Talk:Worcester

Talk

Why is Worcester, England the default result for Worcester. Worcester, MA, USA is a city with a population nearly twice as large and much more notable contributions to human progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.226.27 (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It was the first and is the most notable. violet/riga (t) 11:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It is? From my North American eyes, Worcester Mass is far and away the most notable. We've got another continental divide here methinks. Kirjtc2 15:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Historic city versus "normal" city. The one in England (a county town, no less) came first and deserves the primary dab. violet/riga (t) 15:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

So should the Boston in England be primary because it came first? Should Memphis, Egypt have priority over Memphis, Tennessee? Look at Google: 9 of the first 10 hits and 16 of the top 20 are for Worcester MA. Even on google.co.uk it gets 7 of the top 10. I'm not saying Worcester Mass should be primary, but at the least it should be a disamb page. To put the English city first (even if that seems to be the preference for naming UK cities in wikipedia) shows a lack of respect for the people in Worcester Mass. Kirjtc2 22:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't. "Historic" doesn't necessarily mean "first" (though I know I said "first" to start with). Web presence doesn't make a place more important, but I truly believe that the Worcester in England is far more important (because of its history and the fact that it's a county town). violet/riga (t) 22:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That's your POV. Who are you to say one town is more "important" than the other? This is ridiculously biased, to have the primary page for Worcester be a city with half the population of Worcester, Massachusetts. A disambiguation page is logical. 24.199.113.215 09:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Worcester, Mass

I agree. Worcester is the second largest city in New England and 127th in the United States. England's Worcester is number 11 in its own region (West Midlands), and Worcester is England's 243rd largest city. Wikipedia's page for Worcester, Mass is larger than that for Worcester, UK as there is more information. People from the U.S. would not even know that Worcester, Mass was named for Worcester, UK if 90% of the communities in New England didn't have British counterparts.

I strongly feel that Worcester, Mass is the more notable city and should be the primary Worcester on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quentinisgod (talk • contribs) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The precedent has already been set with cities like Gloucester, Chelmsford, Portsmouth, Manchester and counties like Essex and Sussex. Size is less important than history. --TimTay (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, what gives Worcester, UK a more significant history than Worcester, MA? You can't simply use the fact that it's older. I feel that Worcester, Mass IS more historically significant. Give me a reason besides age why the UK's Worcester is more historical. I feel that if this were true it would show in its page. The fact that it doesn't tells me that Worcester, Mass is a more primary city. And in addition, your precedent uses much less culturally significant communities than Worcester. On top of this, this precedent is meaningless being that all of your examples in the U.S. have much larger and more significant UK counterparts. Each of these have U.S. communities much SMALLER than Worcester, Mass, and U.K. communities much LARGER than Worcester, UK. This is no precedent at all.

I stand by my statement. Worcester, Mass is larger in population and more historically significant than its British counterpart. I defy you to prove me wrong in this. Quentinisgod (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Historically significant? Settled since neolithic times, occupied by the Romans for 300 years, had a population of 10,000 at a time when Mass. hadn't even been established or the city of Worcester Mass. settled. How can you say the town in the US is more historically signficant? --TimTay (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, CITY in the US. Yours isn't even a city. And again, you are using the argument that the British TOWN is older, after I specifically asked you for a different reason. Also, even though you said population doesn't matter, you use it as an argument. Besides which, you say It had a population of 10,000 at a time before Worcester, Mass existed. But your Worcester's population is currently below 100,000 at a time when Worcester, Mass has a population of 175,000. Your country settled it in the 1600s, and it was burned to the ground by the Wampanoags. We rebuilt and have since flourished. Worcester has since seen the construction of four nationally celebrated universities, the invention of the rocket and of barbed wire, the smiley face, oral contraception, the list goes on and on.

Worcester has an extensive history of natural disaster, violence, and peace. It has an extremely diverse culture, and a large number of immigrants from many countries has been not only present but accepted throughout its days. It seems that your argument uses only reasons that you said were not important (population) and reasons that I already accepted and asked for something else (age). Your argument seems to be little more than UK pride. So if you feel that the redirect should go to Worcester, UK, give me something other than how old your town is (which I accept but don't see as a valid reason) and population (which is less than HALF that of Worcester, Mass which gives you absolutely no argument). Because I honestly don't see how the British community being older and less than half the size makes it more significant. Quentinisgod (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Worcester should be a dab page, but not for reasons of historical importance. I am basing my opinion mostly on statistics; I previously began a requested move at Talk:Worcester/Archive which unfortunately turned into a petty argument of "my Worcester is more significant/just as significant as yours because...", which I regretfully admit I was very much a part of. But using the Wikipedia article traffic statistic tool, we can see that even with "Worcester" being located at the UK city, Worcester, Massachusetts gets about 15,000 searches per month, while the UK Worcester (despite being the supposed primary topic for "Worcester") gets only 10,000 hits per month. And there is pretty much no chance that those 10,000 readers going to "Worcester" are intending to go to the UK city; the dab page gets 500 hits per month. But there is dab link in the hatnote at the Worcester page to Worcester, Massachusetts; there is a very good chance that a sizeable portion of the 10,000 hits for "Worcester, UK" are readers intending to look for the MA city, but these numbers are not represented, as these readers do not go through the disambiguation page.

Basically, the current situation is against Wikipedia policy. Worcester, Worcestershire should only be located at "Worcester" if it is the clear primary topic, and it is not. Neither Worcester, UK or Worcester, MA is; this is obviously a situation where a disambiguation page is optimal. 15,000 readers should not be redirected to the wrong article, even if there is a dab link in a hatnote present there. The current situation is simply unacceptable; this is a primary example of why disambiguation pages exist in the first place.

WP:NC states nothing about cities with "more important histories" being the primary topic when compared with cities that have shorter histories. So, this point is not valid. Similarly, using the arguments that Worcester, MA has a larger population, is chartered as a city, etc. are equally illegitimate, as Wikipedia's naming conventions have nothing to do with these, either. The one and only legitimate consideration here is the likelihood that someone searching for "Worcester" seeks a particular article. In this case, there is not an absolute majority of readers looking for Worcester, Worcestershire, so that should not be located at "Worcester". Cheers, Rai•me 03:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion

A discussion on a requested move that would affect this page can be found at Talk:Worcester. --RFBailey (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Worcester which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 29 July 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. A a convincing argument was made that the English city is not sufficiently the main topic for it to have the disambiguated title based on PRIMARYTOPIC. Like older ≠ wiser, I was much less convinced by the PLURALPT argument. Number 57 20:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

---

• Worcester (disambiguation) → Worcester
• Worcester → Worcester, England

– There is no clear primary topic. We have two ways we assess primary topics:

• What are readers searching for: "highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." In this case, the English city does not come close to receiving an overwhelming majority of page views, nor is it even the top viewed city at that name. Worcester, Massachusetts receives on average Worcester close to double the page views, and has been going back years (as far back as I was able with the page view tool). That is before you even include the other topics with that name, like Worcester, South Africa -- when we do that, we're looking at the subject getting something like 25 percent of page views where we usually demand 85-100. So it is clear that in terms of what readers are looking for it is not the primary topic. If page views indicate that the only potential primary is actually a different topic, there is not much of a case.

• The second is longterm significance. I actually do think the English city is potentially the most notable of pages at this topic by at least a bit of a margin. It is certainly the oldest, and the namesake of the others (although we don't base primary topic decisions on those factors alone). But is that so overwhelming to justify ignoring that huge disparity between what readers clearly find the most significant and what editors do? The metrics we generally use don't support it, and a primary topic should be overwhelmingly clear. A search in Google books, which I know is a common way we look at long term notability in these discussions, brings up mixed results for different topics. The Massachusetts city has about twice as many article space articles linking to it. The Massachusetts city and the South African city both have a larger population, as another example. I don't think a primary topic necessarily has to have the highest population, although it certainly sets the bar higher if it does not(and it is tough to find examples of it). Again, we aren't trying simply to prove that the English city is the most notable, but by an overwhelmingly large margin to the point where we can assume readers in the long term would consider it more significant even though they don't right now. The English city wasn't the intended target for readers over the past 10 years, and there is no indication it would be for the next 10, or 20 or 50.

There are rare cases where pages that do not get an overwhelming majority of page views can be considered the primary topic, and fewer, rarer cases where it can be when another page is actually getting a clear majority of page views (I can't think of any immediately, but they probably do exist). But in those cases the long term notability disparity must be so, overwhelmingly huge to justify that (like planet name vs. a pop song), and we'd need actual tangible proof of that beyond gut feelings.

I know discussions about cities can get needlessly heated and sometimes nationalistic (the last move discussion six years ago was derailed by canvassing), so I'd just ask users to remember that disambiguation and primary topics are about helping readers, not about anyone's pride or personal views. Yaksar (let's chat) 03:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Separately, per our naming policy for English cities, the move would not be to Worcester, Worcestershire. Wikipedia:UKPLACE: "When the city and county use variants of the same name, disambiguate with England for clarity throughout the English-speaking world; thus Lincoln, England, not Lincoln, Lincolnshire.:--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes this is correct, there is only 1 Worcester in England[1]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• strong support this is brought up roughly every 5 years. I strongly support changing it for the above stated reasons, but the status quo always seems to win out. Perhaps the new, updated, population and page view statistics will convince others it is finally the time to make these moves.Found5dollar (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, it seems always tough because discussions get easily derailed by things like canvassing or users pointing to policies like WP:RECENTISM or WP:USPLACE without actually reading what those pages say. Hopefully this time we can stick to actual facts and evidence!--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• agreed. Worcester needs to be brought inline with other pages with the similar "multiple cities around the world with the same name and none obviously the most notable" issues; namely Durham, Richmond, Cheddar, Portland, and Rochester. Found5dollar (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• These days I'm generally not in favour of having primary topics unless they're but there is a similar point (that I added to USPLACE) that readers and editors are used to seeing US places with the state included and thus can be expected to search/link for them with the state included. If this logic (WP:PLURALPT) applies to Peanuts and Queens then I don't see why it wouldn't apply here namely because readers and editors are used to seeing US settlements with the state included, they can be expected to search/link to them with the state more often see User talk:Yaksar#Danbury. I'd also noted that unlike Peanuts and Queens the Massachusetts city is named after the English one. I think we need to considerably tighten primary topic criteria and Peanuts should surely be moved and probably also Queens and Worcester but if this isn't current guidance then I weak oppose. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Crouch, Swale -- I'd point out that the page you cite, WP:USPLACE, specifically says not to use that logic: "When weighing a U.S. city against other possible primary topics, the U.S. city should never be considered a partial title match if the base name of the city is the same as the term being considered." So I am not sure why disagreements about when plurals should be disambiguated would mean we should go against a separate guideline. And a Google Books search for "Worcester is" confirms that what you are saying here is not actually the case.--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that also ascribes some sort of uniqueness to US cities that doesn't actually exist -- to use super obvious examples, yes, our guidelines have us disambiguate Orlando and Nashville but not North Battleford or Pucklechurch, I guarantee if you go to a person in, say, Tokyo and mention each of those places without disambiguation, they are far more likely to recognize the first two, right? Or for the example you list above, a Google books search for "Danbury is" seems to only bring up results for the Connecticut city.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

USPLACE notes that the US place should never be treated as a PTM but the footnote that I added notes in the same way as PLURALPT that readers and editors are more likely to expect this titling due to the fact nearly all of them are titled like this (and how the're referred to in real life). PLURALPT says "Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, and can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form, the intentional use of a plural form by a reader or editor can be evidence that a separate primary topic exists at the plural form" but also says (similar to USPLACE which I added last year) "A plural of a countable noun should never be treated as a part title match when determining primary topic.". This does seem to be similar situations, we can argue that most readers will include the state when searching or most people will use the singular when searching but at the same time we should never treat US places or plural forms as PTMs. Consider the 3 options of PLURALPT, (1) same as singular (Smiles goes to Smile, (2) no primary for plural (Wall is an article but Walls goes to a DAB) and (3) goes to a different article (Peanut is an article but Peanuts goes to the comic strip) with USPLACE you can have (1) plain title has a primary topic (Danbury goes to Danbury, Connecticut) (2) no primary topic (Durham is a DAB) or (3) the primary topic is something else (Worcester is about the English city). Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

USPLACE has been debated numerous times as you can see from the talk page even though the 2 US places are far more likely to be known by someone in Japan. I've only heard of the Florida Orlando and Tennessee Nashville outside WP and only know of Pucklechurch due to my interest in places. Indeed Google Books does appear to show all results for the Connecticut city so yes I think that proves the point for that one. However a Books search for Peanuts does show more results for the nut than the comic strip though the comic strip is also prominent there. A Books search for Queens is mixed but there does appear to be slightly more results for the royal meaning. A Books search for Worcester does appear to show slightly more results for the English one than the Massachusetts one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand, but we should be clear: USPLACE is unequivocal that US cities should not be treated as partial title matches -- the footnote you added, as far as I can tell, gets a little confusing, and was never discussed, supported or otherwise considered on the talk page, right? Given that it seemingly is negating the crystal clear sentence it is attached to (should never be considered a partial title match if the base name of the city is the same as the term being considered), I'm not sure it is super helpful with this discussion. Given the easily available number of sources about the Massachusetts town that show up when you search "Worcester is," clearly you can't argue people only refer to it with the state name. If you think we should rework how we approach plural subjects, that's obviously fine but should happen in a different forum.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes US places should never be treated as PTMs is the same thing that I added in response to PLURALPT which says in equivalence "A plural of a countable noun should never be treated as a part title match when determining primary topic") even though similar to the footnote PLURALPT also says "Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, and can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form, the intentional use of a plural form by a reader or editor can be evidence that a separate primary topic exists at the plural form". Yes there was no discussion on the talk page for the footnote but there was also no discussion for the sentence that US places should never be treated as PTMs (which I certainly agree with). That was my point with Peanuts that even though the countable noun is at the singular form it should not be treated as a PTM for the plural form, the same logic applies here in that the MA city is not a PTM for the plain term, however in addition to both points the long-term significance for Peanuts likely favours the nut while for Worcester likely favours the English city. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm still confused about your stance on this page though -- you are acknowledging there is not a primary topic, but your !vote is a protest based on what you feel are inconsistencies with our guidelines for plural nouns? Like, if we were to change how we approached a page like Peanuts then you would switch to supporting (or not opposing) this move? Because if you see this move as similar to the other examples you cited, where you !voted there was no primary topic, I'd think you would also be doing the same here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes because as already stated I don't think primary topics a good ideal unless really clear (like Paris) but there are reasonable arguments based on the fact that readers and editors are likely to expect the title of the US city (usage) and that its the namesake of the others (long-term significance) and the fact that there's a direct link. I'm not arguing against this mainly because of inconsistencies in guidelines since one poor decision shouldn't lead to another and opposing one in protest of another would be inconsistent with WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:POINT. Note for example I did make this RM due to the time meaning being the original but later agreed that there was no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I see. I'd say that sounds more like a neutral than a weak oppose, but I don't think it's worth pushing you on that front, and we seem to be dominating the discussion :) --Yaksar (let's chat) 20:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The cathedral city in England is the clear primary topic in terms of long-term and historical significance and probably, given it's the county town of an English county, in modern significance too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Given that it so obviously is not in terms of usage, would you mind giving some evidence we usually use to back up that sort of claim, such as number of incoming links, Google books results for "Worcester is," page length, or reader interest in years past? Otherwise we are just going by personal gut feelings of what should be considered more significant. And since the topic so clearly fails the first test of a primary topic, I would imagine this would need to be much clearer than gut feelings or personal views.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sometimes we have to use a bit of common sense and I think the long-term and historical significance is very clear. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That the Worcester in England is historically significant is undoubted; that it is substantially more historically significant than the one in Massachusetts is (part of) what's at issue, and the fact that it's being questioned should indicate that this is not a matter of "common sense" or "very clear" consensus. As to its present-day and future significance, I note that Worcester, Mass., is also a cathedral city, of the local Catholic diocese. Furthermore, Worcester, Mass., is also a "county town" (here we would say "county seat" or, using the archaic legal term in Massachusetts, "shire town"). Apart from the nearly 2-to-1 difference in population within city limits, note that measuring strictly by numbers the Massachusetts county is also bigger: Worcestershire (UK) is 672 square miles with a population of 592,057. Worcester County, Massachusetts, is 1,579 square miles with a population of 830,622. Worcester (UK) may be the largest city in its county, but it's not in the top five in the West Midlands, a region of about 6 million population. Worcester (Mass.) is both its county's largest city and the second-largest city in Massachusetts, a state of nearly 7 million. The English city's predominance based upon its ecclesiastical or governmental stature, or status as a regional center, does not seem clear to me. Neither city is predominant. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 23:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I would point out that a cathedral city in England doesn't just mean it has a cathedral in it (cities with 19th or 20th century Catholic cathedrals are certainly not regarded as cathedral cities)! It generally means it has a medieval cathedral and has therefore been significant as a religious and administrative centre for many centuries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

A US county seat is not the same thing as an English county town, a county seat is more like a district HQ, for example Pershore is the HQ of Wychavon district. An English county town is more like a US state capital. Although English counties have less powers they have similar recognizability. There is no separate article for Worcester district since although it expanded in 1974 it is more less concurrent with the settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This is completely off the track, but the assertion that An English county town is more like a US state capital is complete and utter nonsense. older ≠ wiser 21:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a definitely separate argument that is hopefully beyond the merits of this case and something we don't need to be debating on this page, and is also certainly something I did not put in the proposal :) --Yaksar (let's chat) 22:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I sympathize with Yaksar not wanting to go down this comparative-government rabbit hole, but if an English county town is indeed similar to a U.S. state capital, that would be a substantial feather in its cap and a step toward WP:PRIMARYTOPIC-dom, and it's a question that deserves to be settled. In my opinion, what makes a state capital more prominent than a non-capital, all other factors being equal, is not the "recognizability" of its surrounding region but the fact that this is the place where legislators meet to exercise sovereign (or, if you prefer, co-sovereign) authority, as opposed to the more administrative remit of a city council, county commission or (as I understand it) a UK county council. Is Worcestershire a co-sovereign unit of the UK with, for example, its own criminal code, written, debated, amendable and enforceable only in that county, and different from that of Shropshire or Oxfordshire? If not, then Worcester is nothing like a state capital. Please do feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding the role that counties play in UK governance. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 05:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes the point of "recognizability" is that in the US states are generally used to identify places, in other words people would normally identify Orlando as being in Florida while in England people would identify Kettering as being in Northamptonshire. If there are multiple places within a US state the county is used to disambiguate while in England the district is. English counties do not have their own laws and similar (the law of England and Wales applies) they do still have similar recognizability which was my point above that they "have less powers". Not that is necessarily matters than much but American hierarchy goes United States>state>county>administrative settlement, English goes England>county>district>parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Quite. Alleging that an American county seat is the same as an English county town shows a lack of understanding of English administration. The latter has the same "prestige" as a state capital and in many cases far more historical notability. The fact states have more power than English counties is not really the point. Counties are our highest level of administrative subdivision and their historic capitals are extremely notable. For instance, generally this was where the assizes were held. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

For me, subjective evaluations of importance are besides the point. The English city is clearly more "important" than the American city, and the degree to which that is the case is irrelevant, because the American city receives much higher pageviews, making disambiguation the only viable solution IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Yaksar and Necrothesp: re "page length, or reader interest" above this does show this (although its for the German Wikipedia) does show 1,319 views for the English city v 418 for the Massachusetts city and a page size of 24,556 v 5,659. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks [[User:Crouch, Swale. I think that's a perfectly fair but not overwhelming proof point to consider, and I think it is very possible that in the deutschsprachige Welt the UK city would be a clear primary topic. But I don't think in this case that would overcome the English-speaking evidence. And I do want to be clear -- while there doesn't seem to be a primary topic here, I would absolutely oppose an argument that any topic other than the UK city is the primary as well.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Note for example that Danbury is a DAB there, see views[[2]]. But indeed as you note we're working out on English so that's probably not strong enough and the ratio is less than 10>1 anyway so it arguably shouldn't be primary there. Yes we most certainly shouldn't make another one primary, in addition to how people search it would also cause numerous problems with people landing on the base name from external websites. As you also noted at the previous request. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Well thought-out rationale. This is a split primarytopic at best, so the dab page is where the basename should lead. And just for the record, "named after" is not a consideration for primarytopic (see Boston for the classic example). Dohn joe (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Dohn joe: Any comment on the points similar to PLURALPT that readers and editors are used to seeing US cities with the state and thus can be expected to search/link to then with the state? Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I don't see them as analogous really. The point of PLURALPT is that it is highly unusual for singular and plural forms to refer to different WP topics. So when you see usage of a plural form, it is strong evidence of a different topic. With USPLACE, while it's true that the CITY, STATE form is very familiar, the unadorned CITY form is also universally used and recognized in every case. No one, aside from WP wonks, would be astonished to find an article (instead of a redirect) at Nashville, Tucson, Miami Beach, Omaha, or Albuquerque, any more than they are astonished currently to find articles (instead of redirects) at Indianapolis, Baltimore, Cincinnati, San Diego, or Milwaukee. I don't think one can say that readers are much more likely to search for CITY, STATE than CITY in any given case. The upshot is, each CITY form can be weighed against any other usage of the word, whether it be a non-U.S. locale, or something different entirely (Anchorage, Mobile). Normal disambiguation rules apply - even when the result might be a primaryredirect or a dab page. Dohn joe (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Not entirely separately, there is an ongoing discussion at the talk page for USPLACE on whether that PLURALPT rationale about primary topics for US cities should be codified in our US cities naming guidelines that I encourage everyone (whether or not they support it) to participate in!--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes its certainly true that people who don't know our NC would just as much expect our articles to use the city name alone but the same logic could apply to plurals, for example Category:Windows, Category:Queens, Category:Showgirls and Category:Peanuts are all about the countable noun, not the proper noun which is primary in the mainspace. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more helpful to think of it this way: plurals have been given a special exception based on consensus. You may totally disagree with how we treat them, and that's fine and is relevant to those discussions. But it is not relevant to ones about US cities, where that special exception that was decided about plurals has no connection.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I agree plurals should be treated that way (although I do think we should almost never have a different topic as primary for a plural form) but as noted this argument has implicitly been used in numerous RMs in numerous years to. In all of the 4 cases I would certainly oppose making the noun the primary topic in mainspace.Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'll let Dohn joe give their own stance, but this is pretty much irrelevant given how you can quickly search "Worcester is" to see use of the Massachusetts city without its state name. It's about the same as saying readers are used to seeing Bosnia and Herzegovina, and therefore the country is not the primary topic for Bosnia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• One further wrinkle: Starting next year, the Boston Red Sox top minor-league team (AAA) will move to Worcester, which result in the city name appearing alone in sports stories and standings tables across the eastern United States. This is an exception to what User:Crouch, Swale notes is the usual practice in U.S. journalism. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 20:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes that would probably count toward's that Massachusetts city in terms of DABCONCPT similar to Liverpool there the FC is often called "Liverpool" alone. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Should lead to the dab page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. For me, arguments to historical significance are valid for: 1) Demoting a page that would otherwise be primary by pageviews. So the historical importance of Worcester, England is a good reason to not make Worcester, Massachusetts primary. 2) Comparing apples vs. well... Apple Inc. Commons nouns generally take precedence over entities that have many times the pageviews. When all the major topics are place names, I would only declare a primary topic if that topic exceeds 55-60% of pageviews and that topic is subjectively more important than any other single topic. If either of these conditions is not met, then there is no primary topic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support, per nom. Neither of these cities (nor Worcester, Western Cape, which I would presume a South African would prioritize ahead of both) is the primary topic. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 23:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support and note that the closing admin is expected to fix the 500+ incoming wikilinks, even though the admin bit is not required to perform that clean up; otherwise I would have carried out the consensus rather than just piling on. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• There are probably those who have ways of doing that much faster than I can, so maybe it's not actually efficient, but given I put a good chunk of time into the nomination I feel that at the very least I should pitch in on that part too!--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to pitch in as well. Found5dollar (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• As a supporter of the move I would also be willing to help with the links. Maybe the closing admin can suggest a division of labo(u)r along alphabetical lines, e.g., "I'll take pages starting A-J, User:X takes pages starting K-M, User:Y takes pages starting N-P, ..." etc.

• Support. I don't buy the supposed similarity to WP:PLURALPT. older ≠ wiser 17:30, 6 August 2020 (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.

@Yaksar, Found5dollar, and Toll Booth Willie: I have fixed around 550 of the incoming links. According to my AWB, there are a further 1,650 to do, so if you want to do a share, that would be great. If you sort them alphabetically, it would be 13th Cavalry Brigade (British Indian Army) – Henry Stephens (doctor), Henry Walton Ellis to Pakington family and Pakistani cricket team in England and Ireland in 2016 to Ziggy Stardust Tour. Cheers, Number 57 21:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Happy to start doing this, but I can't seem to figure out how to sort alphabetically (I may be showing how much I usually look at the What Links Here page). Am I just not able to find it or do I need to download an extension to be able to sort that page?--Found5dollar (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Another question: Should we be updating links in mainspace only, or also in Talk:, User: and User talk:? _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 04:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Found5dollar: You can sort them in WP:AWB using the Filter function. @Toll Booth Willie: I don't think that's necessary, although it will help future discussions. I would avoid touching anything that is archived though. Number 57 11:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Uh oh, I'm on a mac...--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Found5dollar, Toll Booth Willie, and Yaksar: Nothing is stopping you doing this manually if you cannot access AWB. Just start at the top or bottom of the 'what links here' list and crack on. Just refresh it regularly to make sure you're not duplicating anyone else. Number 57 15:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I've started doing. The slapdash approach is maybe not the most efficient but still certainly makes progress. Also, just a heads up for folks that a number of the links seem to be intended for other pages, like South African city in Western Cape, which we will want to keep an eye out for.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Same here, just plucking away at random ones on the list. Finding that many of the concert tour pages are intended for Worcester, Massachusetts.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Did a couple random ones and all the "Thomas"es. Mostly to Worcester, England, though saw one for Worcestershire. Tried to fix overlinking and Repeat linking when I saw them. PaleAqua (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I came late to this party but have been using DisamAssist to help out. I checked links into Worcester in 2018, fixing 100 meant for Worcester MA and a few others, so there shouldn't be many mislinks left. Thanks to everyone else who's been helping out. Certes (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you to User:Number 57, User:Found5dollar, User:PaleAqua, User:Certes and User:Toll Booth Willie (and apologies to anyone I missed!) for your work here -- it looks like we finished the job yesterday. Given how quickly this behemoth was tackled, I don't think I'll ever accept "there are too many incoming links to clean up" as a reason against an otherwise supported move!--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Since this change, the page views for Worcester, England have reduced considerably compared to similar cities in England.

One factor in this, is that the new page is not in the top results on Google search currently, neither .com nor .uk nor DDG. Th redirect page is high on the results; the summaries including basic wikipedia information have gone.

Do you have any process for raising issues like this with search engines? Jim Killock (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

"County Borough of Worcester" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect County Borough of Worcester. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 9#County Borough of Worcester until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The Banner talk 10:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

"Worcester/Archive" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Worcester/Archive. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 9#Worcester/Archive until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)