Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:54, 28 December 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Festivals High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Festivals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Festivals on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FestivalsWikipedia:WikiProject FestivalsTemplate:WikiProject FestivalsFestivals High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Rock music High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Woodstock received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Woodstock. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Woodstock at the Reference desk.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 15, 2004, August 15, 2005, and August 15, 2006.

Template:Maintained

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

How many people attended Woodstock?

There is a citation needed tag on "nearly half a million concert-goers." The early news reports give the total as 300,000. Some articles written in late 1969 mention "a half million." These seem to be casual estimates. The festival promoters are quoted in this August 1969 article as saying 300,000 people.

• "State Investigating Handling of Tickets At Woodstock Fair". New York Times. August 27, 1969. p. 45.

The New York State Attorney General's office was investigating complaints of ticket holders who did not get into the festival. The promoters pointed out that the tickets specified that refunds would be granted only if the show were canceled.

"Mr. Lang has said that more than half of the 300,000 people who attended the fair got in free because three times the expected number of people turned up and broke down the entire ticket - selling, ticket taking procedure."

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC) (I was in the crowd at Altamont)

I've seen numerous sources saying "half million." But honestly, counting crowds is always an uncertain business, so how can you get anywhere approaching a precise number? Also a full count would have to include the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, who were en route but were physically unable to come because of traffic jams etc. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that "Mr. Lang" had multiple constituencies and agendas, and if nothing else, was busy with other things, as contemporaneously recorded in the movie. I'd argue that he was not in much of a position to calculate attendance beyond "WTF???" IMHO shortly after the event, "Mr. Lang" likely underestimated attendance, if nothing else out of shame from the lack of sufficient "Port-O-Sans." There is, however, lots of wasted time to be devoted to the endeavor to try to find a more refined, and more importantly, reliable number between 300K (estimated from non-indicative ticket sales in advance of an event which clearly exceeded expectations and planned logistics) and half a million (based on other observers without a management agenda). Steveozone (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Over 500,000 people attended Woodstock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.93.12 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

since I was there, I would estimate 500,000 is near to short the number. As many people only wanted to hear certain performers and were not siting in the field at the times of show. most performers were listened to and we sat shoulder to shoulder full. there was also a show in a little ampitheater near the top of the hill. also there were yoga classes on going too. not to mention swimmers in Yasgar's pond ETC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.192.139 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I`ve been told by people who live there no one will ever know how many people were there..it kind of depends on what you mean by " being there " a lot of people tried to get there who ended up stuck in traffic pulled over and just started partying..if you include people who were camped out on their way to the show it`s probably a pretty big number..I`ve heard 1,000,000 time and time again especially considering traffic may have stopped as far away as Canada at one point. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no need for ambiguity regarding what "being there" means. People who were there on purpose and were close enough to see and/or hear at least part of the festival are obviously the ones who count. Bethel residents/visitors who wanted nothing to do with the festival were just bystanders. Same goes for those who wanted to attend but got stuck in traffic and camped 10-20 miles away from the site. They might have engaged in hippie like activities while there, maybe even shook hands and exchanged words with concertgoers, but again, why should they be counted as part of the audience? As for the actual numbers, the most often quoted figure I've seen (and it's probably just a guestimate) is 400,000-500,000 people. 143.239.64.169 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticism?

Outside of media coverage, why doesn't this article cover more criticism of the festival? It reads very "glowingly" of the festival yet it mentions deaths, arrests, traffic jams, food & water shortages. The media coverage mentions people working together to provide food & shelter to the masses that attended as if it was expected and not provided because it had to be provided. Wouldn't two accidental deaths in two days in any other city of 400,000 cause front page headlines? Surely there was criticism of the traffic management plan and the affect of people not attending and how they were inconvenienced. Did anyone else die because they couldn't get to the hospital due to the traffic jams? The article mentions law suits as a result of mismanagement - wouldn't that warrant a separate criticism section?

I know this was a huge event for the 60s but it had impacts beyond those attending and the festival itself but the article doesn't seem to cover any of that. Dbroer (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems incidents, difficulties and accidents, as you've noted, are covered in the article. No, two accidental deaths in two days in a city of 400,000 would normally not be front page news. WP:CRITS discourages the sort of separate section you're suggesting. If there's a sense that WP:NPOV isn't being adhered to, a consensus among editors would be welcome. My take is that it's not an issue. JNW (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The murder rate in 1969 was 7.7 and while the deaths weren't murder, you're talking about a much higher accidental death rate relative to the times. While a separate section might not be the best approach, it just seems interesting to me that the problems the festival created are glossed over. For example, there's no mention of sanitation or medical care issues due to poor or misleading planning. It also does not state what the lawsuits mentioned in the article are all about. As one who did not live through the era, it leaves me with questions that I feel the article should answer. I guess my main question stems from the statements stating that the festival was relatively peaceful, but that seems to be from the attendees perspective rather than those impacted by it. Dbroer (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Everyone who has ever been associated with Woodstock has always remarked that as far as anyone knows there was never a fistfight or single altercation of any kind at the event..I don`t know if that`s true or not but that`s what they say which is pretty much the point when you get to it...it established the ethos of the jam band hippy festivals whatever you want to call it..on the grounds of the Wannee festival every year they bring in a few security people to be safe...nothing ever happens..the following weekend there is a country music festival where they hire every off duty cop in Florida and they still cant control the violence. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

To the OP: you might be aware of this (or not), but the establishment and large parts of mass media set out to soil the festival from the get go, partly because they disliked/distrusted the counterculture movement, partly because they expected a lot of violence, not just sex, drugs & rock'n'roll. Yet that didn't happen, so they had to change their story even before the last chords sounded. Some parts of the media focused on the overall feeling of social harmony and good music, while others went out of their way to find every little dirty detail to report. But at the end of the day, all sides more or less agreed that it was an uneventful gathering of almost half a million young people for 3 days, which is nothing short of a miracle. If there's so little meaningful criticism about the festival - both then and now - that's because there's little to criticize. Yes, there were traffic jams, shortages of food and sanitation, disruption for residents, the sea of mud, the litter, the brown acid. Yes there were 2 deaths (one of which had nothing to do with what the festival was about). But that's not the reason we still remember it 45 years later. Scoffers and hippie haters parodied Woodstock for years but they missed the main point: Woodstock wasn't about setting a model for how concert logistics should be handled! 143.239.64.169 (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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. (non-admin closure) -- Calidum 14:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Woodstock → Woodstock Festival
• Woodstock (disambiguation) → Woodstock

– per WP:UCRN, this seems more relevant, as "Woodstock" has many other common uses. For instance if you look at the dab page, you see that there are a lot of places throughout the world called Woodstock. True, in the United States, most people may think of this festival when they hear the word "Woodstock," (which I have doubts about) but throughout the majority of the world, they are probably going to think of a settlement by this name.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Weakly oppose: from a North American perspective, Woodstock is the WP:COMMONNAME. No one calls it Woodstock Festival. However, in deference to our non-N.A. readers, I'd like to see some input from some of them. My guess is there are small places named Woodstock, few with much beyond-regional notability. —EncMstr (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support modified to small 'f' or (1969 festival): from a North American perspective, Woodstock is the WP:COMMONNAME, however WP:COMMONNAME does not = WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it is also WP:COMMONNAME for the town. The question is, globally, WP:WORLDVIEW, is in 2014 the weekend August 15-18, 1969 still notable enough to wipe the town Woodstock, New York which it was named after off the map, and more notable than all other Woodstock (disambiguation)s everywhere ever combined in Google Books? The answer per Google Book results for "Woodstock is" - No, not even close. But it should either be Woodstock Music & Art Fair or Woodstock festival or Woodstock (1969 festival). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Woodstock remains the common name for the festival, and, while it may be US-centric, the most likely target for those conducting the search.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User: Yaksar , if we are going to argue page views against Google Books results for a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then it requires evidence since some of these 36 towns and villages are quite large (and likewise User:Jusdafax below these 36 settlements all appear to be older than 40 years). Personally I don't know how to do one multiple page view count for 36 pages. Be we need to do a multiple page view count to establish that the 1969 festival attracts more page views than the other 36 articles combined? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply to User:In ictu oculi -- Page view counts are an incredibly arduous process, especially since I seem to always have trouble loading the website. However, until it timed out on me and I gave up, the numbers I found from a survey of 15 or so of the articles did seem to indicate the numbers we would want from a primary -- the festival article has around 250000 over the last 90 days while most are under 1000. The highest view count of the other pages seems to be 19649 for Woodstock NY. Given that most of the town's notability comes from the festival, I'd argue that this may be an even stronger sign of the festival's notability. Additionally, the higher view counts for the festival's associated articles (such as Woodstock (film)) should probably be seen as evidence for, rather than against, its position as the primary topic. Now, obviously the fact that Woodstock has served as the primary is biasing these numbers, however the runoff to the other pages gives very little indication that readers are usually searching for a similar topic.

I believe I've had a similar discussion before, but including "is" in the google book search provides a slight bias against events in the past, while just "Woodstock" gives a more accurate view. Google books seems to indicate that the festival is the primary topic not in the Misplaced Pages sense, but in that it has the first and a plurality of the results, especially those providing significant coverage of the topic. While this alone would not be enough of a reason for the festival to be the primary, when coupled with the page views the case seems convincing.

That being said, I was just a weak oppose, so I certainly am not 100% set in any decision!--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - It has been commonly known as Woodstock for over 40 years. Let's leave it like it is. The opening sentence refers to the "proper" names. Jus dafax 05:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Jusdafax, this may be, but you obviously missed the above. We default to WP:WORLDVIEW here, the main reason being that there are a lot of settlements throughout the world named Woodstock. The current title is based on the United States viewpoint. Looking at the settlements by this name, there are a few towns with a considerable large population. People living in those cities and nearby are going to view the cities as the primary topic.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support but would also support Woodstock (festival), Woodstock (original festival) Woodstock (festival 1969) or similar.

Woodstock (disambiguation) indicates about 35 towns and the like around the world called Woodstock. The link on the disambiguation page redirects via Woodstock Festival and this is followed by: Woodstock '79, Woodstock '89, Woodstock '94 and Woodstock 1999. I was born in 1969 and the phrase, for whatever reason, that I remember is "remember Woodstock"? Increasingly the answer to this question will be "no". See also: Category:Rock festivals in the United States Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose since there is no evidence to support the opinion that the festival is not the primary topic. In fact the discussion seems to be providing data that supports it being the primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very clear primary topic. older ≠ wiser 00:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment- just because this may be the primary topic in the US doesn't mean it is in other parts of the world. It definitely is not an internationally known event as compared to the September 11 Attacks, for example. I, being in the UK, had never heard of this festival until I saw this article. I was directed to this page looking for a list of all the places in the UK called Woodstock, expecting it to be the disambiguation page.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, less than half the GHITS for "Woodstock" are about the festival. -Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't assess a primary topic on a country by country level and then only choose one if every single country agrees. But you might have a point if it was actually true that it wasn't heard of at all in other parts of the world. But I'd note that in the link to the search on Google UK that you gave, results 1, 4, 7, and 8 are about the festival, and one is actually from a British source, the BBC. And the UK is not the only other English speaking place. A search for Woodstock on Google Hong Kong, for example, shows that of the top ten results 8 are about the festival. On Google New Zealand it's results 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. For Australia, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10. And to look at a country where there is no place named Woodstock, Google Germany has results 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, with 9 and 10 about festivals named in reference to it. There's little question that the festival is the overwhelming primary topic in terms of overall viewers -- it would certainly take a lot more than what we're finding at a country by country level to overcome that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: just because many other Googles have hits for the festival, that doesn't mean it is the primary topic in those countries. I was just using the GHITS to point out the low worldwide significance; I am not trying to use this as a main argument.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Australia - Woodstock, New South Wales, Woodstock, Queensland, Woodstock, Victoria, Canada - Woodstock, New Brunswick Woodstock (electoral district), Woodstock, Newfoundland and Labrador, Woodstock, Nova Scotia, Woodstock, Ontario, Ireland - Woodstock Estate, New Zealand - Woodstock, New Zealand, South Africa - Woodstock, Cape Town, Woodstock railway station (Cape Town), United Kingdom - Woodstock, Oxfordshire, Woodstock (UK Parliament constituency), Woodstock Palace, Woodstock, Pembrokeshire, Woodstock, Belfast, United States - Woodstock, Alabama, Woodstock, Alameda, California, Woodstock, Connecticut, Woodstock, Georgia, Woodstock, Illinois, Woodstock (Metra), Woodstock, Maine, Woodstock, Maryland, Woodstock, Minnesota, Woodstock, New Hampshire, Woodstock, New York, Woodstock (CDP), New York, Woodstock, Ohio, Woodstock, Portland, Oregon, Woodstock, Vermont, Woodstock (village), Vermont, Woodstock, Virginia, Battle of Woodstock, Woodstock, Northampton County, Virginia, Woodstock, Wisconsin, Buildings - Woodstock, Burwood, Woodstock (Upper Marlboro, Maryland), Woodstock (Natchez, Mississippi), Woodstock Elementary School (Utah), Woodstock Academy and Woodstock School. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, we're aware of these, I'd hope. But lots of articles existing doesn't really affect the arguments if the numbers still point to the topic being the primary.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If the move succeeds, we might should consider redirecting Woodstock to the new title.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

??? Could you clarify that suggestion? As I interpret it, it seems that it would make the entire exercise pointless. 2600:1006:B011:BA79:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That would make sense, assuming that using the fuller name Woodstock Festival (or Woodstock Festival '69 or something) is the most appropriate for this article (I'm inclined to think so), and the 1969 festival is nonetheless the primary topic for the name "Woodstock". I'm inclined to think not, because of Woodstock, New York, Woodstock, Oxfordshire, and all the others. —innotata 17:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Support. Although I have reservations on the exact title (1969 modifier perhaps?). Popular does not mean primary topic. It just means there are a lot of music fans. It wouldn't confuse them if the article was "Woodstock Festival" (or "1969 music festival" or something like that), and would be helpful to non-music fans. Walrasiad (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment- before we close this discussion, I'd like to see more input from our non-American users.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd prefer a move to Woodstock Music and Art Fair. "Woodstock" is shorthand, like "Obama" or "Trafalgar". I wouldn't have a problem with the current title redirecting here as primary usage. Srnec (talk) 14:09, 10 October 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.

Requested move 11 October 2014

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 page, per the discussion below. Combined with the previous discussion, I'd add that the problem is not likely to be the title suggestion; there does not appear to be a consensus that the page needs to be moved anywhere at the current time. Dekimasuよ! 00:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Woodstock → Woodstock Music and Art Fair – Unlike the move proposal above, I am not proposing to change the disambiguation page or the primary topic, just to change the title in line with both our own opening line and Britannica's article on the subject. The festival is named after a place. We customarily use full titles for things commonly named after the place they are associated with: battle of Trafalgar, Gallipoli campaign, Princeton University, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, Cannes Film Festival. These things are commonly called Trafalgar, Gallipoli, Princeton, Tiananmen Square and Cannes. We can continue to redirect Woodstock to the new title, just as we do with Obama. Srnec (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's policy on article titles.

• Support - the current title is an abbreviation. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title meets the requirements of WP:COMMONNAME. I believe that most readers better recognize this subject solely by the word "Woodstock" than any other title, and thus should remain at its current title. Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Do you think most people are unaware that "Woodstock" is an abbreviation? That it is actually the name of a place near where the fair took place? Srnec (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• I believe that most people pay no mind to the fact that it's an abbreviation, and would probably be confused if the article was titled with the event's full name For this reason, the description regarding the full name of the event is probably best left exclusive to the lead of the article, and not the article name itself. Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Support as per File:Woodstock poster.jpg and https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/86097489/woodstock-music-art-fair-poster-wooden?ref=market but mainly because of the extensive number of other Woodstocks that also have similar claim to the name. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support. I think the title definitely should not be just "Woodstock", and I originally supported the motion for it to go to the disambiguation page (which I still think it should). But since that move didn't get consensus, and this may seem a second-best solution, I am not sure the proposed official title would be recognizable. "Woodstock Music and Art Fair" sounds like a generic business or ongoing or recurrent event in Woodstock, and likely to be skipped over. Why not be clear? "Woodstock (1969 music festival)". That's what the article is about, isn't it? Walrasiad (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I will say it again: it's common usage, so let's leave it like it is. Jusdafax 03:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support – the current shorthand and ambiguity is not helpful to anyone. Dicklyon (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose -- The event is most commonly known as "Woodstock" without any additional words included.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear primary meaning by reason of both usage and even more so of long-term cultural significance. I can understand the frustration of the good citizens of Woodstock, New York, who don't even live in the same county as the site of the festival which appropriated their town's name, but I (sincerely) regret to say that it's not our mission here to fix that. Andrewa (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

But the proposal isn't about primary meaning. It's about clarity and recognisability. "Woodstock" is slang. Srnec (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

the proposal isn't about primary meaning... Agree. But it should be.

clarity and recognisability... Agree. And I and some others are saying that the current title satisfies these criteria.

"Woodstock" is slang... This reply completely ignores the relevant policy. You can I suppose appeal to WP:IAR, but you need to do so, and to say exactly why you think this case should be such a blatant exception. Andrewa (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Currently My Lai redirects to My Lai Massacre. This ngram shows that "My Lai" is much more common than "My Lai massacre". This ngram shows that the term "Woodstock" is less common now that it was 100 years ago and that the music and art fair apparently did little to put the term in greater use. When I google "Gallipoli" the results are all WWI-related. When I google "Woodstock" less than half the results are festival-related. Nobody has brought forward any evidence that Woodstock primarily refers to the festival—in this move debate or the last one. Srnec (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I do not quite understand the resistance to "additional words". "Woodstock" may be shorthand in a US rock music context. But outside that context, "Woodstock" mean a myriad of things, e.g. the Catskills town, Sir Walter Scott's novel, Snoopy's companion, Edward II's strongman, etc. I expect many watchers of this page are interested in music, and so this may be their natural inclination to associate. But may I ask that our commentators please make an effort to remember to think outside of a musical context and outside of the US. Walrasiad (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not just in the US. I'm Australian. Andrewa (talk) 20:38, 19 October 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.

Requested move- 28 December 2014

It has been proposed in this section that Woodstock be renamed and moved to Woodstock (festival). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Woodstock → Woodstock (festival)
Woodstock (disambiguation) → Woodstock – While we've ruled that "Woodstock is the WP:COMMONNAME, it's not necessarily the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. To people living in a city called Woodstock (esp. outside the US), for instance, that is probably the PT. It does not appear to be the primary topic in most of the world, and this title is more suitable per WP:WORLDVIEW. Note: this is the PT, however, over the other Woodstock festivals, which is why I do not support the move to Woodstock (1969 festival).Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is in fact the primary topic for the term; no evidence has been presented in this or other move requests to refute that. The existence of other Woodstocks doesn't mean this can't be the primary topic; there are plenty of Londons in the world, yet the UK city is still primary. These requests are getting somewhat disruptive, and I hope the closing admin strongly considers imposing a moratorium when this is closed. -- Calidum 21:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Calidum: the difference between this and London is the festival name comes from the name of a city; it is not the original PT. I've cited this just above, and it has been cited in the previous requests presented above. See search results from other Googles , , , , , , , , . The list goes on and on. So your statement of "It is in fact the primary topic for the term; no evidence has been presented in this or other move requests to refute that" is blatantly incorrect and could be interpreted as dickish and an unwillingness to support claims with evidence.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Festivals articles
• High-importance Festivals articles
• WikiProject Festivals articles
• C-Class Rock music articles
• High-importance Rock music articles
• WikiProject Rock music articles
• C-Class New York (state) articles
• Mid-importance New York (state) articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Selected anniversaries (August 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2006)
• Requested moves