Talk:Middlesex/page move

This is an archived discussion that took place at Requested moves. Please do not edit this page. If you wish to discuss this decision or archive please use Talk:Middlesex. -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Middlesex, England &rarr; Middlesex

 * and as a consequence Middlesex &rarr; Middlesex (disambiguation)

Middlesex, England is the orignal meaning from which all others are derived and is still the primary unqualified meaning, as can be seen when clicking on Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Middlesex. This also follows the convention set by Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Yorkshire etc.. Jooler Cburnett 19:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Carrp 15:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Oppose strenuously. Leave as it is. Too many Middlesexes in the world to dedicate the name to only one...even if it is the origin.  Heck, I've spent a lot of time in Middlesex, New Jersey (USA) (a borough) which is in Middlesex County, New Jersey. While it is probably not a problem that will happen with incredible frequency, I'd rather have the disambiguation at Middlesex for the chance that someday I'd ever search for any one of the myriad of subjects named Middlesex (including a few that aren't on this disambiguated list). &mdash;ExplorerCDT 15:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The number of references to Middlesex, England has been inflated by the agendas of some editors. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? Jooler
 * Oppose. There are too many other notable uses of Middlesex for the one in England to get primary disambiguation. Although Susvolans indicates that there may have been some sort of intent behind adding mistaken links to Middlesex when they should have linked to Middlesex, England, I'm willing to allow that it may have been accidental. I appears that User:Mrsteviec created a lot of these links by adding a table to a whole lot of places in London (for example and, two picked at random). Mrsteviec should have been more careful about checking the links in the table before plastering it all over these articles. But carelessness is not an argument for giving a page primary topic disambiguation. older &ne; wiser 18:00, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * This argument doesn't wash. Even without mrsteviec's links there were plenty of links pointing to Middlesex, meaning Middlesex in England because Middlessex without qualification usually means England. The same applies to Essex, Sussex, Norfolk etc.. Jooler
 * Comment: England isn't the extent of the English-speaking world. On the other side of the pond, we usually don't think of what is now a non-extant government entity near London. I heard names like Sussex, Essex or Middlesex, my first thoughts are to the counties in my native New Jersey, or in some contexts...mentions of Sussex and Middlesex lead me to thoughts of boroughs of the same name within those counties (ironically, neither being the seat of said counties which leads to much confusion).  I hear Norfolk, and my first thought is to the naval base in Virginia, and the second to the naval vessel in Patrick O'Brien's novel The Far Side of the World (the basis for the 2003 film Master and Commander...etc.).  There are Essexes, Sussexes, Middlesexes and Norfolks all over the face of this planet, and for different people in various locales they raise different associations.  I would wager that someone in Northern New York will first think of Essex County, New York before they think of Essex in England.  When in doubt, or when a name isn't exclusive to solely one singular interpretation (as is the case herein), disambiguation is in order.  Heck, I haven't even started commenting on people who would be searching for the novel at the bottom of the list when they type "Middlesex" and click "Go."  Thus, it is, in fact, your argument that doesn't wash, Jooler. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 18:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * My dear chap - Middlesex goes back to 704AD, thirteen hundred years. That means 1300 years worth of history, 1300 years worth of historical references on Wikipedia. That fact that there are numerous places called Middlesex is because of that history. I note BTW that when User:Stepp-Wulf added information regarding the provenance of the name for Middlesex, New York he used the unqualified link, presumably without giving it a second thought that it needed disambiguating. Jooler 18:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * So? Yours is not the only Middlesex, and you fail to acknowledge that. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 06:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * In my native Massachusetts there are also Middlesex and Essex counties, so that's a few million more people who do not associate Middlesex primarily with Middlesex, England. Carrp 18:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * To replace a disambiguation page, it's not a matter of just proving that one usage was first or has the majority of links. It's necessary to show that one usage is so overwhelmingly popular that the other uses are trivial by comparison. For example, there are several states in the US that have a city or town named London, but obviously the city in the UK is vastly more popular than any of them. However, in this case there seems to be a fair number of people (mostly from the US) who do not associate Middlesex with Middlesex, England. The English county is still the most important, but its usage isn't high enough to warrant replacing the disambigauation page. Carrp 19:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I find no guidelines that give your statements merit. Cburnett 19:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You say "but its usage isn't high enough" but you don't say, what dictates what is and what isn't high enough usage. I reckon 1300 years worth of historical usage outweighs any other usage by a considerable margin. Jooler
 * Your first point is quite valid. It's difficult to quantify exactly what level of usage would be high enough. At Disambiguation it states "Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion" (emphasis is not mine). I read this to mean that in order to override disambiguation the usage should be extremely high, perhaps over 90%. Since there are tens of millions of Americans living in states with a Middlesex county, I don't think Middlesex, England is known as the "one and only" Middlesex. I don't mean to imply that Middlesex, England or its history isn't important. It's simply that disambiguation should be used in cases where there could be confusion, and from the votes thus far, this is one of those cases. Carrp 20:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well here I make the same point as below. We are building an encyclopaedia not a gazeteer. Middlesex, New York has precisely 5 links at the moment (one of them from here), the rest are basically cross references. If you take out the cross references from the lins for Middlesex County, Massachusetts (most of which were generated by a bot from census data) then there are only about 5 actual encyclopaedic links. If you look at the links for Middlesex, England there are more than 500 a lot of encyclopaedic links whilst Middlesex has about 500 another load that should be pointing at Middlesex, London. This is the criterion of "usage" that appear to have neglected to take into consideration. Jooler 22:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Let's not distort facts, OK. There are (as of a few hours ago) exactly 166 links to Middlesex. Of those, 78 are genuine references in articles to Middlesex, England. 61 additional links are due to the table added by User:Mrsteviec around December 25-27, 2004. ALL of those links could have been avoided if a little bit more care had been exercised in constructing the table. The remainder of links are either not in the article namespace, i.e., Wikipedia pages, talk pages, user pages, or on similar disambiguation pages, e.g., Middletown. There are exactly 236 links to Middlesex, England, and ten of those are not in the article namespace. While there are more links to Middlesex, England than to the other Middlesexes, you do your argument a grave disservice by making such gross exagerations. older &ne; wiser 22:52, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK fair enough. I admit I didn't bother to count 'em, thanks for doing so. I apologise for exagerating, I just had a quick look and assumed that there were more than 500 links as 500 is the maximum that it shows and I had to scroll the page alot. The point is still valid. Jooler 23:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, Cburnett, Carrp has a point with considerable merit. While it does not reference any particular Wikipedia policy, it explains and justifies the rationale for disambiguation pages.  However, in his retort, Carrp did fail to qualify that the English county in question is a "former" English county. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 19:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Some corrections and qualifications required here. It is true that is is no longer an administrative county. In this context it was swallowed up by the expansion of London, much like New York City swallowed up Brooklyn. So most of it is now administered as a number of London boroughs and the rump was transferred to Berkshire and Surrey. However it is still used as a place designation, i.e. very many people still put Middlesex on their postal address. But this is somewhat beside the point - we are not building a gazeteer of current administrative regions. Middlesex in an encyclopaedic context is as 'real' as any other place with a 1300 year old ongoing history. Jooler 20:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Likewise, correction is required. New York City didn't "swallow up" Brooklyn.  If you used Dallas-Fort Worth as an example, you would be correct.  However, your analogy is wrong.  The five boroughs combined almost 200 separate towns and divisions into five boroughs (many of the place names still exist without the governments).  But, Brooklyn still exists, with its own borough government, borough president, etc.  But 1300 years or not, it is not the first thing I (and many others) think of when I (we) hear Middlesex which means quite obviously that it is not the dominate usage, and as such is not the frontrunner for being the only Middlesex worthy of monopolizing the name.  Sure, we may acknowledge with a bit of education that our Middlesex wouldn't have the name if it weren't for your Middlesex.  But your Middlesex doesn't even survive as a corporate entity anymore...so that does take a big bite out of the saliency of your desired outcome. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 22:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No my analogy was correct, but only as far as I intended it to go. Brooklyn is now part of Ney York City. Middlesex is now a part of London. That was as far as the analogy was meant to go. What was the county of Middlesex is now part of Greater London. The County administration was disolved in 1965 and replaced with several london boroughs. Middlesex still exists, but not in an administrative sense. As several people have been pointing out there is still a Middlesex County Cricket Club. As far as Wikipedia is concerned Middlesex exists because we have very many articles that directly reference it, just like we have many articles referencing Troy which doesn't exist anymore. Would you suggesting that we should move Troy (disambiguation) to Troy on the basis that it no longer exists? Jooler 23:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You're still wrong about Brooklyn. Brooklyn exists as a corporate entity, and has a government.  The only thing swallowed during the 1898 consolidation of New York City was the county government for Kings County (which while it still exists was overlapped to become what is now Brooklyn's borough government).  New York City is just an umbrella for five boroughs providing consolidated services like sanitation, police, fire, etc. that are cheaper shared than if each borough government provided it separately.  However, each of the borough's retains a bit of autonomy through their own elected local governments (Council's and borough presidents) just like each of the counties in England have their own semi-autonomous County Councils...that is, except for Middlesex (England), because it doesn't exist anymore.  How can you claim supremacy in this circumstance for an entity that was erased from the official roles four decades ago?  As for Troy, I'd agree with that move.  First, I'd remind you that there were like 9 or 10 cities called Troy at that site in Asia Minor, and secondly, I know more people from Troy, New York than I'll ever know from the metrics of Virgil and Homer. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 00:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Enough with the New York thing it is not relevant to this discussion, but to put a cap on it - Does Brooklyn still have a mayor? No. Ok - Does the Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, have authority in Brooklyn? Yes - right end of story. Please don't nit pick with this it is very boring and irrelevant. Good god the fact that a place has lost its administraton is no reason to rip out the encyclopaedia page and stick it in the appendix. We don't relegate the Roman Empire because it fell, over a thousand years ago. We still have yorkshire, England at Yorkshire even though it no longer has a single administration. It doesn't become unimportant in encyclopaedic significance. Middlesex County, (wherever), USA - for sure is significant for someone living there but unless it has 'encyclopaedic significance on a par with Middlesex in England, you have no argument. This is, after all, an Encyclopaedia. You seem to be approaching this discussion with a distinctly personal agenda. Why do you keep talking about your subjective experiences? You know people from Troy, New York therefore Ancient Troy should be moved. You know people from Middlesex, New York, therefore no move for Middlesex, England. Jooler 01:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you brought it up, so don't blame me for taking your erroneous argument to its logical conclusion. Brooklyn doesn't have a mayor, it has a borough council and a borough president, just like the United States has a President who has authority over the American states, but New Jersey, New York, Montana, and 47 other states also have Governors, and beneath those governors local (either county or municipal governments) but then again in your own jolly Britain, Tony Blair has authority over the Kingdom, but does that mean County and City Councils are ineffective, or that their existence as an entity (or in Middlesex's case, a nonentity at present) is without justification?  I nitpick (as you perceive it) because you attempt to push this requested move with the arrogant presumption to think that your Middlesex is the biggest and best of all of them and should wear the laurels, push aside all the others and to support it you brought up a faulty analogy (comparing it to Brooklyn) which you thought relevant until the moment I poked holes in your argument big enough to drive a Nimitz class aircraft carrier through with berthing room to spare.  Also, about significance, it is always subjective and relative by its nature.  Just to give you some edification since you think outside of your precious "Middlesex" none other have anything to offer this world, Middlesex County, New Jersey was the site of some pretty tough battles for Continental Army under George Washington during the American Revolution...if that's not encyclopedic then you have no concept of measuring significance, a drawback that shows painfully in your arguments.  I have no personal agenda other than taking down the arguments where you offer faulty post hoc ergo propter hoc and non sequitur premises thinking that they justify the equally faulty result you desire.  And for the examples you bring to the table, what problem is there in pointing out that other people see things differently than do you? &mdash;ExplorerCDT 04:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly the very boring bit - I only brought up Brooklyn to illustrate the process of a city expanding to encompass other administrative areas, I probably shouldn't have bothered because it was probably self-evident, but you have chosen to latch onto my mentioning of it. There are probably more parallels than you think, but I'm not really interested in laying out the administrative history of the expansion of London here. In any case the administrative arrangements of NYC, as well as being exceedingly boring, have absolutley nothing to do with moving Middlesex, England page on Wikipedia, which is supposedly what we are trying to discuss here. So from now on, if you really want to continue this debate (and it is now becomming rather tiresome and lengthy and I think it probably should be continued elsewhere, if at all) I would like you to concentrate on the issue at hand.
 * Again, you brought it up. I only follow where you take the discussion.  If you didn't bring up incorrect information and faulty analogies in the first place, I sure wouldn't have touched upon it. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 06:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I brought up the London expanded and so did New York, and that was the only point of referencing Brooklyn. You decided to go into boring detail about how New York is governed that is of absolutlety no bearing on the subject whatsoever. Jooler 07:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Once again, you brought it up, and you were wrong. It took a while, but you needed to be corrected.  Now that you lose, you say the argument was a waste of time. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 16:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Next, the slightly less boring bit - You accuse me of arrogantly wanting to push the move because I think that '[my] Middlesex is the biggest and best of all of them'. Firstly it isn't 'my Middlesex' I don't live anywhere near it and as far as I know I have no relatives or friends who live there. Secondly Middlesex was one of the smallest counties in England, so "biggest and best?" get real. It is simply a no-braineer that the wealth of historical information, in this Encyclopaedia, that have a connection to Middlesex in England, will inevitably result in references to Middlesex being far more numerous than all of the the others put together including references to your Revolutionary War battles etc.. Speaking of Battles, Brentford in Middlesex has seen a fair bit of action over the years. Julius Caesar fought Cassivellaunus there in 54 BC; in 1016 Edmund Ironside beat of Canute the Great and in 1642 Prince Rupert saw off the Parliamentarians.Jooler 06:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * So What? Who cares?  Does that make your beloved Middlesex so mighty and indomitable that there can be no other Middlesex worthy?  Does that mean all other Middlesexes are rendered so inferior that the currently working status quo needs to be changed or else little Middlesex would get upset?  If your answer to these last two questions is "yes" you have delusions of grandeur, buddy. As I said before, I don't give a shit if it was 704AD, or 1696AD or 8000BC, your Middlesex, and my Middlesex, aren't the only things named Middlesex. I realize that, and support the disambiguation as it currently exists. You just don't seem to realize that fact and have been stubborn as much as you have been wrong. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 06:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Again it isn't my Middlesex. I didn't really think that that contribution was very constructive. "So what, who gives a shit" doesn't really take us anywhere. You seem to be looking at this subject as some kind of battle of worthiness. I'm merely looking at how useful having a page at a particular location is in the context of this encyclopaedia. Jooler 07:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Still boring. I've just re-read this whole entry. So what it boils down to is this. You say there are millions of people living in the vicinity of Middlesex something or other, USA - who, when they hear the word Middlesex don't think of Middlesex England, therefore Middlesex, England isn't well known enough to take the spot at Middlesex. Have I got that correct ? Jooler 06:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Part of it. That was merely a premise supporting the conclusion that it works as is, disambiguation at Middlesex directs everyone to the Middlesex they want (including&mdash;rather high up on the list&mdash;your beloved Middlesex, England) without having to search beyond typing "Middlesex" and clicking "Go." Much of this debate, while tiresome, has been only to counter your faulty arguments raised for no other reason but that you were visibly perturbed that someone (a few of us in all actuality) had the gall to oppose your preciously-held requested move.  While my efforts may have been abrasive, your stubborn and misguided efforts needed to be countered. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 06:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you insist on talking about 'my beloved Middlesex'. The disambiguation doesn't work as it is. If it did there wouldn't be several hundred links for Middlesex, England pointing at Middlesex. You speak of "faulty arguments", I've yet to see any direct countering to them other than your "so what, who gices a shit" attitude. My argument, follows the same reason why we have Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk and Yorkshire etc. located where they are. If my reasoning is faulty, then so is the reasoning behind having those articles located where they are. This is particularly true in the case of Yorkshire which is no longer an administrative county. I believe that the reason why those articles are located where they are is sound. Middlesex is the exception, and I think the exception is unnecessary. Jooler 07:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Lengthy and pointless discussion with User:ExplorerCDT moved to User talk:Jooler/lengthy and pointless discussion
 * Restored what I agree to be a lenghty and pointless discussion simply because you, Jooler, can't selectively edit what you want here or elsewhere on a public page. If this was your talk page, I wouldn't have any qualms about you selectively editing conversations, but in a public page, it's not good faith, especially when you lose the argument at hand. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 15:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * OK I feel like a chump. Having just read Requests for comment/ExplorerCDT and Requests for comment/ExplorerCDT 2, I see that I am dealing with a troll who is close to being banned. Goodnight. Jooler 07:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I notice everyone who loses an argument ends up claiming the victor is a troll perhaps because he was stronger, more dogged in his points. On the other hand, the second RfC was the combination of old pranks no one really gets up in a huff about, combined with an honest mistake I made and a few others made a mountain out of a molehill. I really could care less what other people think, so I go about my business here knowing RfC is an inefficient process, and give them as much credibility as a war crimes trial (the war's winners picking on the war's losers, with shady definitions masqueraded in that nebulous compilation of relativist morals called "international law"). &mdash;ExplorerCDT 16:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Support: Middlesex, England predates every other Middlesex usage. It's what I think of when I see Middlesex (and I'm in Iowa).  I agree with Jooler's argument. Cburnett 19:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Main thing Middlesex means to me (and I am sure millions - or hundreds of millions - of other cricket fans throughout the world) is cricket. So I'll vote for Middlesex County Cricket Club as the primary meaning ;) - Guettarda 19:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I immediately think of Middlesex University. How about that for the primary one? ;) Timrollpickering 21:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * In Massachusetts, there's also Middlesex Community College . There's no WP article for it (yet) but it has two campuses and thousands of students. Carrp 22:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Following the time-honoured Wikipedia tradition of basing all decisions on Google, Middlesex University would win. But, as a cricketing fan I can claim a billion Indians on my side (since cricket beats all else in the subcontinent); unless you can claim China, I win ;) (and even then I can argue the whole "English speakers" line).  Guettarda 22:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Within the construct of a hypothetical analogy...I wonder if Jooler were a entomologist (a scientist who studies insects) would he/she propose moving Cricket the sport aside for Cricket the insect based on his personal desire to see his Cricket aggrandized? &mdash;ExplorerCDT 23:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * My Middlesex/Cricket? I abhore the game (apologies to those who loove it) and I've only rarely been to anywhere in Middlesex. I have no personal interest in this, I'm thinking purely from an usability point of view. Jooler
 * And it's more useable with the status quo. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 00:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. -Sean Curtin 20:00, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Guettarda, jguk 20:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. violet/riga (t) 22:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Philip Baird Shearer 23:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nonenmac 03:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - If I saw "Middlesex" with not qualification, I would assume the one in England. john k 08:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Proteus (Talk) 17:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Timrollpickering 18:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support (albeit reluctantly after Jooler dissed cricket. Guettarda 18:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Like others I certainly think of England when I hear "Middlesex", even though I realize that there are probably places called Middlesex in America, just like there are places called Paris and Jerusalem. The historical references argument is also compelling. (I have no particular opinion on cricket.) / up land 19:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Noisy | Talk 01:54, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --Sketchee 00:31, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Obvious candidate for primary topic disambiguation. -- Naive cynic 01:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- ALoan (Talk) 13:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- At first I wasn't convinced but having thought about it, most of the other Middlesex's are called "Middlesex County" rather than just "Middlesex", so most people looking for them would look under that name rather than just "Middlesex". I would suggest that if moved Middlesex County be made a redirect to Middlesex (disambiguation). Also this move would make it consistant with Essex, Sussex etc. G-Man 15:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, I would have thought it was fairly obvious personally. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Since Jooler strenuously rejected the presence of the US Freedom of Information Act at Freedom of Information Act, Jooler&rsquo;s arguments that Middlesex, England, came first and was the source of the other uses is inconsistent and seems very much like an anglocentric standard. Both facts are true and neither was acceptable to Jooler in the FOIA debate.  The 1300 years would be more impressive if (a) the modern form of &lsquo;Middlesex&rsquo; had been around anywhere near as long, and (b) if there were actually going to be 1300 years worth of historical material to connect to Middlesex, England.  The further back in history we go, the less an encyclopedia is going to have to say about it.  I would also add that if Middlesex, England, is no longer an entity other than a place, then we should not confine ourselves to 1300 years.  It has been a place for as long as that place has been above sea level, and arguably before then too &mdash; but then so has every other place. &mdash; Ford 12:35, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
 * It goes without saying that being a Briton that articles connected with the UK and where they are posited on this site is of interest to me. Call that anglocentrism if you like, but you might note that I support the move of Cleveland, Ohio. If you accuse me of inconsistency then I can level the same charge against you over this issue which you oppose. The fact is that these issues are different. In regard to the movement of the US FOIA I said that chronological precedence (in and of itself) ".. comes way down the list of things to be considered. Our primary concern is usefulness." I take the same view with this, but there is a world of difference between the 40 years history of the US FOIA and 1300 years history of Middlesex. Yes 1300 years only relates to the use of "Middlesex" itself and as a place it has existed longer. As mentioned earlier Julius Caesar fought Cassivellaunus in Brentford in Middlesex in 54 BC. The extended history means that as far as Wikipedia is concerned there are going to be very many more references to Middlesex in England. I therefore contend that it is more useful to have Middlesex, England at Middlesex. It would also be consistent with the previously mentioned English counties. Jooler 13:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Just wondering did JC go to Brentford because it was the first town on the way from Heathrow to central London? "I had to go to this psychiatrist every week... He said I wasn't mad or anything. He said there's no such thing as madness. I told him he should try standing in a queue at Brentford football ground on a Saturday morning. I though it might change his mind." -The Who (Quadrophenia). Its not surprising he didn't stay. Philip Baird Shearer


 * For consistency, and as per the precedent of other placenames exported from England, such as Ipswich, Cambridge, Oxford, Exeter, and Durham, and as long as the disambiguation notice is equally as prominent as it is for those, Support. Uncle G 13:55, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
 * Support. Lengthy and tedious discussion notwithstanding, the original is IMO still the primary meaning. As for Anglo-centrism - well the other ones are named after the English original. Whose fault is that? ;-) Rd232 14:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Estel (talk) 17:46, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. ADH (t&m) 07:39, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

As this discussion was on the verge of reaching a consensus in favour of a page move at the time that it was archived by User:UtherSRG (currently at 17v9 in favour of a page move) he has stated on his talk page that he considers this discussion to still remain open. I will therefore be keeping watch on this discussion and will act accordingly when (if) a consensus is reached. -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Re Francs statement above. I didn't know the vote was already on and missed it. I would have voted with Francs2000 in support of a page move. As I told him on the UK Wikipedians talk page. I think that Middlesexes in America aren't well-known like Washington, say. We (British) wouldn't expect Washington in Tyne-and-Wear to take precedence in listing over the place in America.WikiUser 19:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note: Consensus to move this page to Middlesex (and thus Middlesex to Middlesex (disambiguation)) was held, unchallenged, for a full 24-hour period. The page has therefore been moved. -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)