text:
Talk:Great Purge/western reactions

'''The following is the official paragraph being worked on. See edit history for history'''

" Despite great scepticism regarding the show trials and occasional reports of Gulag survivors, many western intellectuals retained a favorable view towards the Soviet Union which persisted until evidence and the results of research began to appear after Stalin's death. The first of these sources were the relevations of Khrushchev, then, the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the publication of The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties by Robert Conquest in the late 1960s, the release of Soviet records during glasnost and finally, in France, where the intellectual climate was most sympathetic to Soviet communism, publication in 1997 of The Black Book of Communism. Minimizations of the Great Purge continues among revisionist scholars in the United States and diehard supporters of Stalin."

comments
These sentences look like they came out of a Faulkner novel. I've broken them up so some caluses and separated.

Despite great scepticism regarding the show trials and occasional reports of Gulag survivors,

many western intellectuals retained a favorable view towards the Soviet Union

which persisted until evidence and the results of research began to appear after Stalin's death

with, first, the relevations of Khrushchev,

Khrushev's revelations are covered at On the Personality Cult and its Consequences, see also Communist_Party_USA and the external link included Fred Bauder 23:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

then, the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,

From Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn see this paragraph:

"The novel about Ivan Denisovich brought the Soviet system of forced labor to the attention of the West, but it was his monumental history of the massive Soviet concentration camps for both criminal and political prisoners that made it impossible for either the West or the Soviet Union to ignore the realities of the Communist regime. No longer was this an issue for anti-communists only; all Western democracies had to confront it." Fred Bauder 23:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

the publication of The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties by Robert Conquest in the late 1960s,

See The Great Terror.

the release of Soviet records during glasnost

and finally, in France, where the intellectual climate was most sympathetic to Soviet communism, publication in 1997 of The Black Book of Communism.

See The Black Book of Communism, not sure what state this article is in however. Fred Bauder 23:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

This timeline is all over the place, the death of Stalin to 1997? This makes no sense. I think it needs to be broken up into three periods - Stalin until the end of the Warsaw Pact, immediately after the Warsaw Pact ends and some records come out, and then the time after that.

The timeline is in chronilogical order. To be sure it could be expanded, but the article is about the Great Purge, not intellectual history. Fred Bauder 23:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

There are other ridiculous things here. The same intellectuals took Khruschev, Solzhenitsyn and Conquest all the same level of credibility, and all had the same exact effect on them? This is ridiculous. Khrushchev's speech (among other things) had the effect of turning Mao against Khruschev, not against Stalin or anything that happened under him.

People in the know didn't need Khrushchev to clue them in. But there was and there remains a remnant within the intellectual community in the West which either didn't believe the information, thought it was anti-communist propaganda or made excuses. Of course each event had a cumulative effect which varied depending on why they had not known about what was going on. Mao is definitely a special case. I do not understand why he thought what he did. But, in any case, not a Western intellectual. Fred Bauder 23:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

And what does "western intellectuals" mean anyway? The US Ambassador to the USSR? The New York Times? People like John Dewey?

I think item number one is break these into sentences of under 20 words so they make sense. Ruy Lopez 22:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC).

Minimizations of the Great Purge continues among revisionist scholars in the United States and diehard supporters of Stalin.

more comments
I've broken this 99 word sentence into two sentences.

This:

Despite great scepticism regarding the show trials and occasional reports of Gulag survivors, many western intellectuals retained a favorable view towards the Soviet Union which persisted until evidence and the results of research began to appear after Stalin's death with, first, the relevations of Khrushchev, then, the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the publication of The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties by Robert Conquest in the late 1960s, the release of Soviet records during glasnost and finally, in France, where the intellectual climate was most sympathetic to Soviet communism, publication in 1997 of The Black Book of Communism.

becomes:

Despite great scepticism regarding the show trials and occasional reports of Gulag survivors, many western intellectuals retained a favorable view towards the Soviet Union which persisted until evidence and the results of research began to appear '''after Stalin's death. The first of these sources were the relevations of Khrushchev, then, the writings''' of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the publication of The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties by Robert Conquest in the late 1960s, the release of Soviet records during glasnost and finally, in France, where the intellectual climate was most sympathetic to Soviet communism, publication in 1997 of The Black Book of Communism.

A period is inserted where a comma was and it is rewritten slightly. This 99 word sentence makes no sense and was too unwieldy. I haven't really changed anything except in breaking one very long sentence into two shorter ones. If you want to break the sentences up in another way, please do so. Ruy Lopez 01:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Great Purge/western reactions


text: Category:New Zealand basketball players

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Category:New Zealand basketball players


text:
Postgraduate Applications Centre

Postgraduate Applications Centre (PAC) is an organisation that processes applications for large number of postgraduate courses in the Republic of Ireland.

Institutions which currently accept applications through PAC are Dublin City University, University College Cork, Waterford Institute of Technology, NUI Maynooth, Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, Cork Institute of Technology, Institute of Technology, Carlow and NUI Galway. The Centre also processes applications for inter-institute qualifications, such as the Professional Diploma in Education, and qualifications in Public Health Nursing and Midwifery.

The centre was founded in 1998 as a separate company by the National University of Ireland to simplify the processing of postgraduate applications, initially to the Diploma in Education and expanding to include various institutes of higher education in the state.

The Centre is a non-profit organisation which is funded entirely by application fees.

title: Postgraduate Applications Centre


text:
Category talk:Ottoman Empire

Oct 2004
Joy wrote: added histories of european countries that were under the OE for centuries

Aris Katsaris: ''Uh, I really don't think most of these categs belong here. We aren't adding Category:Germany to all the nations that were ever conquered by the Germans.''

We aren't, but that's different because the German conquest usually didn't have the same profound effects the Ottoman conquest had. Also, OE is an extinct state so the category is purely historical. It also would be pointless to add links to histories of those states per each individual article in the OE category. --Joy [shallot]   21:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I really don't believe your categorization scheme is at all consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. The Ottoman Empire is really NOT a subset of the history of Albania or the history of Greece -- it's instead an *overlapping* set. That's why we have only "History of Ottoman Greece" in this category, and "History of Ottoman Albania" and "History of Ottoman Egypt" -- and so forth.
 * Other examples -- we don't list Category:European Union under the categories of the histories of all its member states regardless of how important the European Union is to them -- and that's because the EU's history is an *overlapping* set with each of these nations.... We don't list Category:Roman Empire under the category of Category:Greek history or Category:Israeli history regardless of how importantly Rome affected Greece or ancient Israel.
 * Please reconsider -- it'd be good if we reached an agreement over this instead of revert-warring about it or having to go to a poll. And truly I don't see your idea of listing the categories of empires under the categories of all the nations they ever conquered fit. It'd be like listing Category:United States under Category:Utah instead of vice versa. Bigger groups are supposedly further up the tree -- you've made it in reverse.
 * Aris Katsaris 22:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You've not replied further to my post... I don't know if that means you simply didn't bother to reply, or were partly convinced... Either way I'm changing it back, since I really don't see it fitting with Wikipedia's categorization scheme concerning old empires. If you're still disagreeing, let's make a poll about this or generally ask for third opinions.Aris Katsaris 23:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I've not replied simply because I haven't seen it up to this moment. D'oh :) --Joy [shallot]   10:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see now, you replied shortly afterwards. I missed it somehow... too large a watchlist, I guess. --Joy [shallot]

 * I understand that it can seem inconsistent, but look at the practical effect.
 * If we put it in history of * cats, then the OE cat appears in the list of subcats at each of those, which is fine. There's a nuisance of having those history cats appear at the end of the OE cat, but that is minor (note that I don't use those by and large outdated skins which list categories on top -- that's a real flop, the categories cannot be superimposed over the article content, they merely add to it).
 * If we don't put it in history of * cats, we have to make separate categories for "History of * in the OE" and place each of those OE-related articles in those categories, too. Or make categories for each of the OE-related articles, and then make those cats subcats to both OE and the "History of * in the OE".
 * Such immense amount of duplication would be more damaging to the grand scheme of things than an occasional raised eyebrow upon looking at the bottom of the OE category.
 * Furthermore, I don't think those other analogies are relevant. These sets overlap but in general the concept OE's existence, given that it's gone, is a subset of the concept of the national/country histories. But that's really semantic nitpicking that I'm not particularly bothered with -- the final functionality, as described above, is what matters. --Joy [shallot]   10:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Uh, I don't see why you are talking about making further subcats about "History of * in the OE". An article about an event that involved only e.g. Ottoman Greece and the Ottoman Empire, would be in only two category "Greek history" and "Ottoman Empire". We'd not be creating a new category, we'd be simply placing an existing article under two existing categories. I see no duplication here.

 * That works for events. What do you do about common concepts? And there's really a lot of them (or at least a potential for them). --Joy [shallot]   20:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * This isn't so much about raised eyebrows... it's partly about systemizing the way we categorize old empires -- about not letting a reader get *lost*, by letting him investigate the immediate superset or subsets -- and also about the possibility of future automatic searches. You're considering only the immediate links but I'm thinking about the whole tree structure: eventually there may be a system that will let us say: "Bring us everything that's a descendant of the Greek history category" We'd not want an article about Ottoman *Egypt* to come up -- as it would with your system...

 * On the other hand with my system, a person would see the "Ottoman Greece" article in "History of Greece", and then through there he'd be able to move *up* the tree to go to "Ottoman Empire". The links are still there, but each relates to the immediate related article.
 * How about a compromise? We only put Ottoman Empire in the category of those histories that don't have an equivalent "Ottoman *" or "History of Ottoman *" article? That means it'd not be placed in the categories of Albania or Greece for example, since in those cases the Ottoman Empire as a whole is still only two clicks away.

Aris Katsaris 18:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * That would seem to work, too. --Joy [shallot]   20:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Ottoman Empire


text:
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 @ r ē ino 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 Featured article candidates), 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 . 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.

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)

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)
 * 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)

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.

title: Talk:Worcester, England/Archive 1


text:
Feast of Fools

The Feast of Fools or Festival of Fools (Latin: festum fatuorum, festum stultorum) was a feast day on January 1 celebrated by the clergy in Europe during the Middle Ages, initially in Southern France, but later more widely. During the Feast, participants would elect either a false Bishop, false Archbishop, or false Pope. Ecclesiastical ritual would also be parodied, and higher and lower-level clergy would change places. The lack of surviving documents or accounts, as well as changing cultural and religious norms, has considerably obscured the modern understanding of the Feast, which originated in proper liturgical observance, and has more to do with other examples of medieval liturgical drama, though there is some connection with the earlier pagan (Roman) feasts of Saturnalia and Kalends or the later bourgeois in Sotie. Over the course of a week, the ceremonies would be led by different people in positions of power within the church. On December 26, St. Stephen's Day, the deacons led the ceremonies. The sub-priests (or vicars) were in charge on December 27, St. John's Day, the choirboys on December 28, Holy Innocents’ Day, and the sub-deacons on the first of January, the Feast of the Circumcision. There is some disagreement on whether the term Feast of Fools was originally used to refer to the collection of days or specifically the celebrations taking place on the first of January. The word "fool" is used as a synonym for humble, as was common in the 11th century, rather than the modern use that treats it as another term for clown or jester.

Origins
Due to the lack of formal research on the feast, its exact origin is hard to pin down. The most prominent historians place its emergence in Central Europe, somewhere in what is now southeast France, but the margin of error is such that it could have been with France, Italy, or the Holy Roman Empire. Some historians believe a possible start of the feast came between 1119 and 1124 from Herod Games that were led by Geronimo of Reichersberg. These games focused around the alleged absurdity of King Herod, a Jewish-Roman ruler of Judea, and was practiced by storming a cathedral, throwing wooden spears at the choir, and beating by-standers with inflated animal bladders. This is thought to be the start of Feast of Fools since King Herod was coming into vogue in the 11th and 12th centuries, with a notable uptick in the number of plays and pieces being performed about him. Another story that lends strength to the theory of the feast coming from events and plays based on King Herod is his story from the Office of the Star. The story claims that Herod, who was king of what is now south-Israel/Palestine, including Bethlehem, around the nativity of Jesus, learned of Christ's birth and, concerned that a new born king would challenge his own rule of the area, ordered the murder of every new-born boy in his kingdom. The story claims that the murder of Jesus was prevented by King Herod's own page-boys, who then gained God's favor. This is pointed to as the explanation for the reversal of positions with clerical rank during the Feast of Fools, with a God holding page-boys in high regard and not caring for a king. This focus on King Herod is a potential explanation of why the feast did not spread nor survive as long as other festivals, as it was essentially born out of a trend in contemporary medieval theatre.

The first recorded mention of the feast from the Church comes from between 1160 and 1164 in Paris and was written by John Beleth. He explained how sub-deacons, who it had recently been decided to be the lowest of the highest clerical orders rather than the highest of the lower clerical order, were meant to preside over the Feast of the Circumcision, but that the exact details of the feast hadn't been formalized yet. It is theorized that this, in combination of the page-boy and King Herod story, is where the tradition of swapping positions within the church came from, showing how God favors the socially low.

Context and customs
The festival seems to have acted as a brief social revolution, in which power, dignity, and impunity was briefly granted to those in a subordinate position. In the views of some historians, this makes the medieval festival a successor to the Roman Kalends of January, although there is no continuity between the two celebrations. Lower-level clergy would also participate in the festival and hold masses on different day which would mock usually church traditions.

On each day of festivities, the participants would elect a single one of them, often referred to as the Archbishop of Fools, and they would carry and wear the items associated with that rank, in addition to gaining the powers normally associated with that position. The meaning of the festival, beyond serving as a chance for joy like any other holiday, was to show that those with power and wealth would eventually fall from grace.

Similar to modern day celebrations like Carnival and Mardi Gras, dancing in a provocative style, wearing masks, and the community being generally more allowing of obscene acts was common place. Additionally, Mardi Gras celebrations include serving of the King Cake or Gallette de Rois, which contains a small token. In earlier times, the person getting the token was crowned as king, and was expected to host the next gathering. Usually celebrated around Epiphany, it is considered a continuation of the ancient Roman Saturnalia where masters would host for their slaves.

Official condemnation
The Feast of Fools and the subversive traditions associated with it were the object of condemnations of the medieval Church, starting as early as the twelfth century. On the other hand, some Catholic writers have thought it necessary to try to deny the existence of such abuses. One interpretation that reconciles this contradiction is that, while there can be no question that Church authorities of the calibre of Robert Grosseteste repeatedly condemned the license of the Feast of Fools in the strongest terms, such firmly rooted customs took centuries to eradicate. It is certain that the practice lent itself to serious abuses, whose nature and gravity varied at different epochs. It should be said that among the thousands of European liturgical manuscripts the occurrence of anything which has to do with the Feast of Fools is extraordinarily rare. It never occurs in the principal liturgical books, the missals and breviaries. There are traces occasionally in a prose or a trope found in a gradual or an antiphonary. It would therefore seem there was little official approval for such extravagances, which were rarely committed to writing.

In order to curb the extremeness of the festivities after the Feast of Fools, on New Year's Day at Notre-Dame de Paris in the twelfth century, the "Lord of Misrule" or "Precentor Stultorum" was restrained, so that he was to be allowed to intone the prose "Laetemur gaudiis", and to wield the precentor's staff, but this was before the first Vespers of the feast, not during it, though the festival was not entirely banned. During the second Vespers, it had been the custom that the precentor of the fools should be deprived of his staff when the verse in the Magnificat, Deposuit potentes de sede ("He has put down the mighty from their seat") was sung. Hence the feast was often known as the "Festum 'Deposuit'". Eudes de Sully allowed the staff to be taken at that point from the mock precentor but laid down that the verse "Deposuit" not be repeated more than five times. There was a similar case of a legitimized Feast of Fools at Sens about 1220, where the whole text of the office has survived. There are many proses, and interpolations (farsurae) added to the ordinary liturgy, but nothing much unseemly. This prose, or conductus, was not a part of the office, but only a preliminary to Vespers. In 1245 Cardinal Odo, the papal legate in France, wrote to the Chapter of Sens Cathedral demanding that the feast be celebrated with no un-clerical dress and no wreaths of flowers.

End of the Feast
The Feast of Fools was officially forbidden by the Council of Basel in 1431 and again in a document issued by the theological faculty of the University of Paris in 1444; numerous decrees of lower level provincial councils followed. The Feast of Fools was condemned by early Protestants, and among Catholics it seems that the abuse had largely disappeared by the time of the Council of Trent, though instances of festivals of this kind survived in France as late as 1721, in Amiens, France, and Brussels, Belgium in 1719.

Connections to other holidays

 * Prior to the creation of the Gregorian Calendar in 1582, most European nations celebrated New Year's Day on March 25. Since the celebrations of the Feast of Fools generally took place over a week or so, this would cause them to end on April 1. Those who refused to, or forgot to, change to the new calendar system would be ridiculed as April Fools.
 * Due to them all taking place in the post-Christmas season, this festival, the Feast of the Ass, and the Feast of the Circumcision all grew more entangled over the centuries. As a result of fusing with the Feast of the Ass, when the church forbade the festivities from taking place within churches instead of dressing up as high-ranking members of the Church, they instead wore hats to resemble donkey ears.
 * Much of the customs in the Feast of Fools have been incorporated into modern-day Carnival, Mardi Gras, and Halloween.

In popular culture
Victor Hugo recreated an account of a Feast of Fools in his 1831 novel The Hunchback of Notre-Dame. In the novel, it is celebrated on January 6, 1482 (Twelfth Night) and Quasimodo serves as the Pope of Fools. The 1939 film of The Hunchback of Notre Dame opens with the Feast of Fools: Quasimodo is crowned King of Fools. Disney's 1996 animated film version of the novel shows the same incident with the song "Topsy Turvy".

The Feast of Fools and the Church of Rome's efforts to ban it play important roles in Alan Gordon's series of historical novels about the (fictional) Fools' Guild at the turn of the 12th to the 13th centuries. (Not to be confused with the modern Fools Guild.)

Historiography
Possibly as a result of it dying out in the 1700 and possibly as a result of it never spreading as much as other celebrations, there is a lack of research works based specifically upon the Feast of Fools. The first major work was done by Jean Bénigne Lucotte du Tilliot in 1741, titled "Memoires pour servir à l’histoire de la fête des foux: Qui se faisoit autrefois dans plusieurs eglises." The first half of the work was effectively a collection of primary sources related to the feast while the second part of the work focused on Infanterie Dijonnaise, a confraternity that he was trying to prove had its beginnings in the feast. The second major work wouldn't come until 1903, written by E.K Chambers and titled "The Mediaeval Stage." Chambers focused heavily on the feasts potential pagan origins, almost writing off its litigurical origins completely. The last major work was "Sacred Folly: A New History of the Feast of Fools" done by Max Harris in 2011 and is now considered to be the default resource for information on the feast. Harris's work argues against nearly everything Chambers stated, instead claiming that the feast has pagan, Christian, and secular roots, its secular roots still being tied back to religious plays.

title: Feast of Fools


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Brewer

Mark Brewer
Political screed. --jpgordon{gab} 21:52, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's been speedied. No reason to waste time on this one.  Postdlf 21:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
Thomas Wolff

Thomas Hartwig Wolff (July 14, 1954, New York City – July 31, 2000, Kern County) was an American mathematician, working primarily in the fields of harmonic analysis, complex analysis, and partial differential equations. As an undergraduate at Harvard University, he regularly played poker with his classmate Bill Gates. While a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley from 1976 to 1979, under the direction of Donald Sarason, he obtained a new proof of the corona theorem, a famously difficult theorem in complex analysis. He was made Professor of Mathematics at Caltech in 1986, and was there from 1988–1992 and from 1995 to his death in a car accident in 2000. He also held positions at the University of Washington, University of Chicago, New York University, and University of California, Berkeley.

He received the Salem Prize in 1985 and the Bôcher Memorial Prize in 1999, for his contributions to analysis and particularly to the Kakeya conjecture. He was an Invited Speaker at the International Congress of Mathematicians in 1986 in Berkeley and in 1998 in Berlin.

title: Thomas Wolff


text:
Colorado Trading & Clothing

The Colorado Trading & Clothing CO is an American company operating in the textile industry. The company is based in Denver, Colorado. The company was involved in a controversy where it was alleged that they were importing textiles from Burma even when it was under sanctions for human rights violations.

Their product was sold by Spaulding, and included shirts with a Bush-Cheney logo sold by the website for the Bush campaign for President in 2004. The story received international attention.

title: Colorado Trading & Clothing


text:
Big Ten (disambiguation)

The Big Ten Conference is a collegiate athletic conference in the United States.

Big Ten may also refer to:

 * Big Ten Network, American sports network
 * Big Ten Tournament (disambiguation)
 * The Big 10, a mixtape by 50 Cent
 * "Big Ten", a song by English reggae musician Judge Dread

title: Big Ten (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Major film studios

Netflix
It's a member of the MPAA and brought in more revenue than any other studio in 2019. If that doesn't make them a major studio then I don't know what does. 74.96.86.95 (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Netflix is not a part of the major or mini-major film studios. Fortunewriter (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Box office numbers
For the past several years on this page, the recent year's final box office numbers is displayed with the actual reference because the past year was already done. The numbers for the year 2022 can't be added until the year is over as of January 1 for the year 2023 and it can't be used in the table because month by month, the number's in the box office can change during the same year. King Shadeed (talk) August 31, 2022 at 7:58 p.m. (EDT)

 * Ok But This Fella is making a wrong edit. He put the Warners Bros on the 2nd but didn't reliased it was Founded in 1923 and Paramount was born in 1912, 2nd after Universal Studios. Understand ?.180.75.254.172 (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Look. From what I'm seeing, you're letting that be your poor excuse. Way before you came here, in that same table, the order of those majors weren't in year of founding order. The Big 6 were ranked in who made the most revenue to the least revenue. So what I'm telling you is, stop. Leave it alone or you'll likely get in trouble. King Shadeed (talk) September 1, 2022 at 2:08 p.m. (EDT)

 * You know what, Forget it.180.75.254.172 (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Now I'm also seeing what you're doing. In the intro, it doesn't matter if those 5 major studios are in founding order or not. So you're making a big deal over something petty. Also, do not delete any messages from the talk page. King Shadeed (talk) September 2, 2022 at 2:10 p.m. (EDT)
 * Emm it does matter, and never use poor excuse. I have to make sure it followed the date. Otherwise readers will ask themselves why Waners bros are on no.2.180.75.254.172 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to keep arguing with you about this. So. Leave that alone. King Shadeed (talk) September 6, 2022 at 7:02 p.m. (EDT)

Foreign studios
What about Toho (Japan) and CJ Entertainment (South Korea)? Are they considered a major or mini-major? Fortunewriter (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to add Egmont, Leonine, and Highlight in the mini-majors? They're not making any American revenue and they're not directly competing with Lionsgate, MGM, STX, or A24. If there are any references stating that they are. 71.68.145.34 (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Just reverted move on 14 October 2022 by User:NDNSWMI which violated WP:PRECISION
I just reverted a move to Major film studios of the United States by User:NDNSWMI on 14 October 2022. It looks like that editor didn't bother to read any of the sources cited in the article or to review relevant Wikipedia article title policies. Under WP:PRECISION, "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that."

The point of the sources cited in the article is that the term "major film studios" is unambiguous and adequately precise. In the film industry, both within and without the United States, the phrase when not further qualified is always understood as referring to the five American media conglomerates which dominate the U.S. and global film markets. Anyone who actually reads entertainment news on a daily basis would already know that. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Numbers in abundance
So if I'm understanding it, the Little Three were part of the Big Eight along with some of the Big Five who used to be the Something Six and the Terrible Twos? It's all so confusing. EEng 23:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Renaming the article...
To be honest, I think the page needs to be renamed. I mean, its current name is "Major film studios", but it also talks about the much smaller, well-known film studios as well, which aren't exactly major. Whomever either came up with the title for this article, or decided to lump the mini-majors in with the majors, wasn't really thinking things through.

I mean, the article for the Big Three American TV networks wouldn't have information about the much smaller TV networks (MyNetworkTV & Ion Television) because that information doesn't/belong there, so why should an article about the 6 major film studios have information about the much smaller film studios? 2600:1700:C960:2270:E1A3:7CC3:E9E5:7D8D (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Clarification on major studios names
I am noticing that users keep using Walt Disney Studios and Sony Pictures for the images, maps, and link in articles. The studios are Walt Disney Pictures and Columbia Pictures. WDS and SPE are only entertainment companies that own the studios like NBCUniversal owning Universal Pictures and Paramount Global owning Paramount Pictures. WDP and CP are the major studios. 71.68.129.162 (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

What is wrong?
What exactly is wrong with this version of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:41D:B800:FD88:31D9:88B3:9817 (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Major film studios


text:
John Hancock Building

Four buildings in Boston, Massachusetts, have been known as the "John Hancock Building". All were built by the John Hancock Insurance companies. References to the John Hancock building usually refer to the 60-story, sleek glass building on Clarendon Street also known as the John Hancock Tower or Hancock Place.

176–178 Devonshire Street
The first John Hancock Building was built on Devonshire Street in 1891. It was designed by William G. Preston. On October 2, 1919, the building was purchased by the First National Bank of Boston. In 1922, it was one of the buildings torn down to make way for the new First National Bank building. This building was torn down in 1971 and replaced by One Federal Street.

120 Franklin Street, Stone & Webster Building
In 1909, John Hancock began work on a new addition to the building on the corner of Franklin and Devonshire Streets. The addition was designed by Shepley, Rutan and Coolidge in the French Renaissance architecture style. The "H type" design allowed for almost every office to have outside windows. Each floor contained marble flooring and wainscoting as well as a fireproof bank vault. The Wells Bros. Co. of New York City were the general contractors. John Hancock occupied the top three floors of the ten-story building and the Library Bureau, Eliot National Bank of Boston, and E. H. Rollins & Sons were among the first tenants. The addition gave the building frontage on Devonshire Street (176–200 Devonshire St.), Franklin Street (120 Franklin St.), and Federal Street (49–75 Federal Street). On January 3, 1920, the remainder of the building was purchased by Massachusetts Trust Company, which renamed it the Massachusetts Trust Company Building. In 1926 the building was purchased by Stone & Webster and became known as the Stone & Webster Building. In 1965, the First National Bank purchased the building with plans to construct their new headquarters there. The Stone & Webster Building was torn down once Stone & Webster moved out. The property was acquired by National Shawmut Bank, which constructed a temporary building to aid in their transition to One Federal Street. The temporary building was torn down and replaced by One Federal Street.

197 Clarendon, Stephen L. Brown Building (1922)
The next John Hancock building was designed by Parker, Thomas and Rice, best known as architects of the United Shoe Machinery Corporation Building. It was completed in 1922. It is located at 197 Clarendon St. across from the Hancock tower. It was known as the "John Hancock Life Insurance Company Building." Parker, Thomas and Rice received the Harleston Parker Medal for its design in 1924. More recently, it was known as "The Clarendon Building", and circa 2001 it was renamed "The Stephen L. Brown Building" in honor of Stephen L. Brown, chairman of John Hancock Financial Services, Inc. According to Donlyn Lyndon, "if you stand on the corner of Clarendon Street and St. James Avenue and look directly into the mirrored surface of the third Hancock, you will see reflected there the first two, aligned hierarchically in an ethereal family portrait."

Originally, the Planned Development Area (PDA) agreement for the building of the 60-story John Hancock Tower called for 197 Clarendon to be demolished to make way for open space or a public square. In 1982, the Boston Redevelopment Authority, responding to a request from the John Hancock company, decided that it would be better to keep the building on the tax rolls. It was also thought that open space near the base of the tower might not be desirable, due to the tower's "wind tunnel" effect.

200 Berkeley Street, Old John Hancock (1947)
The Berkeley Building (also known as the Old John Hancock Building) is a 26-story, 495-foot (151 m) structure located at 200 Berkeley Street, the second of the three John Hancock buildings built in Boston. The building, located in Boston's Back Bay, was designed by Cram and Ferguson and completed in 1947. It is known for the weather beacon at its summit, which displays light patterns as weather forecasts.

200 Clarendon Street, John Hancock Tower (1976)
The John Hancock Tower, on the southeast corner of Copley Square, is a 60-story, 790 ft skyscraper. It was designed by Henry N. Cobb of I. M. Pei & Partners and was completed in 1976. In 1977, the American Institute of Architects presented the firm with a National Honor Award for the building, and in 2011 conferred on it the Twenty-five Year Award. It has been the tallest building in Boston for more than 30 years and is the tallest building in New England.

601 Congress Street
In 2002, Manulife Financial began construction of a 14-story building in the Seaport District at 601 Congress Street (Picture). The building was designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP of Chicago, designers of the John Hancock Center in Chicago and the Sears Tower, also in Chicago. The building features a "green" (energy-efficient) dual glass curtain wall construction, making it among the first buildings in Boston to win national LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification.

On April 28, 2004, the then-head of Manulife's Boston operations announced that the building would be renamed the "John Hancock Building." According to Manulife, this is not quite correct; the building, completed in fall of 2004, will house the John Hancock Wealth Management Group and will bear conspicuous "John Hancock" exterior and interior signage featuring the John Hancock logo. However, the company will refer to the building simply as "601 Congress."

, Emporis lists the official name of the building as the "Manulife Tower".

title: John Hancock Building


text:
Strongly interacting massive particle

A strongly interacting massive particle (SIMP) is a hypothetical particle that interacts strongly between themselves and weakly with ordinary matter, but could form the inferred dark matter despite this.

Strongly interacting massive particles have been proposed as a solution for the ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray problem and the absence of cooling flows in galactic clusters.

Various experiments and observations have set constraints on SIMP dark matter from 1990 onward.

SIMP annihilations would produce significant heat. DAMA set limits with NaI(Tl) crystals.

Measurements of Uranus's heat excess exclude SIMPs from 150 MeV to 104 GeV. Earth's heat flow significantly constrains any cross section.

title: Strongly interacting massive particle