Talk:Weymouth

HMS Weymouth

The page HMS Weymouth is a list (version), but perhaps should be a disambiguation page. Many of the redlinks on the list are redlinks because malformed; relevant articles do exist but their titles do not include italics. --Una Smith (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weymouth bridle

Weymouth bridle currently is a redirect to Double bridle (version), where a Weymouth bridle is mentioned. I made the link to Weymouth bridle, not to Double bridle, because I anticipate Weymouth bridle will not remain a redirect page. This is following the advice given in Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken.--Una Smith (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a waste of time. Weymouth bridles ARE double bridles, the terms are used interchangably. Montanabw^(talk) 23:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weymouth bridles are double bridles, granted, but not all double bridles are Weymouth bridles. --Una Smith (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries here and here mention fixing a double redirect. For what it's worth, there was no double redirect: linking to Weymouth bridle from this page involves a single redirect, because Weymouth bridle redirects to an article. A double redirect is when a redirect page redirects to a second redirect page. See Wikipedia:Double redirects. --Una Smith (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weymouth, Dorset

Now that Weymouth is a disambiguation page, I have begun disambiguating its incoming links. This is timely, because Weymouth, Dorset is an upcoming Olympic Games venue. You can help. --Una Smith (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC) : What justification is there for moving the page? It looks, from the current inward links, as if the town in Dorset is the primary usage for "Weymouth". Or have you already mended any links to Weymouth which were intended for the other usages? PamD (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC) I'vefound the discussion elsewhere. PamD (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is archived on Talk:Weymouth, Dorset#Requested move. Yes, I have already mended a bunch of links intended for Weymouth Harbour (both places by that name!). --Una Smith (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A move made without discussion cannot be reversed because there is "no consensus to support move"? That doesn't seem right. Kanguole (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about that specific point, but on reading about this, I've had to concede (and change position) because what seems to be happening is a cross-Wiki harmonisation of this kind of thing — only very important and internationally-known places, such as Paris or London, get the "raw" article title. Therefore the relevant lack of consensus applies to making Weymouth an exception; ignoring the inelegant (and arguably discourteous) move without warning. – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I read about this harmonisation? I could not find it in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:NC:CITY. Also, your interpretation of "lack of consensus" is not the one used by the closing admin.[1] Kanguole (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of Wikipedia:Requested moves is that the "better" result is achieved, regardless of direction of the requested move. Had I proposed moving Weymouth to Weymouth, Dorset, instead of moving it myself, the result likely would have been exactly the same. --Una Smith (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might have produced the same result, or might not. The "no consensus means no move" rule is not independent of the direction of the move: it gives the status quo an advantage. In this case the status quo was established by your undiscussed move. If the subject of that discussion had been the move of Weymouth to Weymouth, Dorset and a cut-and-paste move of Weymouth (disambiguation) to Weymouth, rather than an attempt to reverse them, it's far from clear from the comments that there would have been consensus for the moves. Kanguole (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming links

All incoming links accumulated since November 2008 have been disambiguated. A large minority intended Weymouth, Dorset. --Una Smith (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming links accumulated since June 2009 have been repaired. Also, I looked at the page view stats tool and, for each month, compared the page views on Weymouth, Dorset and Weymouth (in thousands):

0811 2/6 = 33%
0812 3.2/3.5 = 91%
0901 4/4.2 = 95%
0902 4.5/4.8 = 94%
0903 5/4.5 = 111%
0904 4.6/3.9 = 118%
0905 8.5/4.0 = 212% (surge on article,[2] no surge on dab[3])
0906 5.1/4.1 = 124%
0907 5.7/4.4 = 129%
0908 5.8/4.5 = 129%
0909 4.2/3 = 140%
0910 4.8/2.8 = 171%
0911 4.2/2.5 = 168%
0912 3.5 / 2.1 = 167%

Since becoming a dab page, Weymouth still gets a lot of page views per month, which is dismaying. The page views are not due to readers following links from other articles to the dab page; after repairs, there are no links. Readers must reach the dab page in some other way (Wikipedia search box, other web search tool, direct links from outside Wikipedia). Also note the May 2009 surge in page views on the article, but not on the dab page. I am glad to see the steady increase in page views on the article compared to the dab. --Una Smith (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entries under Weymouth, Dorset

I have restored the list of entries under Weymouth, Dorset, that are not named exactly "Weymouth". They are included in the dab because when I last disambiguated incoming links (see project page) those were some of the articles intended. I repaired many instances of, for example "Weymouth Bay". --Una Smith (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]