipedia uses the term.

And having looked hard, I can't find any either. But that's not the point of this section. The main point is to give Those who think the city is primary for the one-word form and who think that they have provided evidence for this the opportunity to correct my having overlooked it.

Of course new evidence is also welcome! But I'm not hopeful we will get any. I think we've all looked hard.

There's a lot of text above. Again, I've been through it looking for this evidence, but I may have missed it, and so might the closing admin. Hence this section. Andrewa (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the only evidence you are willing to accept is 'hits', there are other arguments for 'primary' than 'informal short-form use'. If you counted hits, would this or this be the 'primary'? There are other examples above where a painless disambiguator settles the matter.Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The example above regarding "Apple" titles is comparing the historical use of the word used by many vs. a company that got its name from the historical use of the word which is in no way actually related to the current primary topic other than in that way. The nomination for Gouda is a bit different: the city and the cheese are directly related as the cheese originated from the city. However, through the course of time, the more notable historically-used form of the term "Gouda" is a bit of a gray-area since both the cheese and the city are historically notable. So then, the next test to see which one could be at the ambiguous title is not as clear since it is not really clear what people are looking for at this time due to the current article title setup. Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a relative newcomer to 'move' discussions, but already see that many revolve around 'enduring educational value' vs 'everyday use'. 'Everyday use' being almost synonomous with 'hits', 'enduring educational value' being more synonomous with a more traditional, encyc. approach. Personally, I think it would be good if we could define 'enduring educational value' better, because at the moment it's a case-by-case, slug-out. Java is more primary than Java! Apple is more primary than Apple! One of my criteria is whether the 'dabber word' is painless and familiar, which, in the case of foods, I would say they usually are. Pincrete (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a discussion for the talk page of the guideline rather than here, in my opinion, see WP:correct. So I have raised the issues at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Related discussion. diff Feel free to discuss there. Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term significance is more than just historical significance. I'd argue that the city's main claim to fame is the cheese. The second paragraph of the article on the city currently reads in full Gouda, which was granted city rights in 1272, is famous for its Gouda cheese, smoking pipes, and 15th-century city hall. Smoking pipe links to Tobacco pipe which doesn't currently mention Gouda at all as far as I can see, so is the city really all that famous for pipes, or for its city hall, which doesn't seem to have its own article? I'm skeptical. I still think the cheese is far more famous than the city. Many who know the cheese and its imitators well would not know whether the cheese is named after a region, city, or company. Andrewa (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the only evidence you are willing to accept is 'hits'... No, please have a look at other RMs and you'll see lots of other sorts of evidence being accepted, and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Determining a primary topic for guidelines as to what is likely to be accepted.

Your opinions are not evidence. They should and I'm sure will be considered. But what I'm trying to do in this section is give you the opportunity to present evidence that the city is the primary topic (as Wikipedia uses the term primary topic, which is set out in the disambiguation guideline). And I'm still of the opinion that we don't yet have any. Andrewa (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that there is no primary topic

Here I am reduced to arguing from silence. Nearly all attempts to establish a primary topic yield ambiguous results. Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Lack of notification

It is obvious that there is no immediate consensus. Why were WP:CITIES and WP:NL not notified? – Editør (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Article alerts. Jenks24 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of that list, it is not linked anywhere from WP:NL: Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands/Article alerts. – Editør (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gouda. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629034056/http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/16544.ctl to http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/16544.ctl

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary category move

Moving this page from "Gouda" to "Gouda, South Holland" was somewhat defensible, but moving the category People from Gouda to the cumbersome People from Gouda, South Holland was completely unnecessary, unless there is a (one hopes) fringe believe that babies come out of cheese or pottery. Perhaps the guilty party can initiate a move back. Afasmit (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Afasmit: Sorry about the 8-month later replay. Anyways, my guess is that the reason why the category had to be moved is because Gouda, Western Cape exists. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It exists, but so do Paris, Texas and Athens, Georgia, while Category:People from Paris and Category:People from Athens gets you where you expect to go. There are 125 people under Category:People from Gouda, South Holland and not one person has popped up in wikipedia from Gouda, Western Cape (founded 1928, population 3300). Afasmit (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of validates my thoughts in the matter: Category:People from Paris and Category:People from Athens are named the way they are because they represent the topics at Paris and Athens, respectively. From what I see, Category:People from Gouda, South Holland was renamed as so since the respective city is no longer at the ambiguous primary topic title "Gouda" and since at least one other city named "Gouda" exists on Wikipedia with an article. Also, I imagine that the category was moved per speedy category renaming criterion C2D, though this wasn't reflected in the move's edit history. Steel1943 (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's nicely distracting to debate such a wonderfully inconsequential thing, especially after last night's catastrophe. The reason for the move was the cheese (and pottery a bit), not the small settlement in the Western Cape. "People from Gouda" would be consistent with Category:People from Champagne, Category:People from Asiago, Category:People from Cognac, etc. And I still think that Gouda should have been treated like Asiago, Muenster or Edam. Like Gouda, most Americans (Brits even?) think of those as cheeses only.

Anyhow, I typed above in February mostly as a joke, after I had created a red link to the category "People from Gouda" for the umpteenth time. Afasmit (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gouda, South Holland. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 13:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gouda, South Holland. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519191437/http://stadgouda.woelmuis.nl/ to http://stadgouda.woelmuis.nl/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Gouda:

The old stathuys would be considered the real center of the city, it is the central building at the central city square . According to google maps this is at 52.011685,4.7104347 or N52d00'42" E42'37" (where d=degrees). The current location N52d1'N E4d43' points to some part of rail track outside the city center.

—2A02:A456:3046:1:B4F4:731:4D0E:BE3A (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In general, we try not to be too precise with the coordinates of something as large as a city; see WP:GEO#Precision guidelines. In this case, however, I've adjusted the coordinates in the article so that they're closer to the central city square without being obviously overprecise. Better? Deor (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Verzetsmuseum

I'd just like to point out that the link points to the wrong Verzetsmuseum, namely the one in Amsterdam rather than Verzetsmuseum Zuid-Holland, located in Gouda itself. The dutch article can be found here: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verzetsmuseum_Zuid-Holland

Daveboy2000 (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]