Talk:Worcester (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

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)

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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)