Jump to content

Talk:Durham: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 150: Line 150:


Would those who supported the move like to fix [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Durham&namespace=0&limit=500 this?] [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 16:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Would those who supported the move like to fix [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Durham&namespace=0&limit=500 this?] [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 16:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I think lots of us are Duncan, would you like to contribute as well? Grab some links and dig in!

Revision as of 06:38, 14 October 2014

WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Consolidated move propose comments

  • In favour of "primary topic" disambiguation
    • Mintguy, Nevilley (strongly!), mav, AN
    • UK Durham is historic, and what most think of. It should be primary topic just like London and France. Also, most inbound links are to UK Durham
  • In favour of "equal" or "hub" disambiguation
    • Martin, Eclecticology, nnn9245 (very strongly), Mmmstrawberries, (very strongly as well)
    • NC Durham is more populous, less historical, but more present in google - it's unclear, so hub is best. Durham is historic, but it's no London or France, more like a Lancaster.
    • Also the Durham, NC article seems to be much more extensive (this is probably a sign of something) and I would disagree with the assertion that most would think of the UK Durham, before Durham, NC, an important center of medicine and tobacco history.
    • The Durham, NC article now has quite a few more inbound links than the "Durham" article.
  • Sitting on the fence...

See wikipedia:disambiguation to learn the different between "primary topic" and "equal" disambiguation. After some debate, it was decided to use "primary topic" disambiguation.

Removed now-irrelevant and near-hysterical rant from some hypersensitive ... ooops, it was me. Oh well. See para below. :) Nevilley 11:26 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Nevilley, I have no intention of reopening the debate or of moving the page. My purpose was to clear up the talk:Durham page, and this talk page, by refactoring the content. I was wandering around meatball, and saw some advocacy of FixYourWiki and thought I'd apply it here. No need to panic. Martin

I am aware that adding lots of Durhams to this page opens me to the accusation of being a nerdy collector. However, I do think there is something interesting and significant about the growth of place names round the world, and what has been named after what, and I think an encyclopedia is a good place to see such a list even if articles for all entries on the list may well never exist. Nevilley 09:51 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

Having a complete collection is, IMO, a good thing. BTW, which Durham is the song "I'm gonna leave old Durham Town" about? -- SGBailey 10:46 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)


How about at the top putting a short list of the most well known ones and then the full list. At present both Durham NC is quite far down the page. - Ams80 00:46 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Please feel free to have a go but be aware that it is one way of opening a can of worms! On Wikipedia we seem to be particularly good at flame wars on the subject of what is famous or well-known in any field ... :) Nevilley 08:25 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)
So far so good - nice one! :) Nevilley 08:59 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Redlinks and partial matches culled from page

Red links with no incoming links and no indications of appropriate blue links or potential for article:

Argentina

Barbados

Canada

Germany

Jamaica

United States of America

The following are at best only partial matches to the term "Durham" with no indication that they are commonly known as simply Durham:

older ≠ wiser 16:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation discussion

There is a discussion relating to this page ongoing at Talk:Durham. More editors are welcomed to comment there. Strikehold (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a request to move Durham (disambiguation) to Durham; see Talk:Durham#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close - Wrong template - Malformed move over existing article (non-admin closure) In ictu oculi (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Durham (disambiguation) → Durham – No clear primary topic. I think this should be revisited. I do request people look at the facts, and not only use reasons based upon Nationality interests 90.201.191.213 (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2014 (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.

Request Move

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: consensus to move the pages as proposed, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– No clear topic. Durham in England and in NC are of importance to their respective countries. People outside of the USA and UK may equally have heard of Durham UK for it's history, or Durham NC for Duke University, The movie Bull Durham, The research triangle, etc. Please do not vote on solely nationalistic intent. 90.201.191.213 (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Durham/Archive_1#Requested_move In ictu oculi (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that you can vote on renaming Durham to Durham, England in this talk section. Also, you need to follow the naming guideline for city names in England. Personally I prefer cities to NOT be named without an additional word that describes where they are located, because one word isn't specific enough, but I didn't set the rules up on Wikipedia back in the day, so it doesn't matter what I like. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with having the discussion here, as long as there is notice on the talk page over at Durham (as there is). There is nothing at WP:UKPLACE which would preclude disambiguating the article on the county town of County Durham, but we'd have to be satisfied that we disambiguate appropriately in accordance with that naming cnovention. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose. Durham is more important than Durham, North Carolina. It's the county town and largest town in County Durham, which is named after it as are many things in and around the county. Durham NC is neither the state capital or the largest city in the state, just one of many towns, cities and counties called Durham in the US. Duke? I think I've heard of it but did not associate it with Durham NC. It's not a significant international institution like Havard, Yale. The existing naming scheme works well, with Durham, North Carolina and other US cities and towns called Durham properly disambiguated per WP:USPLACE. It's not like Durham, North Carolina could be title "Durham" by our naming conventions so there is no need to do this to disambiguate it and Durham.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may be useful if someone with a non UK, non US IP address can do a search on Durham and report on the hits from the first page or so. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Durham got 57,000 page views in the last 90 days, Durham, North Carolina got 52,000. Readers are obviously looking for one or the other. So a hatnote is enough -- there is no reason to make them go through a disambiguation page. Update I noticed that the the population of Durham, England is only 43,000. That's less than a than a tenth of the population of the North Carolina Durham. But what matters is that a significant number of readers are looking it up. Perhaps they assume that a city with a notable county and cathedral named after it must itself be notable. Voice of reason 2 (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • very few I would think. If I type "Durham" into the search box then Durham is first, Durham, North Carolina second, hopefully leaving few unable to find the second if they want it. Internal links should all go to the right page; any that don't should be fixed. External search engines are the only unknown but they generally tend to work very well for geographic searches as they use your geolocation (unless you go out of your way to hide it) to better find results near you.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So going to a disambiguation page first would be the easiest. Regardless of location, everyone can quickly find the Durham they want, without being directed through the Durham that they may very well not want at all, possibly confusing the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.213 (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • that clearly shows that Durham England is not the primary topic. If you subtract the NC hits from Durham, you get less than half of the total hits for here, clearly indicating that England is the wrong topic to be primary. Either it should be a disambiguation page, or the NC city. We can assume that many people looking for NC will come here, so many of the hits for here are not for this city. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't see anything at WP:UKPLACE saying it would be Durham (England). Am I missing something? Second, I believe you need to offer some kind of support/proof for your second statement. Regards. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have you been everywhere and confirmed this? I am betting that yes, in County Durham, England, where you are,that people that say "Durham" mean the one that you live in. If you are in the USA, or elsewhere, it may mean Durham NC, which is why the request for "Durham" to go to the disambiguation page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.213 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it relevant where any of us live? Or if it is, how about you get an account and share your own personal details such as where you live? Because it seems you have some agenda here, having made few edits outside this discussion, and hiding behind an IP while you try and push an agenda is not going to win you much support here.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point exactly! Why is it relevant where anyone lives? People from one locale or another should be directed to a disambiguation page, so that they find the one they are most interested in! Being directed to one page, while then having to click through for a disambiguation, or in this case, Durham, NC, is saying that one is more important than the other, simply for nationalistic reasons. I see that the points you've raised, that it's a county town, and county seat, are both also consistent with Durham NC. Durham NC is a university centre, and a large regional transport hub. Is there a reason the disambiguation page or Durham NC should be secondary, other than the reason that Durham (England) is the one most familiar to those of us in England? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.213 (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support use Durham, england or Durham (England; clearly we should avoid UK and US bias, which various US and UK cities greatly exhibit in article naming preferences, and just result in people living in the area flooding the RM request in favour of their own personal home topics. In Canada, it is neither US nor UK that is the primary topic, but a region of Ontario [1] ; In Australia, there is no primary topic [2] -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - to remove any sense of regional bias. Onel5969 (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support making disambiguation page the default landing page. In Canada (as noted by 65.94.171.225), the primary topic for this subject is the regional municipality of Durham in Ontario, currently home to over 650,000 (ie - significantly more than the UK and US locations combined). A Google search returns only Ontario-related links in the first ten pages of hits, except for one link about the UK county seat in the first page. Being "historic" should not be the primary motivation for placing an article at the simple name, excepting if it is viewed as such globally, which is not the case here. Moreover, there is no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as the page view hits for the UK and US are similar (the UK location likely garners some hits intended for other locations, given its current placement). Mindmatrix 14:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your first ten pages of Google results for "Durham" are going to be influenced by the fact that you're doing the search from a Canadian IP address — search results are geographically targeted, so a user in Canada would see hits relating to Pickering/Ajax/Oshawa take precedence over the other Durhams, while users in England or the United States would each see their own Durhams take precedence if they did the same search. I completely support the move, for the reasons I explained below, but there's little question here that the Durham Regional Municipality takes a back seat to the Durhams in England and North Carolina on the international prominence scale. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Is there a plan in place to migrate all the links currently to Durham over to Durham, England? That's my one concern. Yes, WP:UKPLACE says to prefer the plain placename, but tacking ", England" onto the end of the name is the recommended disambiguation when there's an overlap with the county name. —C.Fred (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support, as there is no indication that the town in England is the primary topic. Results discussed show the opposite. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support as it appears the two articles have similar traffic and similar prominence within their own countries. Ncjon (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The Durham in England and the Durham in North Carolina are of similar prominence and have comparable levels of wikitraffic, but neither one really has an overwhelming claim to "primary topic" over the other one. The idea that a British town or city should always get undabbed-name precedence over other places of the same name in other countries regardless of size or wikitraffic considerations, just because the British place historically had the name before the Canadian or American one did, carries no weight under Wikipedia's naming conventions and needs to be permanently mothballed. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I actually have no issue with a subject becoming the primary topic for a term, even if it is less well known in other countries than other pages of the same name, as long as it is clearly the primary intended target for the majority of Wikipedia readers using the term. This is not one of those cases, however -- all of the stats make it clear that regardless of national origin there is no way to interpret the readers' intentions as primarily focused on the city in England. With populated areas, I would also say that noting the earlier age of one city over another can be helpful in these discussions, but probably should not be weighted enough to overcome an opposite disparity in current population.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Durham (disambiguation) to Durham, but Oppose Durham to Durham, England. I would prefer Durham moving to Durham, County Durham per Washington, Tyne and Wear, Boston, Lincolnshire, Windsor, Berkshire and Brentwood, Essex, where British place names de-disambiguate to name, county. I think there's probably a 50:50 split between UK readers (wanting the north east England city) and US readers (wanting the NC city) (and the viewing stats support this). The English Durham is a nice place to visit, but in terms of foreign awareness, it's nowhere near London, Birmingham or Manchester. Durham, England may be problematic, as you might inadvertently offend the odd Geordie by lumping them in with London. Just for the record, my top Google hit for "Durham" is Durham University's home page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:UKPLACE, "when the city and the county use variants of the same name (and disambiguation is required) disambiguate with England for clarity throughout the English-speaking world; thus Lincoln, England, not Lincoln, Lincolnshire." This seems like it would be one of those cases.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would be interesting to see a few more examples, the only comparable one I could think of (where the city is not the primary topic) is Cork (city), not Cork, County Cork or Cork, Ireland. I was expecting Derby to be a disambig (because of Derby (horse race)), but it isn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perth, Scotland, rather than Perthshire, is another, I guess.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering, what is the metric we are using that gives precedence to the university in Durham, England while dismissing the one in Durham, North Carolina?--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as Duke, in Durham NC is ranked 18th, and Durham University in Durham, County Durham is ranked 83rd, I would say there would be more precedence placed upon the NC University[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.213 (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ranking is irrelevant. Duke is known as...Duke. Durham is known as...Durham. I've heard of Duke University, of course, but I had no idea it was in Durham, NC. I should imagine even many Americans don't know where it is. The University of Durham, on the other hand, is clearly in Durham, England. It is also England's third-oldest university and, while it has fallen down the rankings in recent years, was once second only to Oxbridge in prestige. But the university is only of secondary importance to the city's notability in any case. The cathedral, one of the oldest and most important in the country, and the city's place in English history are far more so. Now it is a relatively small and unimportant town in the grand scheme of things. Once it was one of the most important cities in England. Has Durham, NC, ever been one of the most important cities in the United States? I think not. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary of popular culture. It takes into consideration former importance as well as current importance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, what you're saying is, with regards to Durham England: "Now it is a relatively small and unimportant town in the grand scheme of things" but yet, it should still get priority, because... it's in England? The argument doesn't hold water against the argument that they are both of equal relative importance. Nobody is saying Durham NC is vastly more important as the Durham you are from, rather, that the page should go to disambiguation, so that it's easier to find, what seem to be, by all metrics here, equally important places in the wikiworld. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.213 (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but if you really think I said that then you blatantly didn't actually read what I wrote. And I'm not from Durham, although I did visit it once. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A difference of only 4,000 (out of 50,000) pageviews in 90 days is not enough to make Durham, England the primary topic. kennethaw88 • talk 04:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, being an old, formerly important, town in England is not sufficient to make a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 11:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Being oldest does not make something the primary topic. -- Calidum 18:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Voice of reason 2. Yes, they opined oppose, but clearly the numbers there show no preference between the two places most involved in the discussion. If you then consider all of the other places not discussed in the numbers, it is clear that no one place is clearly the primary topic here. There is a second question about the destination of Durham. If there is consensus for the dab page move, then it should be moved as nominated. Any discussion of a better name should happen later and not cause a delay in moving the dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport. Only 2.5 percent of the traffic is continuing to the disambiguation page (511/20469). But judging from the comments above, this issue has struck a nationalistic nerve. We don't want readers to think that Wikipedia discriminates against thier geographic region. Claimsworth (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2014 (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.

To those who supported the move

Would those who supported the move like to fix this? DuncanHill (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think lots of us are Duncan, would you like to contribute as well? Grab some links and dig in!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Durham&oldid=629542591"