Jump to content

Talk:Vaughan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The history info that has been added to this page comes from The City of Vaughan website. I assume that is probably a copyright violation. Adam Bishop 03:06, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I would contact the city to verify if the information posted can be used freely. spstarr 06:07, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

NOTE: I'm sure the city doesn't care, because mostly everything here is positive. I urge people to take a more critical look at this city. They will be appalled at what they find.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.184.151 (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughan Watch

[edit]

I urge anybody who wants to here who wants to look deeper into the City of Vaughan to visit Vaughan Watch.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.184.151 (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Carrying Place Ratepayers Association—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.49.90 (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you write is biased so can we censor you? 20:16, 2 March 2006—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.239.249 (talk)

  • First off, start signing your comments please. you do it by typing four tildes (~) at the end of the comment. Second of all, no. If you have a problem with my edits, take it up with an admin. pm_shef 01:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Municipalities

[edit]

I don't think you'll be interested after this November. 20:16, 2 March 2006—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.239.249 (talk)

[edit]
  • You'll notice I added the cool information bar on the right side. The one piece of info that I'm missing is the area (in square km) of the city. Any help would be appreciated on that... as well as any suggestions to improve the box. Thanks! pm_shef 03:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, C'est ultra cool. Now if only my hometown had the same cool info bar. Phil-hong 11:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmm... Well I like the Vaughan bar better. It doesn't look like it was made using code from 1997. Phil-hong 06:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the diceman, there was no reason to delete our city manager from the info box, its standard with info boxes in other cities. pm_shef 01:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I noticed some inaccuracy in the government section, and I was going to clean it up; however, I thought this would be a good time to bring up how cluttered the section is. I would like to suggest replacing the City Manager, Regional Councillors, and Ward Councillors, with a Council type. The removed information can then be place into the Vaughan_City_Council page, so that the Vaughan page is more consistent with Ontario municipalities such as Toronto, Ottawa, and Mississauga. Lucky mac11 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor

[edit]

The main page (as presently edited) appears to identify the Mayor of Vaughan as someone other than the sidebar name. Lacking any verifiable evidence, I merely note this, and that I cannot justifiably edit it. -- Simon Cursitor 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Michael Di Biase has been Vaughan's mayor since 2002. He became involved in the city's politics when he was elected local councillor in 1985. In the 2003 Municipal Election, Di Biase won his first official term since the passing of Mayor Lorna Jackson. The above, as taken from the article is correct, and is the same as in the sidebar..... - pm_shef 01:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environmentally Friendly

[edit]
  • What on earth are you on about ED209? How is it not possible for a building to be environmentally friendly? The entire purpose of the LEED standard is to certify a building as environmentally friendly! Low emissions, low paper usage, green roof, energy efficient light bulbs, etc. Do i need to explain some more?! -- pm_shef 22:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demogrpahics

[edit]

Since when is the religions of Vaughan more important than the ethnic origins that live there. The big unnecessary chart of religions should be removed from the page. You can find a credible source of these statistics by going to the community profile page. Once your in Vaughan, on the right hand side, a bar states additional data. Clicking there, reveals a chart. by clicking on "ethnic origin" you find these numbers. there is no specific address. - Galati—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.157.203 (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All data should be cited. In this case, the reference page is here; it just takes a bit of perusal to find it. Many more data tables can be found here. Please note that the information presented as of your most recent edit is wrong - it double counts quite a lot of the population, so the percentages are WAY OFF. They are not statistically valid as presented. Mindmatrix 14:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've altered the "ethnic origin" box to be for "religion", as it was very similar to the "ethinicity" chart in the infobar which covers most of that information already. I've also added references for both. -- pm_shef 15:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sure that most of our Wikipedia users are mixed ethnic origins. Some may be mixtures of for example Italian, English, Irish, combined in one. Obviously, there will double counts in the population it includes multiple responses as well, as the census allows that and no one is one ethnic origin anymore.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.157.203 (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

1. Gretzky did not play in Vaughan, the team relocated from Vaughan to Toronto in 1974 and was known as the Toronto Nationals (later name changed to Toronto Young Nationals). 2. Auto. accident is not wiki worthy. I removed both from the article--CharteredMember 02:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dab

[edit]

Do we really need the dab notice on the top? It would be relevant if Vaughan redirected here, but it doesn't. I rather doubt a user enetering Vaughan, Ontario would be interested in looking for Vaughan, Mississippi. Fishhead64 16:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

The map on this page isn't very useful. It has no points of reference, visual or textual. Perhaps if one is familiar with Vaughan it makes more sense, but this map is really not much more than a collection of seemingly meaningless shapes. Beaverfever 14:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Yorkregionseal.PNG

[edit]

Image:Yorkregionseal.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 11:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

[edit]

The pronunciation given in the article "/ˈvɔːn/" is just wrong. In Canadian English [ɔ] only occurs before [ɹ]. I think [ˈvɒːn] would be a better transcription. --Lesouris (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename page

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was move. Mindmatrix 15:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be renamed per the criteria at WP:CANSTYLE. It appears to be the primary use of the term Vaughan, and an internet search for the term, excluding the term "Ontario" to find occurrences not related to this city, yields numerous hits, all about people whose name contains Vaughan - they are not singularly known as Vaughan though. Vaughan, Mississippi is a small, unincorporated community, so should not prevent this page move. Other Wikipedia pages about Vaughan are either about subjects in the city itself (an electoral district, a mall etc.) or subjects whose name contains the word Vaughan. The dab page should be sufficient to handle these, and a hatnote to that dab page will be necessary Mindmatrix 14:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox Photo

[edit]

Most articles on cities of Ontario use either a montage photo (eg. Toronto, Mississauga) or the city hall (eg. Markham, Richmond Hill, King) in the Infobox. The current photo (View from the top of Behemoth (Canada's Wonderland).jpg) has the Wonderland taking up half of the area, and the sky taking up most of the remaining area. If the Wonderland really should be used to represent Vaughan, we may as well use a better Wonderland photo. Raysonho (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish population of Vaughan

[edit]

The table at History_of_the_Jews_in_Canada#Canadian_Jews_today says that 12.6% of Vaughan’s residents are jewish, but according to Vaughan#Demographics 18.20% of the population adheres to Judaism . This is a large (50%) discrepancy. Any Comments? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

@Ottawahitech: As of 2011 there are 33,745 Jews in Vaughan (11.8%) of the population which is what it shows in one of the Vaughan article tables according to the source listed on that table. What you're looking at the 18.20% is the religion of Judaism, which I assume is higher than the percentage by race because non Jewish people by race can still practice Judaism. The percentage of 12.6 from the Jews in Canada article is probably inaccurate as there is no source. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaselineeeeeeee: Thanks for the explanation. I am surprised to see so many individuals practicing Judaism who are not Jewish by ehtnicity. Are you sure this is the explanation for this? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

@Ottawahitech: Yeah, it seemed kind of high... I found a source from StatsCan for religion with realistic numbers, as the religion paragraph didn't have a source before. [1] Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Vaughan

[edit]

So I see that the Order of Vaughan section has been called into question. While I do agree the people are not quite notable, TOoV does not seem to require a page to itself (yet). It seems like the Notable People section would be the best location for the honour, but perhaps should be renamed to People of Vaughan or something? Also to consider, the Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines do not apply to lists within articles; however, I am all ears to if there is a better spot to include this list in the Vaughan page. User:Lucky_mac11 16:05, 4 Feb, 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed the list, before seeing the discussion begun here, so the move wasn't intended to circumvent discussion. None of the persons who've received the honor appear to be otherwise notable. It's probably enough to note that the city bestows the order. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm similarly dubious about the addition of youth league teams and non notable athletic organizations, the inclusion of which appears to be promotional. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aside from the Order of Vaughan, I have not added much. Most of the information was already there, I was just organizing it into a more presentable format rather than a list.
    • People may not be notable, but when compared to lists like those for the OC or OO, it is important to list all recipients, especially since there is no list on the Vaughan website. Perhaps not here, but maybe on its own Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky mac11 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they're not notable, they're not listed in the encyclopedia, at either this article or a separate one. If the city itself doesn't find it necessary to mention the honorees by name.... 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am curious as to the reason you think they are not notable. Some recipients include Members of Parliament, prominent business owners, and public service figures. Most, if not all of these recipients are notable in one way or another. Additionally, WP:N says that notability does not apply to contents within an article. So while it was perhaps incorrect of me to place the list under the Notable People section, an OoV page on its own would be entitled to the list as it is relevant and important information. Lucky mac11 (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would not include a list of non-notables, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have probably mentioned that the Vaughan website is significantly lacking in many departments. It may in fact be on the website, but navigation through the website is very poor. The fact that it is "not on the site" should not be considered when accounting for notability, as it also lacks much of the history of Vaughan. Lucky mac11 (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Communities

[edit]

If feel like the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre does not quite the definition of a community. I do think that VMC is very important to Vaughan, but maybe needs to be put into a new section, a section for Vaughan similar to what the public spaces section is in Toronto. Thoughts? Lucky mac11 (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add something else about the communities in Vaughan. What defines a "major community"? Are they considered major if they were sizeable places prior to suburbanization? If so, Concord definitely fails to meet the criteria. And why are they said to contain smaller communities? How is Pine Grove part of Woodbridge or Edgeley, Concord? It seems wrongheaded (and unencyclopedic) to state as fact that Hwy. 400 and Major Mack is Woodbridge just because people don't care about their city's identity and need to "fill in the gaps". Mississauga is also a reorganized city, but people don't consider, say, Clarkson as extending for a ridiculously far distance to merge it with Streetsville. Transportfan70 (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Transportfan70: The city has defined 5 "developed" communities (those mentioned already), as well as three "community projects" which include Vellore (I will post a source when I find the newsletter/by-law I read with it). I think that the entire community section could use a bit of a re-work. Lucky mac11 (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found an older source when Concord and Thornhill were defined as one community here. The city has defined its "neighbourhoods" (or "communities", but I think the name of this section might be a seperate topic), but as far as the boundaries go, I believe that is defined in the telephone books and postal codes. Lucky mac11 (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucky mac11: What does "VMC" stand for? The acronym isn't used in the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: VMC is the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre, the cities new defined downtown core. It is important to mention from an aspect of human geography, but I feel it does not belong in communities. Lucky mac11 (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Transportfan70: I feel the 'Major subdivisions' drop-down list in the infobox should be deleted as it seems unimportant as at the end of the day, all cities contain communities. It only reinforces the city's lack of civic identity.Transportfan70 (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Transportfan70: I do agree, since cities like Montreal and Edmonton do not list subdivisions either. For the sake of arguement, Toronto and New York both list their subdivisions and are cities with less civic identity, but I feel that these cities are a listings can be justified. We already provide enough context on these neighbourhoods in the Communities section anyway. Lucky mac11 (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

[edit]

Moved from my talk page @Vaselineeeeeeee: Salutations! I see that you have an issue with my SVG flag of Vaughan, Ontario which I made. Since I first made it I have corrected the leaf, colours and angles on the flag and it is continuously being taken down by you. I am not offended, I would just like you to tell me what it is missing or what is wrong so then we can use it and enjoy the quality of an SVG flag for the wiki! Happy editing! --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cookieman1.1.1: Firstly, the blue parts are not even widths, and secondly the blue lines do not go to the tip of the red maple as in the official flag. If you're going to make it, you should follow how these are 'professionally' done (including the summary description), see File:Flag of Toronto, Canada.svg. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved again. @Vaselineeeeeeee: Salutations! I have fixed the flag of Vaughan, Ontario I made earlier. I fixed the colours, leaf and angles to match with the original however it is being continuously taken down by yourself with no explained other than "its crappy" etc. I am not mad, I would just like to hear what you yourself think or know what is wrong so then i may fix the SVG and then we can all enjoy the vector quality with the rest of the wiki! Let me know :) --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have to reupload it, I see the same thing as before. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cookieman1.1.1: This new rendition doesn’t look bad but can you please add a similar summary to the Toronto one I like above? There should be more attribution info. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 03:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaselineeeeeeee: Elaborate a little--Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you indenting page section headings? If you indent the section heading it disappears into a previous comment section which has nothing to do with this section. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Eloquent Peasant: first off, what? Second why are you literally following my every move and supervising like I'm a child? Its really getting annoying and it is rubbing off like you are doing it to get on my nerves, especially after removing my barnstar for no reason. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cookieman1.1.1: When you take a coat of arms and change it entirely (7 serpents become 14 serpents on your svg of Yauco, Puerto Rico), I had to spend time trying to figure out if this was you- trying to improve Wikipedia, a good faith edit, or vandalism. I am watching this article as well because another editor was also not happy with your changes to an .svg image on this page. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Eloquent Peasant: Well your late, it's all correct and your presence here isn't needed. He has handled the situation well and informed me what to do and he is capable of handling it himself and doesn't need backup from someone upset because I made a mistake on a separate page for a different country. Let me do my job with SVGs, and you do yours. Happy editing! --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 December 2021

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Participants in the discussion emphasized that this city is the most important place to be called Vaughan, and thus "Vaughan" was found to be the preferable title per WP:CANSTYLE. Some users argued that the surname "Vaughan" was the true primary topic, but pageview analysis did not support that argument. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughan → Vaughan, Ontario – First, to make a place entry consistent with all other "Vaughan" place entries; "Vaughan", Ontario, is not of the same status as Paris, Moscow, or London. Second, to free up "Vaughan" page for redirect to Vaughan (disambiguation) so that the (overwhelming majority of) users who come to Wikipedia seeking something with the name Vaughan in it other than Vaughan, Ontario, may be spared having to spelunk around the Vaughan, Ontario, page for a redirect to find what they are after. Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the hatnote that states, "For other uses, see Vaughan (disambiguation)" should be enough for users to avoid "spelunk"ing for other options. PKT(alk) 20:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews for the last-name are consistently about a sixth of those for the town [3]—blindlynx 03:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Google shows the surname article before the city article and from England that's the only result for the city, Images also results as many or more results for people than the city but the individuals are probably PTMS, Books also appears to mainly return people. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 19 February 2023

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. No consensus. Hadal (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– The city in Canada is certainly a popular encyclopedic topic, but it does not rise to the standard described at WP:PTOPIC - it does not have a long-term significance or usage that is larger than all the other topics known as Vaughan. This is primarily because the human names are actually way more commonly known and associated with the term compared to the city.
The previous discussions about this were flawed IMHO because folks seemed to make a lot of unsupported assumptions about average reader behavior. Assertions were made that only well-documented mononymous usage is relevant, but I do not believe this is so - it is very common for surnames and given names to be used mononymously, even if they are naturally disambiguated in real life. Likewise, raw statistics were analyzed, but nobody seems to have gone into the overall body of statistics, which shows a substantially different picture.
For example, WikiNav for Vaughan shows the hatnote gets only 105 clicks out of a total incoming traffic of 8.8k (~1%), and the set indexes for the surname and the given name likewise don't get a lot of traffic. However, it is still in the top 10 list of outgoing traffic, and I would contend that this mainly demonstrates how we and the search engines navigate readers, as opposed to how they would naturally navigate. We effectively hid the anthroponymy behind a hatnote and listed it in the fifth subsection there, after various smaller places etc. So mass views for that page will show what it shows, with the city's 338 views a day looking dominant. But when you look at mass views for the surname and the mass views for the given name it's apparent that Vince at 5,764 / day, Stevie Ray at 3,234 / day, Robert at 2,122 / day, Matthew at 1,635 / day, ... and numerous others, including Vaughan Williams at 626 / day, all the way down to Frankie at 177 / day, and in turn the long tail after that, are all as a whole commanding a huge amount of reader attention. This amount is so large that it casts a substantial amount of doubt in any claim that when an average reader looks up "Vaughan" they by default mean the city.
Now, it's possible to claim that when the average reader thinks about what they would expect in an encyclopedia for "Vaughan", they might expect the city. However, I can't find other examples in support of that - a search for "Vaughan" in britannica.com does not short-circuit to the city (the dropdown shows people, while full results show an assortment of results, a fair few of which are about Canada too, yet it didn't show the city as such near the top). Likewise, the searches at encyclopedia.com and Columbia Encyclopedia (infoplease.com) mostly show people. Ditto for Google Books with pws=0.
So, I'm proposing that we disambiguate this at the base name and void the assumption of primary topic for the city. Worst case, in a couple of months time WikiNav will tell us that e.g. people are actually clicking the city's entry so much that it dwarfs all the other uses, and it'll be easy enough to revert or place a primary redirect based on that.
TIA. --Joy (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I've changed this requested move to move to Vaughan, Ontario, as WP:CANPLACE says the following "A Canadian city's article, however, should never be titled simply City, Canada (e.g. Halifax, Canada), although it is permissible to create a title of this type as a redirect to the properly titled article." --- Tbf69 P • T 10:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - WP:PRITOP is somewhat of a subjective metric, but I suggest that an average reader looking, for example, for Vince Vaughan, would type his exact name in the search bar (same as the others with the surname "Vaughan"). However, those looking for the city will be most likely type Vaughan in the search bar, hence I believe that Vaughan (the city) is WP:PRITOP. --- Tbf69 P • T 10:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With so many notable people named Vaughan and so much traffic, why would we assume that readers always remember the exact (spelling of the) given name of the person they want to look up? Think about a person trying to get to e.g. Terri Vaughn, but types in Terry Vaughn. It's very natural to try to navigate via "Vaughn" in any such case, and seeing the city there is violating the principle of least astonishment. Likewise, if we have these intricate rules in WP:CANPLACE you're invoking, it also stands to reason that readers that want to look up the Canadian places are actually accustomed to seeing those in titles, as opposed to relying on primary topic navigation. --Joy (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vaughn is a separate article to Vaughan (disambiguation).
    WP:CANPLACE also allows for simply the name of a city, in the case of WP:PRITOP.
    Anyway WP:PLA is an essay, so I wouldn't cite it as policy (WP:DCE). --- Tbf69 P • T 11:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I just said, this difference is not really relevant for the purposes of navigating the average reader. It wasn't my intent to cite an essay as policy, I merely provided the pipe link for clarification for people who are not aware of this general principle. If you insist on a policy link, the relevant one can be the article title criteria because it works in the same vein. --Joy (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Having the city as PT doesn't seem optimal in this case, per the nominator's data and given the many other notable topics reasonably associated with the term. The proposed alternative is a simple and sensible improvement, and (as Joy notes) less astonishing. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also per WP:TITLECON it's best to try to keep title patterns reasonably consistent whenever we can, and the current RM at Markham, Ontario is a good one to consider in this same context. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support or at least primary direct. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A numbers game is not informative here. Lots of people live in Ontario, so most of those hits are probably just local residents looking it up. It is not sufficiently notable outside of Ontario to be the primary topic, over all other Vaughans. Walrasiad (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per previous discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose per last time—blindlynx 20:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blindlynx:Last time you opposed the move. Did you mean to oppose this time too, or did you mistakenly add 'per last time' to your message? Mindmatrix 18:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry my mistake. blindlynx 22:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for fixing that; I wasn't sure which you had intended. Mindmatrix 19:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, nothing has changed in the 14 months since the last time this idea was shot down. Repeating my argument from last time: "per WP:CANSTYLE#Article_names. Vaughan is by far the largest place by the name - the others are a small village or unincorporated town names. Per CANSTYLE, "Cities that either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name can have undisambiguated titles," which fits this situation. PKT(alk) 00:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination; ╠╣uw; In ictu oculi; Walrasiad; Crouch, Swale and blindlynx. There are 17 entries listed upon the Vaughan (disambiguation) page, with no indication that Canada's 17th-largest city, population 323,103, possesses international renown to the extent of overwhelming the combined notability of the remaining 16 entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. (Yes, I read everything written by Joy.) Of the entries at Vaughan (disambiguation), only the placenames are mononymously referred to as 'Vaughan', and of those, the Canadian city is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (the others are unincorporated communities). All other entries are known by compound nouns containing 'Vaughan' (for example, entries at Vaughan (surname)), but not solely by 'Vaughan'; anybody looking for these can follow the hatnote. Over the past month, there have been an average of about 300 daily hits to Vaughan, of which fewer than 10 continued on to the disambiguation page, fewer than 50 a day land on Vaughan (surname), and fewer than 5 on Vaughan (given name). So, readers looking for those other entries already knew their final target, and the few that didn't followed the hatnote. By the way, if you're going to apply the logic of page views and mass views for compound nouns, take at look pageviews for London (2022-11-20 to 2023-02-18) and massviews for London (also 2022-11-20 to 2023-02-18). Lauren London gets more daily page views than the city; so should we move London to London (disambiguation) using the same arguments you cite? (Expanding the date range to 2 years changes the values in favour of the city, but entries in the name category would collectively have roughly 75-100% of the pageviews as the city, so the argument wouldn't change much.) I would bet such a proposal would be snowball closed with oppose votes. There are other articles that have the same issue (Dallas, Santiago, Sydney and others; for example, compare four year view totals for Sydney (name) (massviews) and Sydney (pageviews) - the city isn't even at the top of the list for things named 'Sydney' over a four year period). Mindmatrix 01:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why I don't think the primary topic status of British London can really be in doubt by usage is that the numbers for Lauren might be comparable, but the others are not (next in line Jack gets an order of magnitude less traffic than the city), so there's no critical mass for such an argument like there is for Vaughan. Likewise, https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=London doesn't even show the hatnote being one of the top 20 links to be clicked, at best it could have <1.42k/485.6k clicks which is < 0.29%, and the outgoing traffic in general scatters to 842 destinations. Certainly this is also caused by the generally large long-term significance of that one, but the difference is still pretty stark, as Canadian Vaughan has hatnote as high as #5 and overall only scatters to 48 destinations. London is one of the applications of primary topic guidelines that would be really hard to dispute, while Vaughan is different from that by orders of magnitude in every respect. Similarly, Sydney Sweeney is the only Sydney that gets more views than Sidney the city, and the next in line Sydney Pollack doesn't get half as much as the city, so there's just not enough critical mass in there, unlike here. --Joy (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Less than 2.2% of readers follow the hatnote dab link from Vaughan. The fact that this ranks "as high as #5" and that the article links "scatters to 48 destinations" are irrelevant. Also, the pageviews for Sydney show that there are two others with that name that have at least 1/3 the pageviews, well within the dab considerations. (Above, you note that Frankie Vaughan has about half as many pageviews as Vaughan, one of the examples you cite "as a whole commanding a huge amount of reader attention" compared to the article at the plain title.) So what's the threshold? (Why should the city of Sydney hold the plain title when there is at least one other Sydney with significantly more page views?) Where is it defined in policy? If there is no such definition, perhaps we should establish one before making such moves, and moreover set a policy regarding plain titles vis-a-vis compound word titles for disambiguation pages. What about redirects such as Austin? (See pageviews for Austin, massviews for Austin (given name), and massviews for Austin (surname) for the past four years, which has dozens of entries with pageviews each exceeding those for the city.)
    I reiterate that, for such discussions, in my opinion only those entities known by the plain title (in this case Vaughan) merit consideration for use of the plain title, and that a disambiguation page should be at the plain title only when two or more such entries do not qualify as primary topics. All other entries can be reached via hatnote to the disambiguation page having "(disambiguation)" in the title. That's their purpose. (For example, I do not think that the article about Sydney or the Austin redirect should change.) Irrespective of that, note also that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC specifically states that the "topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term"; this fast-growing city will easily satisfy that criteria. Mindmatrix 18:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not irrelevant, because it provides context. Both indications for primary topics are substantial differences compared to the other topics known by the same name. Like I said before, the issue isn't specifically a Frankie - the issue is that there's two dozen people who demonstrate orders of magnitude more interest than the city, plus the long tail after those. I'm finding it hard to argue further, because we're disagreeing on the fundamentals. If you're not willing to entertain the idea that the average reader doesn't only care about the strict mononymous usage for the purposes of encyclopedia navigation, we'll just have to agree to disagree. --Joy (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mindmatrix, so 2.2% of visitors to the city article end up following the links in the hatnote? Tu put this figure in context, a typical article will receive the vast majority of its traffic from either incoming wikilinks or from external sites (most commonly, search engines). Only a tiny fraction of the views (something like one to three orders of magnitude smaller than the rest) will come from readers searching for the article name here on Wikipedia. So, when thinking about primary topics, 2.2% doesn't really tell us much. 10% would be a very strong indication that there isn't a primary topic, while only something like 0.1% would be a strong signal to the contrary. – Uanfala (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it is the primary use of the word as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Mattximus (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Clearly no primary topic here. The given name and surname are far more notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The question under discussion here is not whether the city in Canada is primary over the surname, but whether the city in Canada is primary over all other uses combined, including the surname. Of course, the city (like all of the place names) is named "Vaughan" after a person bearing the surname (Benjamin Vaughan). In this regard it is more comparable with a title like Lincoln as against the most populated place by that name, Lincoln, Nebraska. BD2412 T 19:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's an apt comparison, as Lincoln, Nebraska would still be disambiguated had the former president never existed, since Lincoln, England and Lincoln Motor Company (commonly known as Lincoln) both have a similar prominence to the Nebraska city (see this 5-year pageview comparison). Mindmatrix 19:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. BD2412 said what I would have.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is not like Lincoln - it's like Vancouver, Halifax, Charlotte, etc. "Being named after" is not part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - and in fact it is warned against as a measure (e.g. Boston). I truly appreciate the analysis of both Joy and Mindmatrix here. I land on the side of !opposing based on the fundamental assumption that most readers will not type "Vaughan" into the search box to find Stevie Ray et al. With that as the assumption, it is easy to assert that the Ontario municipality is by far the primarytopic by usage, with 80 percent of pageviews. Dohn joe (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That may handle usage, but what about long-term significance? Does the city have substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with the term? --Joy (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'd say yes. The other topics are either relatively small settlements, or the name articles, which are essentially lists of WP:PARTIALTITLEMATCHes. There's very little encyclopedic content there - the surname article tells you that the name derives from Welsh, but isn't even sure if it means artist or little. And even if not, none of the other topics are primary by significance either, whereas the Ontario city clearly is primary by usage. Given all that, I think the Ontario city is primary by both major criteria, and would still be primarytopic even if only by usage. Dohn joe (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but that means you've excluded the entire body of people named Vaughan from consideration. I'm not sure that matches the average reader's understanding of the significance of the term Vaughan. --Joy (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I'm excluding anything, just trying to assign the correct weight to people who are interested in the surname page (whether to find out about the surname itself or because of interest in someone on the list). And we can see that the surname page gets 1/7 the usage of the city article. Even allowing for the basename bump, it's clear that many more of our readers are interested in reaching the city article than the surname (or any other "Vaughan") article. I think that's an excellent match to the average reader's understanding, or at least as good a match as we can get. Dohn joe (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this is like Halifax—which is a disambiguation page. BD2412 T 20:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops! Struck Halifax. The others still work. I'll replace it with Burnaby (or many others, which was my point). Dohn joe (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Navigation in Wikipedia in name articles doesn't serve to lead people merely to the names themselves, but to people named that way. Also, I've already talked about how we hid the people named that way behind several different obstacles to navigation. I'm pretty sure that reading into the result of what we did as an excellent match to reader understanding is confusing cause and effect in this case. --Joy (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This table presents a comparison of the results of a reader landing on the page Vaughan as it exists today and if the proposed move is successful, where 'target article' is the article the reader wishes to view. Mindmatrix 20:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Target article Status quo Move
Vaughan Reached target Follow 1 link (dab page -> target)
Entries in Vaughan (given name) Follow 2 links (hatnote -> given name dab page -> target) Follow 2 links (dab page -> given name dab page -> target)
Entries in Vaughan (surname) Follow 2 links (hatnote -> surname dab page -> target) Follow 2 links (dab page -> surname dab page -> target)
Entries in Vaughan (disambiguation) Follow 2 links (hatnote -> dab page -> target) Follow 1 link (dab page -> target)
This is a well-known type of argument, and it's not without merits, but it applies to all cases where a dab page is at the base title, so it's fundamentally against the primary topic guidelines. – Uanfala (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mindmatrix. Plus, there is simply no benefit to sending everyone searching with “Vaughan” to a dab page. WP is better without this change. —В²C ☎ 14:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The usage data, as I wrote above, is inconclusive, but it's well within the range where I would normally get suspicious of an existing primary topic. I don't see a primary topic with respect to long-term notability. There are really a lot of people with Vaughan as their surname, and it's common for a person to be referred to by just their surname in many contexts (including when searching for information on the person online). of course, you would assign those topics less weight, but you wouldn't assign them no weight at all. This case is different from London, where the city's enduring significance is beyond doubt, or Vancouver, where the city is a lot more well-known (esp. outside Canada) and there are a lot fewer competing topics. – Uanfala (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

followup to previous move discussion

[edit]

I've had a look at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Vaughan again and it seems to have been affected by this change in February; the April stats say that now the surname hatnote is in the top 10 (at #10) with 64 clicks, the given name came hatnote in at #12 with 52 clicks, while the generic hatnote came in at #13 with 52 clicks. Their sum is now 168, which is 64% more than the previous data in February (102). There was some incoming view growth from 8.8k to 9k, so I guess we can dock 3% off that. Still, it's hard to see cause and effect just from this - as these were effectively promoted by getting a place very high up there. --Joy (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaughan&oldid=1235976836"