Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:54, 5 January 2007

newark in the los angeles area

I believe there is a newark in the los angeles area of california. 69.42.5.52 5 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)

Not that I can find. There is a Norwalk, though. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

New Jersey

A lot of times when you search a city like Norfolk, for example, you go right to a page. I was wondering why Newark doesn't go directly to Newark, NJ's page since it is the largest and best known.

Norfolk isn't a good example of that, since it doesn't go right to a page about any city. The Wednesday Island 21:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah fair point cause it's a county, but you get my point. Take other examples of cities like Birmingham. A lot of times it makes sense for cities like say Columbus (the explorer) or San Jose (Costa Rica) or Phoenix (mythological bird) to go to a disambiguation page, but cities like Austin, Texas and Newark, New Jersey should probably go directly to that page when searched because they are so much larger and well-known than other Newarks and Austins and very few people are likely to just search Austin looking for a person and people probably don't just search Newark looking for the airport. A1%

Proposed move

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.And turn Newark into a redirect to Newark, New Jersey, by far the largest and most important of the Newarks. - crz crztalk 14:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

1. Support While a connection to the disambig page is most appropriate, cities like Tampa, Amarillo, and Grand Rapids are of equivalent size and importance to Newark, and they have redirects directly to them as well. Jimbo 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support, good idea, provided that {{redirect|Newark}} or something of the sort is added. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
   • Obviously. - crz crztalk 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support It would seem like a pretty reasonable proposal. Obviously, I'd agree with YoungAmerican about the redirect. alphachimp 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support easily most common disambig. Per Norfolk or Richmond (two very large cities in VA which is ignored, while none of the other Newarks are even close to the size of this city). Patstuart 23:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per YA. Yanksox 04:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support And I'd go a step further and put the article itself at Newark to make it clear to anyone who reaches that article that this city is the primary usage of Newark. To the extent that the U.S. city guideline/convention dicates use of city, state for all city articles, it conflicts with WP:CN and WP:DAB which override it. --Serge 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
   • Now this, I don't agree with. If we moved Newark, New Jersey to just "Newark", it would go against everything already established here. Cities like Los Angeles, California, Seattle, Washington, Dallas, Texas, Miami, Florida, and Atlanta, Georgia are much larger, and much more important to the economy of the US. The three cities (that I know of) that have been moved (New York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia), are definitely worth it. I'm not saying the others I've listed aren't, but if everytime there's a vote and it's rejected, there has to be a valid reason, and until we can get those moved, we can't move this one to just "Newark". That would just make a mockery of the voting process. Jimbo 14:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

1. Oppose does a good job of disambig at the moment. GraemeLeggett 15:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose given the number of other places named Newark. For example, it's not unreasonable to assume that the average UK user would be looking for the British town rather than the city in New Jersey. PC78 21:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
   • So what of Dover, Essex, and Brighton? - crz crztalk 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
     • What of them? Maybe they need to be changed, but that's not the issue here. PC78 07:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose there is just too many Newark's out there and it is very us-centric to assume that everyone is going to think about the nj town. 205.157.110.11 23:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
   • So what of Dover, Essex, and Brighton? - crz crztalk 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
     • They all have good size disambiguation page so it is probably best to think about changing those redirects. 205.157.110.11 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
     • The problem that you are trying to raise is the result of the current naming convention that has been adopted for some countries that uses only the city name for the article name. If a second qualifier were always used the number of these conflicts would be greatly reduced. Vegaswikian 07:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Putting one article at this location would result in an unacceptable number of readers being redirected to the wrong article. Having the dab here is not causing any problem. Vegaswikian 07:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Newark is actually one of the pages that I fix disambig links for. Although the majority of the links do actually refer to the city in New Jersey, I'd guess at least 20% actually end up being for either the city in the UK or the one in Delaware. To me, that's enough to leave the main page being for disambiguation. --- The Bethling 10:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose There's really no harm in having it be a disambig page. There are simply too many other reasonable options. GassyGuy 12:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Neutral as per above. In any case, I would say the most popular of all meanings would be the airport. Asterion 15:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's kinda perverse to redir to airport named after the city and not to the city. It's like redirecting JFK to the airport instead of the president. - crz crztalk 15:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I know, I know. I wasn't suggesting that at all! What I mean is that most people outside the US possibly have never heard about any Newark but the airport. Asterion 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• It seems by reading the current disambiguation list that there are many places called "Newark" giving a lot of potential confusion when editors just wikilink the word expecting the local version to be meant. This is not helped that in the UK, Newark is seldom referred to as "Newark-on-Trent" its correct title but just "Newark".GraemeLeggett 16:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Most Newarks, including the English one, are tiny. Newark, New Jersey, is a major United States city. For examples of solutions like mine, see Dover vs. Dover (disambiguation), Essex vs. Essex (disambiguation), Brighton vs. Brighton (disambiguation). Examples are limitless. - crz crztalk 17:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Other Newarks

I like the disambiguation redirects because not only are there other Newark cities but there are other Newarks business and things that share the name. Google search for Newark -"New Jersey" -"Jersey" Someone talked about the airport but for aviation fans like me, the phrase Newark is probably going to make you think of the museum in the UK. In Delaware, the symphony is almost as notable as the city itself. There is the geologic interest] and so forth. It is not just a matter of city size and importance here but rather a fairly common name for many different kinds of places and things that is better suited as a disambiguation page. 205.157.110.11 02:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)