Talk:Worcester, England/Archive 1

Pronunciation

Regarding the pronounciation of Worcester, I would argue that "Wuster" gives the impression that it should be said as in the word "CUS-tard", where as the first sylible ("Worc") should be pronounced as in the word "Puss" (as in Cat). I haven't put in a correction because, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, it takes up a bit too much room to explain this!

I pronounce the cus from custard and puss the same! violet/riga (t) 21:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is the OED standard for the OO sound of Worcester? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not an OO sound - it's an "uh". Perhaps "Wuh-ster" might be a better way of writing it. violet/riga (t) 22:00, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's what I meant - I was going by the oo in 'wood', for which my copy of the OED gives an upside down omega. I think your idea's probably better. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ahh sorry, read OO as in "goo". I'll change the main article to Wuh-ster now. violet/riga (t) 22:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• It would be nice if someone wrote a whole subsection that explained why the name of this town is so far off of traditional English phonetics.--M@rēino 16:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it OK to pronounce it Wor-Ches-Ter?

I'm afraid not, the only correct pronounciation is that discussed above. --193.63.197.246 15:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

How about Wur-Ster?

"I would argue that "Wuster" gives the impression that it should be said as in the word "CUS-tard", where as the first sylible ("Worc") should be pronounced as in the word "Puss" (as in Cat)."

That is how people pronounce it in the local area.

I'm from the local area and i pronounce it WARcester Arnie1066

Help with featured article

Hi, we've been having some trouble getting a good image for Penda of Mercia (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Penda of Mercia), which is important for when it gets featured on the Main Page. It would be great if someone could take a photo of this window at Worcester Cathedral. Thanks for your help.--Pharos 03:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Mike Paradinas and his correct place?

I've moved the reference to Mike Paradinas back to where I initialy put it as I think it's more apropriate to include him under Famous people than Theatre, Music and Cinema. With all due respect (and I've got a lot for him) his contribution to the arts and culture of the town don't extend much further than just living here - but he is very famous in his particular scene of electronic music, and his name would be known worldwide by fans of cutting edge music. Before anyone says they've never heard of him, I'd never heard of Hannah Snell or Woodbine Willy either.

Blind college

There is absolutely no mention of Worcester Blind College in the article. Nor is there an official article on the college itself.

Worcester, Mass., USA?

I'm a tad confused. Why is this the default page for "Worcester" when Worcester, Massachusetts has nearly twice the population? Wouldn't a disambiguation page be more logical? 24.199.113.215 09:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. violet/riga (t) 09:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh...it's Eurocentric POV. There are two cities of the same name of about the same size and are requested roughly the same amount on Wikipedia. A dab page just makes sense. And the same goes for the dozens of other British cities at (cityname) while their equal or even more important North American equivalent is relegated to (city, province/state). Kirjtc2 12:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see what makes this Worcester any more remarkable than Worcester, Massachusetts. I know that this is the original Worcester, but notability, not history, should be the factor in deciding whether one article should have precedence over another. (On a side note, this page has less incoming links than Worcester, Massachusetts - this article has less than 600, Worcester, Massachusetts has more than 1000). I've posted a similar question on Talk:Cambridge, where Cambridge, England (which is the default page for "Cambridge") seems as notable as Cambridge, Massachusetts. --Schzmo 02:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Size is as (ir)relevant as history. The issue is notability, which is affected by both. For what it's worth, I didn't even know there was a Worcester in the US, but knew of Worcester well before coming to the UK. JPD (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Many people have never heard of a Worcester, UK, but are very familiar with Worcester, MA. Both cities have equal notability. Raime 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) There are two points here, as to why this article is where it is:

• As has already been mentioned, this is the original Worcester, the one after which all the others are named. The same goes for Cambridge.
• In the US, it is common usage to use the format "City, State" for placenames, and this is used in article names, e.g. Worcester, Massachusetts, Birmingham, Alabama, St. Louis, Missouri, Austin, Texas. In the UK, it is not common usage to do this. Instead, it is common usage to say, for instance, "Cardiff" rather than "Cardiff, Wales".

As far as notability is concerned, the history of a place is a large part of what makes it notable, probably more so than population. There isn't an enormous difference in the number of incoming links (if there were 10 or 20 times as many, then that would make more of a difference). But lots of internal links doesn't necessarily imply importance.

Size and history are both extremely important in notability. However, even though Worcester, UK has more history, it is only abot half the size of Worcester, MA. A disambiguation page would simply make sense. Raime 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe this as "Eurocentric POV" though. Besides, there's plenty of "US-centric POV" on Wikipedia (like this), so it cuts both ways. --RFBailey 17:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

To have a smaller, no more important British city be the redirect over a much larger, equally influential American city certainly is 'Eurocentric POV'. And it is not USA-centric to reqest a disambigation page. It is simply common sense. Worcester, K cannot be singled out as more prominent than Worcester, MA, and therefore a disambiguation page is needed. Raime 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm an outsider to this whole debate, so I do not favor one side or the other. In my opinion, a search for 'Worcester' should lead to a page which lists both cities. Most Americans would think of Worcester, Mass, whereas most people in England would think of the other Worcester. It seems that they should be treated equally since both are notable cities CommonSense101 21:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Raime 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Massachusetts again (June 2007)

User:Raime has reactivated the above debate, but with comments split across the old discussion. I have therefore started a new section on this.

I disagree with the suggestion for a move. As has been discussed above, there are valid reasons why this article is where it is, and why the American Worcesters are where they are. For the record, while lots of Americans won't have heard of the Worcester in the UK, a similar proportion of British people have not heard of the one in Massachusetts either. --RFBailey 22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there are similar proportions in both countries (which I highly doubt, due to the United States' much larger population), then why is a disambiguation page not a good idea? The valid reason mentioned above appears to be history, but this is not any more valid compared to size (in which Worcester, Mass. is larger) or prominence (in which both cities seem to be about equal). History can not be regarded as the sole reason for a term to redirect to a page, as in this case any large city in the United States (which is much younger in history when compared to the United Kingdom) named after a UK city would have to redirect to a smaller (yet older) British city. A disambiguation page is simply the most logical solution. Raime 22:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that you don't understand what I meant by "proportion". The reason for choosing the term was to make each country's population size irrelevant. Of course a particular proportion of the US's population is a much larger number of people than the same proportion of the UK's. --RFBailey 22:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I was simply saying that if you think that for every American who wants a Worcester, MA,. redirect, there is a British person who wants a Worcester, UK, redirect, and therefore a dab page would simply make sense. Even looking at each country's population sizes are irrelevant, just as many Americans will never have heard of Worcester, UK, and will expect "Worcester" to redirect to Worcester, MA or a dab link as British people who expect the article to redirect to Worcester, UK. Raime 12:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was no consensus. Raime 14:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Worcester → Worcester, Worcestershire, to allow for "Worcester" to redirect to Worcester (disambiguation) - As there seems to be considerable debate over moving "Worcester" to a disambiguation page, it is time we had a survey. Worcester, Massachusetts is the second largest city in Massachusetts with a population of 175,898, nearly double that of the city of Worcester, UK. Both cties seems to be of equal importance, both being important and prominent in their respective countries. "Worcester" should not direct to Worcester, UK, but instead to Worcester (disambiguation), because Worcester, Mass. is no less important or prominent than Worcester, UK. If you support the move or feel that it is not a wise choice, please support the reason why you agree or disagree with the redirect.

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

• Strong Support - Both cities are equally important, and one city is not more well-known across the world than the other. Worcester, Mass. is larger and equally prominent. While it may have been named after Worcester, UK, that does not automatically make it less important. As I stated above, a disambiguation page is the most logical solution.
• Oppose, as discussed previously. The existing system works fine, having a dab notice at the top of the page. violet/riga (t) 08:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There is not a strong reason why Worcester, UK should be the article with a dab notice at the top of the page for Worcester, Mass. I have a feeling you would not think this way if Worcester, Mass. were the article with a dab notice for Worcester, UK. One city is not more prominent than the other, so while the current system works fine, it does not make sense. Raime 00:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, as discussed previously. Population and history are both factors in determining notability, no-one is disputing that. The principal reasons for keeping it here are as follows (repeating the above):

• This is the original Worcester, after which all others are named.
• The standard form of usage for placenames in the United States (used in everyday speech) is to use the form "city, state" (e.g. St Louis, Missouri). If a native of the aforementioned city in New England were to be visiting, say, California, and somebody asked where they were from, they would say "Worcester, Massachusetts", whereas someone from the English city, if visiting another part of the UK, would simply say they were from "Worcester". Therefore Worcester, Massachusetts is a sensible article name, as it follows standard nomenclature.

On top of all that, while most Americans may not have heard of the English Worcester, they very likely will have heard of Worcestershire Sauce, which originates there. --RFBailey 09:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It being the original Worcester is hardly a factor in determining a redirect article. Boston, Massachusetts is not the original Boston, but it is certainly more prominent than the UK city it was named after. And while people in the United States may (not necessarily) use the "city, state" format to state where they are from, they would likely not use this to type in article names on wikipedia. So, while they may say it, they wouldn't type it. I am not saying it is not a sensible article name, but when Americans type in "Worcester" they believe they are going to be redirected to "Worcester, Massachusetts", just as when they type in "Providence", they think they are going to redirect to "Providence, Rhode Island". It would simply be logical to have "Worcester" redirect to a disambiguation page. And while Americans probably have heard of Worcestershire sauce, I have a feeling they are far more familiar with A1 Sauce. Raime 12:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Then said Americans will be educated about the original Worcester and still have the same number of clicks to get to "their" Worcester. violet/riga (t) 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt many Americans (or many people in the world, for that matter) are on the edges of their seats hoping to learn about the origins of Worcestershire sauce. The issue isn't about number of clicks, its about which Worcester is more notable and therefore deserving of the redirect article. In this case, one Worcester is not more important/notable/prominent than the other, and therefore "your" Worcester does not deserve the article redirect while "our" Worcester is sidelined. Raime 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And Violet, why shouldn't Limeys have to make the same amount of clicks as Americans. Are you forgetting who was able to win our independence from you, and who saved you (and France and China) in WWII. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 21:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

At least that comment came quicker than the help in WWII. violet/riga (t) 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Touchier. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 22:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ingrates.... j/k--Loodog 22:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please could both sides remember to be constructive here and refrain from petty nationalism. --RFBailey 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's meant in good humor.--Loodog 23:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support which city came first isn't a valid method of determining article titles (see Boston and Rochester). 17:57, 2 July 2007 Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs)
• Strong Support Yes, Boston was not the first, yet "Boston" goes there. Which city was first has no bearing on its notability. That being said, population comparisons are also a bit short-sighted. Criteria should be: does the word "Worcester" have a primary usage, the use of which by far exceeds that of others? If not, we need to put them level by sending "Worcester" to a disambig. Short of a US-centric or Euro-centric viewpoint, there is no usage for "Worcester" that has overwhelming majority.--Loodog 20:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: No particular need as long as Worcester, Mass has a disambiguation link. This situation has existed for years at Birmingham where a prominent link to Birmingham, Alabama is provided, it would take the same number of clicks to get to it regardless. It is also pointless to direct Worcester to Worcester (disambiguation). If we were going to do this then we might as well move the present page to worcester, Worcestershire and turn Worcester into a disambig page. G-Man * 21:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The birmingham situation is different, as Birmingham (UK) is in many respects the second city of the UK, while Birmingham ('Bama) is much smaller. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 21:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. There is no comparison between Worcester (UK) and Birmingham (UK) in terms of significance, population, importance, etc. Birmingham, AL could never reach the significance of Birmingham, UK. Next, a move IS needed simply because Worcester, UK does not deserve to be the redirect article over Worcester, Massachusetts, a larger and equally important city. I would not be opposed to moving Worcester (UK) to Worcester, Worcestershire, but there seems to be considerable controversy in moving British cities to a "city, county" title. Nevertheless, it works for Boston, Lincolnshire. Raime 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Boston is a red herring, as even in the UK the American Boston is perhaps the better known of the two. Birmingham is also irrelevant, as has been expressed above: in that case, the British city is clearly more important. --RFBailey 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. Both Boston and Birmingahm are completely irrelevant in terms of comparison with Worcester. Raime 00:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well then, do you think that this case is similar to Rochester, which is a DAB page. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 23:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Do of course remember that Worcester UK is a county town - a capital, so-to-speak, and thus is extremely important. violet/riga (t) 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, though not at all the same context, Worcester, MA is the county seat of Worcester County, MA. Raime 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

County seats in the US are nowhere near as (relatively) notable as county towns are in the UK, so that, if anything, strengthens the case of Worcester (UK) and detracts from the case of Worcester, MA. --RFBailey 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It may strengthen the case of Worcester, UK, ever so slightly, but it certainly doesn't detract from Worcester, MA. Worcester is extremely important in Massachusetts, and is seen by many as the second capital. Its central location has earned the nickname "Heart of the Commonwealth". There is no town nearly as significant as Boston in Worcestershire. If such a city did exist, you can bet that Worcester UK would likely not be the county seat. So I hardly think this is a relevant argument, it just means that Worcester, UK doesn't have any large, significant cities within its own county. Another reason this is completely irrelevant is that Worcester County, Massachusetts is larger in both size and population than Worcestershire, so in comparison, a United States county seat may not be too far off from a UK county seat. Raime 00:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: This discussion has descended into petty points-scoring between both sides. (I apologise now if my comments above have contributed to this.) The main issues as far as I can see is the relative importance of each city within its own country, and also how well-known they are outside of that country. Within the US, Worcester, MA is (on a national level) a medium-sized (by American standards), relatively unremarkable city and pretty much unknown at all outside of the US. In the UK, Worcester is a medium-sized (by British standards) city with a notable history, is a county town, and is known outside the UK (i) for being the city after which several others are named; (ii) as the origin of a well-known foodstuff and well-known style of pottery (Royal Worcester), both of which I have come across in North America; (iii) (slightly more tenuously, but relevant to Commonwealth countries) as a sporting venue. --RFBailey 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You fail to mention that Worcester (MA) is known in the US for being the home of several prestigious colleges; Holy Cross, Clark, Assumption and WPI, as well as its unusual pronunciation, and being the home of Polar Beverages. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 23:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The fact that consensus fails shows Worcester UK is not in the overwhelming majority. Ergo disambig.--Loodog 23:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In your somewhat one-sided approach, you fail to mention that Worcester, MA is the second-largest city in Massachusetts and New England, the home of a large a renowned biotech park, which houses Abbott Laboratories, a very important pharmaceutical firm, and is a leader in Advanced Cell Technology. It is also the home of Norton Abrasives, the "world's largest manufacturer and supplier of abrasives for commercial applications" and Polar Beverages. It is the home of 10 colleges and universities, most notably Holy Cross and Worcester Polytechnic. It also is a center for American rowing events, as well as playing home to three professional sports franchises. And while Worcester, UK, may have five towns and cities named after it worldwide, 4 of those are in the US, and very few Americans are familiar with Worcester, UK. However, many are likely familiar with Worcester, US. And I doubt that Worcester, a medium-sized UK city, is very well-known throughout the world. Raime 00:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The point I made earlier was that if it became a disambig it would make no difference to the number of clicks that would have to be made to find Worcester, Mass. It would however increase the number of clicks to find Worcester UK, so there would be no benefit to anyone by moving it. As I said, as long as there is a prominent link to Worcester, Mass at the top, I see no purpose to moving it. G-Man * 00:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And the point that I made earlier is that it is not the amount of clicks that matters; it is the principle that Worcester, UK does not deserve to be the redirect article over Worcester, MA. Raime 01:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: For reasons outlined in other opposers' comments and reasons, above.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: There is not a good naming convention for Worcester (UK version) aside from this page. I would suggest that many UK residents would not know what county it was in (bearing in mind that a lot of traditional counties were messed about with in the 1970s that is not such an outrageous claim as it might appear) and the UK is arbitrary, could be England, UK, GB, not a good system.

Pride should not be a criterion for selection, though clearly it is a factor for both parties. However, I think this scores against the move as this is was the original motivation, everything else has been scrabbled up to support the original case.

Point scoring will always be arbitrary, the UK will always win on history, most of the smallest towns in the UK have histories going way back when, the UK wins by about 2000 years in this case (do points mean prizes?), but we can see history is relative and relative to the USA there is history in W. Mass. Notability, context, I have to say that Raime does not provide a compelling case which is suspect in arguing Worcester has any notability outside the USA (the notable companies are entirely un-notable from my UK perspective), but then, although very well known in the UK, I don't have a strong sense of Worcester being that notable outside the UK either.

So my main opposition is one of not bowing to political correctness. I vote for squatters rights on this one. Spenny 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your argument. You are opposed to moving the article simply because its original redirect was Worcester (UK) ("Squatting Rights"), and that should not change? I completely disagree with that, but everyone is entitled to a POV. I also disagree about your naming convention philosophy. Worcester, Worcestershire would work fine. Even if people in Britain do not use this context, it already used for Rochester, Kent and Boston, Lincolnshire and would work fine with Worcester, Worcestershire as well. Even if a person does not know the county, they would easily be able to pick out Worcester, Wocestershire as the United Kingdom Worcester on a dab page. Anyways, I also disagree that UK cities will always "win" with history. Sure, the UK has a much longer history, but it doesn't have a better or more notable history. And I also think you are right that neither Worcester is very notable outside its respective country. It seems to me like your argument would support the creation of a redirect dab page, as both Worcesters have histories that correspond to their relative countries and are not notable outside their respectice nations. I never said anything about Worcester, MA being notable anywhere outside the US, just stated that those companies are Worcester, MA's equivalent to Worcester (UK)'s pottery companies and such. I actually do not think that either city is very notable at all outisde its own country, but its for that precise reason (equal notability) that a dab page is logical and necessary. "Not bowing to political correctness", "squatting rights", and "petty nationalism" aside, a dab page just makes sense, as neither city is more prominent or notable than the other. Raime 14:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is quite simple. I am quite taken with the reasonable name argument, Worcester on its own in the UK defines Worcester, and would not ever be known as anything else. In America you have 4 Worcesters so you already need the disambiguation on American usage unless you be local. On that reasoning alone, there is not really a need for disambiguation at the article level as the natural usage works and the disambiguation can take place on the one page, rather than inventing an extra page as is common practice in Wikipedia. There is no functional requirement. Therefore if we are dispassionate, there is a solution in place already.

However, we are not dispassionate. The PC issue I allude to is that the arguments are pussyfooting around asserting national pride, disguised as being fair-minded, trying to dress up a nationalistic position by some other logic. looking for a compromise position whereas there is no compelling argument for change. My argument against the DAB page is that it is seeking fairness from a particular POV of pride, rather than the view of common usage where there is not a need. I would say, if you need a DAB to be neutral, then I would want Boston to work to that same argument, as having lived in Lincolnshire, in my mind Boston is an important place (it should be in an American's too as the very first settlement buildings excavated were found to be architecturally identical to buildings near Boston). Indeed, I find I cannot comfortably write Boston in the UK sense in any other way, even in this context. Ultimately, Wikipedia does not seek to be fair or logical, and if people are going to get upset about organisations it is probably better that there are no rules than Wikipedia offend by what will always be an arbitrary choice from some POV. So that is what I mean by squatters rights, it just so happens that this is the arrangement in this case, as Boston is the case in Boston. Both are as right or as wrong and neither has a compelling argument for change. Take pride that Boston won for Mass. or compromise there and dislodge that to a DAB page if you are arguing for a dispassionate logic. Spenny 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

So you want Boston, Massachusetts, a global city with a metropolitan area of over 7 million people, to be compared on equal terms with a small city that only people who have lived near it have ever heard of? While, we're at it, why don't we make London and Birmingham dab pages to make them "neutral". Oh wait, then we'd need more compromises..... While each person here is pretty much arguing for a sense of national pride (which is basically to be expected) there is (whether you like it or not) a very "compelling" and logical argument. Worcester, UK, is not a more notable city than Worcester, Massachusetts. As Loodog stated, there is simply not one "primnary usage" for Worcester. For you there may be no compelling argument, but for many others who believe the current situation simply does not make sense, that a smaller city is single-handedly picked out to be more "notable" than a larger American counterpart on the basis of namesake reasons. I think you will find that others are equally passionate about this issue. There is absolutely no comparison between Boston and Worcester (UK). As stated before, Worcester is a "medium-sized" city, whereas Boston is a hege metropolis and one of the largest cities in the United States. While you will almost certainly assert that this is "national pride", I see it more as a logical solution. If it suits you more, the article can be renamed Worcester, England or Worcester, United KingdomCities such as Boston, London, and Birmingham have clearly established themselves as the the most prominent places with those names. Worcester (UK) has not even come close. There should not have to be any "compromising". Worcester redirecting here is plain and simple Euro-Centric POV. Boston redirecting to Boston, or Birmingham redirecting to Birmingham, is simply common sense.What reaosn is ther eto keep it the way it is currently? "Squatters Rights"? I would certainly not call that a compelling argument. Bottom line, there is a functional, but over all logical and neutral, requirement for change. Raime 20:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is I don't want to compare at all. Spenny 20:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, no comparison. And by all means, be passionate in your argument, as that is the point of a debate. But do not expect me to be dispassionate in my views and simply accept that there are no compelling reasons for change, when I believe that there certainly are. Raime 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, a lot of concepts are being thrown around here. PC is disguising language so as to not offend people. The entire debate here is what the language means in the first place. I don't know how much this will convince anyone, but the dictionary has both, actually with MA first. That being said, I concede Merriam Webster is an American dictionary. Which only strengthens my resolve that short of a US-centric of Euro-centric viewpoint, there is no primary usage.--Loodog 16:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. I have changed the wording of the requested move so as to rename Worcester (UK) to Worcester, Worcestershire. This "city, county" format already works well for Rochester, Kent and Boston, Lincolnshire. Out of curiosity, Loodog, what language has the PC disguised? Raime 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was my intended point. Claiming that we're diguising the fact that "Worcester" refers to UK requires establishing the claimed fact in the first place.--Loodog 20:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Raime 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am quite content that there could be a schema put in place like this and it is not unreasonable. My point is that Worcester is not the example that justifies it. We could go through Wiki and re-organise the lot according to some agreed rule - articles to be fully qualified names to an agreed schema, taking into account national conventions, priority by some agreed schema so we agree either a certain criteria of notability allows promotion to main name. If you want that to happen, go to the Village pump, propose the schema. I can see that there will be enthusiasts, and there will be naysayers. I can see strong arguments for, and I can see some good arguments against. However, these name clashes are actually a special case and, to go back to my underlying point, whilst there is a logical argument, I don't see that it is strong enough to justify the move, it is about individual pride, not about a global scheme which is a massive effort. FWIW, on my sample encyclopaedia I have here, all Worcesters are considered not notable at all, and both Bostons are noteworthy with identical entry names (but cheer up, Mass. comes first - ordered by entry size it seems) I move for deletion of both Worcester articles as neither are sufficiently noteworthy g, d & r Spenny 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I just do not see why moving Worcester to Worcester, Worcestershire is such a big deal. I am not from Britain, nor have I ever lived there, but in the United States, despite the fact that each city article is titled in the "city, state" format, I know very few people who actually use that format in simple, everyday life. If I travel to Arizona or Chicago or Miami, I would never say I'm from Providence, Rhode Island or I'm from Boston, Massachusetts or I'm from Worcester, Massachusetts. And, according to the posts here, it seems like users from Britain do not want articles named in the "city, county" way (for disambiguation purposes only: I am not suggesting all UK cities be renamed this way, only cities like Worcester and Plymouth and Boston (UK) that could get confusing) simply because it isn't used in every day life. But if an article is named in the "city, county" format simply for disambiguation purposes, is it really that big of a deal? And I do not feel that the move is about individual pride, but simply about common sense. I would not suggest that cities such as Birmingham or London or Boston should have dab pages, because they are firmly established as the cities who have earned the primary usages of their respected names. Neither Worcester has come close to doing likewise, and it is for that precise reason that a dab page is needed. You are right; neither Worcester is extremely noteworthy, but at the same time, one is not more noteworthy than the other. It is the fact that Worcester, Worcestershire is not more notable, is not the primary usage of "Worcester", and is not more prominent than Worcester, MA, that makes this a logical AND strong argument. Raime 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a universal schema. It's based on notability. Which must be argued for each case.--Loodog 22:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: As an example of the problem of criteria, one thing that has been missed it seems is the concept of city in the UK. Worcester is a Catherdral City and city status puts it on a par with Birmingham, one of around 50 English cities. City in the States means, well, not the same thing at all. Spenny 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, even so, naming the article Worcester, Worcestershire would be for disambiguation purposes only. And you're right, U.S. city status doesn't mean the same thing, but Worcester is widely recognized as being a higher level city, than say, Warwick, Rhode Island or Pittsfield, Massachusetts. The city status of Worcester, Worcestershire doesn't make it impossible to use a "city, county" format; it would only be an article name used for clarification. Raime 22:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Worcester is one of two cities in New England bigger than 175,300. Worcester is one of two cities in Massachusetts over 155,000. Worcester is one of 127 cities in the United States larger than 175,300. Worcester is roughly one of 3000 county seats in the United States, one of 14 county seats in Massachusetts. What do we call important?--Loodog 22:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Jehfes 05:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Perhaps the most significant export from Worcester is its name. The county of Worcestershire takes its name from the City which is its county town. It also gives its name to a, slightly less significant, city in the USA. Worcester porcelain, Worcestershire Sauce (often called Worcester Sauce) and Worcestershire County Cricket Club all have a name which has been heard of throughout the world. Since Worcester, MA has no such global exportation of its name, it stands to reason that anyone searching for Worcester should find, in the first instance, the fine Cathedral town of Worcester. petepetepetepete
  • Obligatory rebuke I don't claim to be the most cultured person in the world (after all I am American), but I've never heard of the Worcestershire County Cricket Club, or Worcester porcelain. And even if the whole world had, it does not guarantee notability of the city itself "exporting" its name. Also: why Worcester, MA isn't a "slightly less significant" city.--Loodog 17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Very few Americans would have heard of Worcestershire County Cricket Club; but cricket fans all over the commonwealth would have done as they have played against Australia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, The West Indies etc. Royal Worcester porcelain does also inarguably give the city global renown. Its role in the lives in John of England, Edward Elgar and King Charles II are something to which there is no Worcester MA equivalent.
    • As for the google search results, Worcester MA's larger population would indeed mean that a larger number of people would be drawn to a website of it's council's services; yet this is only one indication of notability which is far outweighed by 1) the cultural and historic significance of the city of Worcester and 2) the prevalence of the name Worcester (as in Worcester, Worcs) in the global consciousness. petepetepetepete 21:28, 9 July

Far outweighed? How many notability points does exporting Worcestershire sauce get? How many notability points does Worcester, US get for having an 80% larger population? If we could just assert a qualitative opinion as some kind of quantitative fact, we wouldn't need this debate in the first place.--Loodog 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• • The name debate is over. Worcester County, Massachusetts received its name from Worcester, and the county is larger in both population and area than Worcestershire. And, need I mention again, Boston, Lincolnshire gives its name to a city in Massachusetts that is much larger and far more significant. So it being the original Worcester in no way guarantees its superior notability. Worcester County Cricket Club also does not mean Worcester, UK is of superior notability. I have friends in Canada who have never heard of the club (despite the fact that their country is in the Commonwealth), and are very familiar with Worcester, Mass. despite having never been to Massachusetts. And Worcester Porcelain? I doubt that is extremely famous outside of Britain or, at the greatest extent, Western Europe. And, come on, far outweighs? I completely agree with Loodog; Steak Sauce and Porcelain in no way make Worcester, UK more notable. The fact is, neither city is more notable at all, and that is why a dab page is needed. Raime 01:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Canadians dont really play cricket. India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Australia, The West Indies, Pakistan and South Africa do. Worcester Sauce is actually a far more versatile sauce than merely a 'steak sauce'! It's especially nice on Cheese on Toast. It is also often used in making Bloody Marys. Perhaps it is this versatility that has made it famous throughout the world and put the name Worcester firmly in the global consciousness. petepetepetepete
      • Global Consciousness?! You must mean only the intense sport-playing commuinities in some Commonwealth countries who are familiar with the city of Worcester beyond its sports stadium and those who are so entranced by Worcestershire Sauce but do not live in the UK who bother to look up its origins. For the steak sauce comment, I apologise, but that is by far its primamry usage in the US. I may be worng, but I don't think there are that many more people who are familiar with the cities (not stadiums or products) of Worcester, MA and Worcester, UK outside of each's respective country. Raime 17:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm a little surprised at the parochial view expressed above. Royal Worcester is very famous in the world of antiques which fascinate Americans, as you would see if you did a quick check on the American eBay site. The subject of the porcelain in itself is interesting, having links to Lord Nelson, the royalty from whence the Royal came (in the UK people cannot just claim the word Royal, it has to be granted, which in itself is notable). I think there is a lovely spot on the Mass. web site which undermines the "Americans have never heard of Worcester" viewpoint: The community was renamed Worcester in 1684, possibly for Worcester, England, as an angry gesture at King Charles II of England, who had suffered defeat at the Battle of Worcester in 1651. Notability must take into account context, population only becomes notable in the context of large cities, the fact that 150,000 people live in one place and carry on trades is not in itself particularly notable. However, when we consider contexts such as antiques, or sport, or the English Civil War, or the Roman conquest of Europe, the Norman Conquests, the Cathedral, some of the worst floods in living memory and so on, these all attach a significant notability to the UK Worcester. I don't see that richness in Worcester, Mass. Though I am sure it is a very pleasant place to live, I don't see that it is appropriate to inflate its relative importance by being dismissive of culture that you state that you are unaware of. Spenny 12:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I was not dismissing Worcester porcelain and Worcestershire Suace as "unimportant". ("Steak Sauce" was a poor choice of words, and I apologise, that is just what most Americans associate it with). However, these items are not overly important in terms of Worcester, UK's notability. You are arguing more for the notability of the products than the notability of the city. Burlington Coat Factory is a very famous and popular clothing retailer in the United States named after Burlington, New Jersey. But a famous brand created in a city doesn't alone make the city extremely important or notable. Most Americans have likely never heard of Burlington, New Jersey, even though the famous clothing retailer is headquartered there. Bennington Pottery is fairly famous in the United States, and yet hardly anyone can locate Bennington, Vermont as being notable due to the famous pottery created there. Royal Worcester and Worcestershire Sauce are important, but their importance does not automatically make Worcester, UK more notable than Worcester, MA. I am sure you have heard of the smiley face? It in fact was developed in Worcester, MA. This does add to the city's notability, but is not a common fact that is immediatley referenced to note the city's importance. And I think the "Americans haven't heard of Worcester" debate has got to stop. Maybe you'd be surprised to know, but citizens of towns don't go out and memorize information from their state websites. The fact is, Americans for the most part have not heard of Worcester, UK, just as British are likely not familiar with Worcester, MA. I'm sure the colonists who named the city hundreds of years ago were familiar with Worcester, UK, but unfortuantely the same cannot be said of Americans today. And possibly if you cannot see the richness in Worcester, Mass., do some research. Before you so quickly reprimand me for being unaware of a city's culture, you should be aware that you yourself are doing exactly that. Raime 17:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Worcester, US has been afflicted by King Phillip's War, served as a base of operations during the American Revolutionary War, is the sight of the first female execution in the United States, was one of the first parts of the United States to industialize and along with it, the site of numerous related inventions, the site of the first hospital for mental illnes in the United States, was a hotbed for the abolitionist cause. Though I'm sure Worcester, UK is a very pleasant place to live, I don't see that it is appropriate to inflate its relative importance by being dismissive of culture that you state that you are unaware of.--Loodog 14:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Loodog, you have raised some interesting items that nobody has raised here before - I'm prepared to be educated and I haven't dismissed anything. I simply referred to the fact that Raime specifically dismissed items raised here as unimportant as Raime had not come across them. I've said before though that beauty contests aren't a particularly good way to decide this as the criteria are so arbitrary, and Wiki is deliberately unhelpful in determining notability in policy. Spenny 16:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, maybe if you had bothered to read the Wikipedia article about the history of Worcester, MA, and not been so "parochial" and "dismissive of culture", these points would not be new to you. Anyway, you have misunderstood my point. I admit, my word choice was poor (and I apologise for that), but I am stating that famous products made in a city don't necessarily make the city's notability. And I actually have come across both items, and am fond of both, but simply do not attribute their importance with that of Worcester, UK. Worcestershire Sauce and Royal Worcester are important, butare not important enough to guarantee Worcester (UK)'s superior notability. Many may be familiar with Royal Worcester, but I doubt that even American antique dealers are familiar with the city from which they came. And, what I meant was Worcester Porcelain is not widely known outside of Britain and Europe. Intense antique collectors may be familiar with it, but most Americans are not, and are certainly not aware of the city it came from. The items make the city more notable, but in no way allow the city surpass Worcester, MA in notability. Anyone, in my opinion, the smiley face from Worcester, MA has left just as much of an impact, if not more, than Royal Worcester or Worcestershire Sauce. But that is simply my opinion. Raime 17:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, Worcester was and is the home of Worcester's first National College for the Blind; was a hotbed of royalism, played host to a decisive battle in the coming of parliamentary democracy... but aside from this tit for tat argument to which this discussion has sunk; I feel one point which makes Worcester more significant than Worcester MA is the volume of tourists the city receives. The City of Worcester is said to receive £63,000,000.00 each year from tourism coming from approximately 10 million visitors. http://www.worcestershire-tourism.org/ .--petepetepetepete

To go on in favor of Worcester, MA Worcester was the site of: the development of the smiley face, the first liquid fuel rocket test and patent by Robert Goddard, the only American lectures ever done by Sigmund Freud, the development of the first birth control pill, the first mass produced valentine, the first public reading of the Declaration of Independence, and the first national convention of women advocating women's suffrage, to name a few. So, contrary to prior belief, perhaps Worcester, MA can compete with history on some levels, and can without a doubt compete with notability. Raime 03:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough to be closed as no consensus, with the articles remaining as they are now. violet/riga (t) 14:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a case of no concensus means status quo. No concensus means no agreement on primary usage → no clear primary usage → "Worcester" goes to disambig.--Loodog 15:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct. There is no consensus to change it to a disambig page, therefore it remains how it is. violet/riga (t) 17:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to close this debate. It is still very active, and remains open without "no consensus". Raime 01:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, this is not a matter of personal pride for me, but rather trying to reconcile my (and what I believe to be that of most Americans) relative awareness of both with the priority of appearance in wikipedia.--Loodog 03:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a problem to leave this debate going with no consensus indefinitely. It just means that you'll not stop arguing without a resolution being found. violet/riga (t) 08:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's obvious enough that no one here on either side is going to budge.--Loodog 12:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, a resolution has been found: a disambig page in a case where it couldn't be more obvious that one is needed. The resolution hasn't been accepted.--Loodog 01:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What a bunch of BS. Just because every brit out there has there had too far up their ass to realize that their little country no longer rules the world, doesn't mean the situation should stay the same. Black Harry • Go Red Sox 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BH, it's okay. We'll start a new wikipedia, on another internet, where the King of England can't tax us. We'll have tea parties and spell "favourite" our own damn way. The new wikipedia will be based on principles of equality and better dental plans.:)--Loodog 21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A new thought. Currently "Worcester" directs to this article, but at the top of this article is a link to Worcester disambig and, explicitly, and distinctly, (and redundantly) a link to Worcester, Mass. This fact demonstrates that the article's editors have already ceded Worcester, Mass as being a usage distinct in notability from other uses, and that Worcester, Mass is necessary to mention when someone types in "Worcester".--Loodog 17:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How about implementing something similar to what is done in Norwich? --Polaron | Talk 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what we have now.--Loodog 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And Norwich isn't really in the same category; Norwich, CT is not as notable as its British counterpart, so "Norwich" should redirect to the British city, with a dab link to the American town being suitable. However, Worcester is not in the same situation at all. The British city is not more notable in this case, and therefore dab link simply doesn't work. Raime 02:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.