Talk:Plymouth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Plymouth has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Plymouth is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Plymouth at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 

Requested move 20 April 2017[edit]

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)

  • Oppose per all previous discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:49, 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 [1] 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.[[2]] and New York state is the primary topic for New York even though the city gets far more page views.[[3]] What this tells us, along with this conversation here [[4]] (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.[5] 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 [[6]]. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Coat of arms[edit]

Arms CorporationOfPlymouth Devon.png

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..."[7]. 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)

Lead image[edit]

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)