Talk:Bayonne (disambiguation)

Requested moves

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

---

• Bayonne (disambiguation) → Bayonne
• Bayonne → Bayonne, France

– There are basically three cities involved here: one in France, one in Spain using the local language equivalent of the name, and one in the United States (the one in New Jersey, not the one in Nebraska with the two sentence article). The city currently at just "Bayonne" (the French one) does not appear to meet either criteria for the primary topic. Usage-wise, it isn't more likely to be sought than all others combined. Over 90 days, the pageview stats barely even put it above the US city alone, let alone both of them: France, 18421, US 18063, Spain 2274. Over 30 days, it's actually gotten fewer views than just the US city, 5561 vs. 5639. This is despite being at the primary topic location, bringing extra views from readers who really wanted one of the others but weren't aware of there being multiple places named Bayonne. From the standpoint of long-term significance, the city does not appear to be so significant to eclipse the significance of the other two cities put together. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC). Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely not - Bayonne, New Jersey is a city in New Jersey, USA and referred to as "Bayonne, New Jersey" even in US publications, this is why we have WP:USPLACE. And Baiona, Galicia, a municipality in Spain is not even revelant, not sure why it is on the dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Absolutely yes per nom. It's clear there is no primary topic for the term Bayonne. -- Calidum 02:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Calidum the way you've echoed me might make it look as though you're disagreeing with me personally. Why is it clear there's no primary topic. Over 70% of the first 4 pages of Google Book results are referring to Bayonne, not New Jersey. That is exactly the first half of the definition of a primary topic, even before historical and long term significance is considered. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As poor a measure as what Wikipedia's readers are looking for as a Google Books search is to begin with, especially when we have pageview stats showing they aren't looking for any one thing in particular, it does seem a little odd your search couldn't find any books on Bayonne, New Jersey. On the very first page of the search, I turned up this. And also this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to search "Bayonne is" not just the isolated word "Bayonne" because that picks up "Bayonne, New Jersey", which is the commonname of Bayonne, New Jersey even in other US states. I did pick up a couple of "Bayonne is" which weren't referring to Bayonne, The Industrial Directory of New Jersey hit on page 1 of results and New York Magazine 1977 and Explorers Guide to New Jersey on page 5, and The Prominent Families of New Jersey on page 6 of results. A 1912 advert for a brand of roofing cloth called Bayonne also got a hit. But among the first 50 books for "Bayonne is" 44 of them were referring to Bayonne, not the place in New Jersey named after it. This is exactly the sort of case that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC long term significance requirement was made for. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - According to the page view stats, there is no clear primary topic here. There's a fundamental misunderstanding of how our US place naming works going on here. It's been argued before that no one refers to US localities by "City name" rather than a full "City, State" title. Obviously this is utterly absurd. --Yaksar (let's chat) 07:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - The rules are clear. A primary topic needs to be overwhelmingly imposing in order to take first spot. Visitor stats prove the opposite. The naming is completely irrelevant. Visitors search for the name of the city, they will not add state, country or whatever other disambiguator. --Midas02 (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support, of course. Not sure how anyone could consider the French city more significant than the American one(s). Red Slash 05:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, of course. Not sure how anyone could consider the American city more significant than the French one. —  AjaxSmack  03:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No one here has indicated they consider the American city more significant than the French one, and that is not what is being discussed here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I wasn't entirely serious about that. I figured that if such a non-argument was good enough for a support vote then it could be used for an oppose to cancel that vote out. How about then oppose per User:Innotata's comments below about the relative global historical significance of the two Bayonnes. As 143.65.196.20 notes (to his/her chagrin) below, cf. Worcester. —  AjaxSmack  05:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. When Bayonne, NJ is as large as Boston, MA this should be reopened. It was not "Bayonne, France" when the Merovingians ruled it, but it's always been Bayonne, NJ. Srnec (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

When Bayonne, France is as important as Venice, assertions of its primacy without any explanation of why it is so much more significant should be taken seriously. As it stands, all I see is "it's older", which isn't much of an argument, unless one would also like to claim that Settle, North Yorkshire is more significant than Montréal, and so much so that nothing further need be said - after all, it's older! You're right about one thing, though - according to the article on Bayonne, France, it wasn't "Bayonne, France" when the Merovingians ruled it. It was "Lapurdum". Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A French city of 45,000 with over 15 centuries of history is prima facie more important than an American city of 65,000 with about 150 years of history.

My point was that while Bayonne, NJ has always been in NJ, Bayonne, France (ex-Lapurdum) has not always been in France. It's older than France. Yet, when talking about it prior to the 12th century or so (when Baiona appears in the record) it is common to call it Bayonne nonetheless. Why pipe links to "Bayonne, France" unnecessarily, when "Bayonne, New Jersey" is, as has been pointed out, both natural and common, as well as always correct? There is more to consider than just what folks are searching for: there's what folks see at the top of a page, and future editors can be reasonably expected to link to. The current setup is correct. Srnec (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support If there are two topics that have similar pageviews, significance, etc, then they should rank equally on the disambiguation page. There is no primary topic here. This "European cities are older thus automatically primary topic" policy of Wikipedia is in strong need of reforming (see Worcester, Durham, etc) 143.65.196.20 (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)143.65.196.20
• Oppose. Common sense says that the French city is the clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain/support that argument? Common sense since it is closer to where you live? 143.65.196.20

That wouldn't be a suggestion that I'm not acting in good faith, would it? I suggest you don't go down that route. No, because it's far better known and far more significant in history than some minor town in New Jersey or a town in Spain that is not even commonly known by that name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any such suggestion in his question. You cite "common sense", but common sense is neither always accurate nor a reliable source. Could you provide some evidence to back up the assertion. --V2Blast (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't? You don't think "Common sense since it is closer to where you live?" is a suggestion that I'm acting in my local interests and not Wikipedia's (although I'm actually English and not French)? Sorry to disagree with you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Because important European cities older, many things have happened in them over many centuries; they're more referred to in historical and cultural contexts. That surely is the case here. Also, U.S. cities customarily have their state name appended after them, and the Spanish town is a red herring, since it hardly ever is called by this old name in modern English. Not convinced on grounds of usage or long-term significance therefore. —innotata 04:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I see no evidence presented that the place in France is the primary topic. Clearly WP:USPLACE established the article naming rules, it does not say that a US place name can not be the primary topic, or considered as an option for primary name. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with others that the Bayonne in France is the PRIMARYTOPIC. --IJBall (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What facts support Bayonne, France as the primary topic? Vegaswikian1 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support – It doesn't seem much evidence has been presented for why the French town should be the primary topic. Many people seem to miss the fact that this move is not suggesting that the NJ town is more important; it simply points out that neither of the two major pages can be demonstrated to be clearly, overwhelmingly more searched-for and significant than the other. As such, the disambiguation page (as per the proposed move) should be made the primary topic. (I'd also like to remind people to focus on the issue being debated, and to not mock people they disagree with.) --V2Blast (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.