This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Oppose -- Windsor is synonymous throughout the world with its 1,000 year old royal residence. Its history and importance is far greater than any other place of the same name.
MRSC14:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The subject of this article is the town, not the royal residence. There already is an article about the royal residence, at
Windsor Castle. Perhaps Windsor should redirect to that? --
SwissCelt14:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Windsor, its castle and its royal house are famous throughout the world. Windsor, Ontario, may be bigger, but it's nowhere near as significant historically or as well-known. --
Necrothesp15:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --I agree with the comments of Mrsteviec and Necrothesp above. If people want to find other meanings of Windsor they can go to the disambiguation page. Secondly, on the basis of it's political and cultural importance, Windsor deserves it's own entry on the same basis as
Oxford,
Cambridge and
London and many other historic places. If Windsor is changed then it is setting a precedent and all such places should be disambiguated which would be a time-consuming and pedantic waste of time.
Vivenot15:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC) as amended below.
Oppose on two main grounds - The subject of this article, with a whole millennium of history to its name, is considerably more notable than
Windsor, Ontario. The subject of this article is also the original use of the word Windsor that has been replicated throughout the world. Incidentally if it is moved it should not be moved to
Windsor, England because that goes against naming conventions that have a taken a lot of work to put right - the correct name would be
Windsor, Berkshire. --
Francs200015:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Support it needs to disambig between Windsors - England, Ontario, Castle (England), Family (Royal House of England), Station (Montreal), etc.
132.205.45.11018:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Support. This discussion is backwards. Here is the
guideline:
Some topics have a primary topic which editors agree is the primary meaning for the term (Rome, for example). In this case the disambiguation page is named Rome (disambiguation), and the primary topic keeps the topic word or phrase. Ensure that the disambiguation page links not to the primary meaning, but to an unambiguous meaning (Rome, Italy rather than Rome, for example). The ambiguous meaning might redirect to the unambiguous meaning, or visa versa. In other cases, where there is no such consensus, disambiguation pages are named after the topic itself (Table, for example).
Support. (but
Windsor, Berkshire not
Windsor, England). cf
Perth where both
Perth, Australia and
Perth, Scotland have good claims to be the primary topic, the first on size grounds and the second on historical grounds. In that case which is similar to the Windsor one, we agreed to make Perth a disambiguation page some time ago. And so it has remained despite occasional efforts to change it one way or the other. --
Derek Ross |
Talk20:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Support The issue is not whether a group of people in one region knows of a particular context of Windsor, but rather how many such groups exist, and their numbers. In north-eastern North America (and most of Canada, obviously), the term Windsor is overwhelmingly associated with the Canadian city for several reasons, primarily its association with the NA auto industry and as a major throughway for trade between Canada and mid-western USA. Roughly 60-80 million people make this association, at a minimum. In this case, I think there is sufficient reason to use Windsor as a disambiguation page.
Mindmatrix20:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
No it's what most people are looking for when they look up the word
Windsor. Take a look at the "what links here" to this page and then to the other Windsors. Clearly with a thousand years of history attached to it the VAST majority of links for Windsor are going to be for this one. This topic deserves primary disambiguation.
Jooler21:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not the length of history that affects the distribution of links to this page; it's that the majority of links are already directed to the currently existing titles. Most links to this page are intended for the Windsor in Berkshire because the Windsor in Berkshire is the existing topic of this page, and the majority of links intended for
Windsor, Ontario already point directly to
Windsor, Ontario. In other words, this is an entirely tautological argument which has no bearing on the matter.
Bearcat23:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
You misunderstood. I referring to the number of links to each page. But as it turns out I miscounted anyway.
Jooler22:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
You say, Roughly 60-80 million people make this association, at a minimum. In this case, I think there is sufficient reason to use Windsor as a disambiguation page. What about the 60 to 80 million Brits who naturally associate Windsor with the town in England, leave alone the countless millions of other individuals around the world whose primary association is with the town with the castle in it? It feels to me that there is a bit of North American bias going on here. --
Francs200021:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
No, it would be a North American bias if people were arguing in favour of Windsor, Ontario owning the undisambiguated title Windsor, but that's not what's being requested here. What's being requested is a disambiguation page.
Bearcat23:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The current situation is a pro-UK bias; moving this article and putting thr dab page here would correct that. <sarcasm>But obviously, a pro-UK bias is a good thing, since it helps cancel out the pro-Merkin bias that everything online must automatically be assumed to have.</sarcasm> --
AJR01:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Support with move to
Windsor, Berkshire in line with naming conventions, rather than to
Windsor, England. Rationale as per Mendel. Being a Brit, I think of "our" Windsor first, but from looking around online, Windsor, Ontario seems to be just as notable. --
AJR01:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose: It is not the case that the north-eastern United States thinks first of
Windsor, Ontario. I would believe it of
Michigan; but it is false of Massachusetts or Pennsylvania. Since the argument of numbers is fallacious (and in any case, it is an Anglo-American dialect argument,which is deprecated), the question is whether the dab page is more convenient at
Windsor or
Windsor (disambiguation).With all due respect to Windsor, Ontario, more people looking for Windsor want this page, if only because many of those looking for "Windsor, Ontario" are searching with that phrase.
Septentrionalis
Support making this page a dab page. I think of Windsor in reference to the castle and the "house of..". The town in isolation isn't that interesting.
Secretlondon04:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Support move to
Windsor, Berkshire and creation of disambig. While I appreciate the significant history of the original place, the economic and geographical importance of other places of that name weigh it out.
Radagast12:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I would support the dab page, but not solely because of
Windsor, Ontario.
Windsor Castle,
House of Windsor and two other Windsors in England alone strongly suggest that the primary title should be the dab. But also support
Windsor, Berkshire. Proposer needs to be aware that when disambiguation is necessary for English towns and cities, they should be to Town, County, not Town, England.
Bearcat18:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment - I have altered the target page for the move in the initial proposal above to
Windsor, Berkshire so that the move is in line with Wikipedia naming conventions for British places. --
Francs200020:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Support as suggested by
User:Bearcat. I am thinking in terms of a potential wikipedia user who wants to look up Windsor. They might be looking for the castle, the royal family, any of the towns in England or Windsor, Ontario. We have no way of knowing which. A dab page would point them in the right direction and inform them of the other uses of the name. So, it is not an (unresolvable) issue of relative notability but of usability as an encyclopaedia.
Luigizanasi16:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Support. I think it is unfortunate that in proposing this change,
SwissCelt chose to talk about notability. This change has absolutely nothing to do with notability, and everything to do with usability of the encyclopedia. Some places are so universally well known that formal disambiguation seems pedantic and hence gets in the way of usability. For example, only a dolt or a perverse pedant would be confused by an unqualified reference to 'London' or 'New York'. It is clear from the debate above that 'Windsor' does not fall into this category, and properly disambiguating both the major contenders is the correct way to go forward. --
Chris j wood14:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I did so because this article has apparently been at both
Windsor, England and
Windsor, Berkshire. However, someone has moved it to its present location, thus preventing the move back without an administrator's intervention. Notability is thus an issue, as the alternative uses of "Windsor" will need to be of sufficient notability to overcome the bias towards primary topic disambiguation. I believe that they are of sufficient notability; not just
Windsor, Ontario, but
House of Windsor,
Windsor Castle, etc. --
SwissCelt20:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Oppose -- Windsor is synonymous throughout the world with its 1,000 year old royal residence. Its history and importance is far greater than any other place of the same name.
MRSC14:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The subject of this article is the town, not the royal residence. There already is an article about the royal residence, at
Windsor Castle. Perhaps Windsor should redirect to that? --
SwissCelt14:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Windsor, its castle and its royal house are famous throughout the world. Windsor, Ontario, may be bigger, but it's nowhere near as significant historically or as well-known. --
Necrothesp15:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose --I agree with the comments of Mrsteviec and Necrothesp above. If people want to find other meanings of Windsor they can go to the disambiguation page. Secondly, on the basis of it's political and cultural importance, Windsor deserves it's own entry on the same basis as
Oxford,
Cambridge and
London and many other historic places. If Windsor is changed then it is setting a precedent and all such places should be disambiguated which would be a time-consuming and pedantic waste of time.
Vivenot15:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC) as amended below.
Oppose on two main grounds - The subject of this article, with a whole millennium of history to its name, is considerably more notable than
Windsor, Ontario. The subject of this article is also the original use of the word Windsor that has been replicated throughout the world. Incidentally if it is moved it should not be moved to
Windsor, England because that goes against naming conventions that have a taken a lot of work to put right - the correct name would be
Windsor, Berkshire. --
Francs200015:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Support it needs to disambig between Windsors - England, Ontario, Castle (England), Family (Royal House of England), Station (Montreal), etc.
132.205.45.11018:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Support. This discussion is backwards. Here is the
guideline:
Some topics have a primary topic which editors agree is the primary meaning for the term (Rome, for example). In this case the disambiguation page is named Rome (disambiguation), and the primary topic keeps the topic word or phrase. Ensure that the disambiguation page links not to the primary meaning, but to an unambiguous meaning (Rome, Italy rather than Rome, for example). The ambiguous meaning might redirect to the unambiguous meaning, or visa versa. In other cases, where there is no such consensus, disambiguation pages are named after the topic itself (Table, for example).
Support. (but
Windsor, Berkshire not
Windsor, England). cf
Perth where both
Perth, Australia and
Perth, Scotland have good claims to be the primary topic, the first on size grounds and the second on historical grounds. In that case which is similar to the Windsor one, we agreed to make Perth a disambiguation page some time ago. And so it has remained despite occasional efforts to change it one way or the other. --
Derek Ross |
Talk20:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Support The issue is not whether a group of people in one region knows of a particular context of Windsor, but rather how many such groups exist, and their numbers. In north-eastern North America (and most of Canada, obviously), the term Windsor is overwhelmingly associated with the Canadian city for several reasons, primarily its association with the NA auto industry and as a major throughway for trade between Canada and mid-western USA. Roughly 60-80 million people make this association, at a minimum. In this case, I think there is sufficient reason to use Windsor as a disambiguation page.
Mindmatrix20:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
No it's what most people are looking for when they look up the word
Windsor. Take a look at the "what links here" to this page and then to the other Windsors. Clearly with a thousand years of history attached to it the VAST majority of links for Windsor are going to be for this one. This topic deserves primary disambiguation.
Jooler21:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not the length of history that affects the distribution of links to this page; it's that the majority of links are already directed to the currently existing titles. Most links to this page are intended for the Windsor in Berkshire because the Windsor in Berkshire is the existing topic of this page, and the majority of links intended for
Windsor, Ontario already point directly to
Windsor, Ontario. In other words, this is an entirely tautological argument which has no bearing on the matter.
Bearcat23:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
You misunderstood. I referring to the number of links to each page. But as it turns out I miscounted anyway.
Jooler22:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
You say, Roughly 60-80 million people make this association, at a minimum. In this case, I think there is sufficient reason to use Windsor as a disambiguation page. What about the 60 to 80 million Brits who naturally associate Windsor with the town in England, leave alone the countless millions of other individuals around the world whose primary association is with the town with the castle in it? It feels to me that there is a bit of North American bias going on here. --
Francs200021:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
No, it would be a North American bias if people were arguing in favour of Windsor, Ontario owning the undisambiguated title Windsor, but that's not what's being requested here. What's being requested is a disambiguation page.
Bearcat23:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The current situation is a pro-UK bias; moving this article and putting thr dab page here would correct that. <sarcasm>But obviously, a pro-UK bias is a good thing, since it helps cancel out the pro-Merkin bias that everything online must automatically be assumed to have.</sarcasm> --
AJR01:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Support with move to
Windsor, Berkshire in line with naming conventions, rather than to
Windsor, England. Rationale as per Mendel. Being a Brit, I think of "our" Windsor first, but from looking around online, Windsor, Ontario seems to be just as notable. --
AJR01:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose: It is not the case that the north-eastern United States thinks first of
Windsor, Ontario. I would believe it of
Michigan; but it is false of Massachusetts or Pennsylvania. Since the argument of numbers is fallacious (and in any case, it is an Anglo-American dialect argument,which is deprecated), the question is whether the dab page is more convenient at
Windsor or
Windsor (disambiguation).With all due respect to Windsor, Ontario, more people looking for Windsor want this page, if only because many of those looking for "Windsor, Ontario" are searching with that phrase.
Septentrionalis
Support making this page a dab page. I think of Windsor in reference to the castle and the "house of..". The town in isolation isn't that interesting.
Secretlondon04:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Support move to
Windsor, Berkshire and creation of disambig. While I appreciate the significant history of the original place, the economic and geographical importance of other places of that name weigh it out.
Radagast12:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I would support the dab page, but not solely because of
Windsor, Ontario.
Windsor Castle,
House of Windsor and two other Windsors in England alone strongly suggest that the primary title should be the dab. But also support
Windsor, Berkshire. Proposer needs to be aware that when disambiguation is necessary for English towns and cities, they should be to Town, County, not Town, England.
Bearcat18:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment - I have altered the target page for the move in the initial proposal above to
Windsor, Berkshire so that the move is in line with Wikipedia naming conventions for British places. --
Francs200020:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Support as suggested by
User:Bearcat. I am thinking in terms of a potential wikipedia user who wants to look up Windsor. They might be looking for the castle, the royal family, any of the towns in England or Windsor, Ontario. We have no way of knowing which. A dab page would point them in the right direction and inform them of the other uses of the name. So, it is not an (unresolvable) issue of relative notability but of usability as an encyclopaedia.
Luigizanasi16:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Support. I think it is unfortunate that in proposing this change,
SwissCelt chose to talk about notability. This change has absolutely nothing to do with notability, and everything to do with usability of the encyclopedia. Some places are so universally well known that formal disambiguation seems pedantic and hence gets in the way of usability. For example, only a dolt or a perverse pedant would be confused by an unqualified reference to 'London' or 'New York'. It is clear from the debate above that 'Windsor' does not fall into this category, and properly disambiguating both the major contenders is the correct way to go forward. --
Chris j wood14:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I did so because this article has apparently been at both
Windsor, England and
Windsor, Berkshire. However, someone has moved it to its present location, thus preventing the move back without an administrator's intervention. Notability is thus an issue, as the alternative uses of "Windsor" will need to be of sufficient notability to overcome the bias towards primary topic disambiguation. I believe that they are of sufficient notability; not just
Windsor, Ontario, but
House of Windsor,
Windsor Castle, etc. --
SwissCelt20:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)