Talk:Utrecht (disambiguation)

Eh, why isn't the city here? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   30 June 2005 21:47 (UTC)
 * Quite a few links that originally pointed to Utrecht refer to the province, or to the bishopric, or it isn't clear which entity they refer to. So, if the city article was at this place some links will point here incorrectly, which might confuse readers. Sietse 3 July 2005 06:30 (UTC)

Requested move
Utrecht → Utrecht (disambiguation) — Utrecht is the city in the Netherlands, all other meanings derive from this one Fabzzap (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Utrecht (city) → Utrecht


 * I don't get it anymore: which are the current (content) pages, and which after the move? (Does the arrow mean here: "must redirects to"?)-DePiep (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, now I get it. Good moves. -DePiep (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That all names derive from the settlement Utrecht does not mean that the link should be directly to that. That would mean that for all disambig pages relating to a etymologically same origin the original usage should be leading. Following this precedent, for example the link for Dutch Navy ships called HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën (including the flagship of de Ruyter, the ship that suffered mutiny in the 1930s, and the current lead vessel of the high-tech class of frigates should be to Zeven Provinciën (1643–1659) as this was the first ship of that name and all others are derived from that. It was not a particularly famous ship, but still following the above reasoning this should be the link.
 * In other words, oppose this moveArnoutf (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Arnoutf: No, 'etymological first' is not the reason here. MOSDAB says simply: if there is a primary topic, that topic gets the short name. The primary topic is the city. Clear.
 * And about these ships, the second one is not named after the first one. It's again named after the same union. Zeven Provinciën. Which has no article here in en:, but the name De Zeven Provinciën may be used for its primary meaning.
 * So, your opposing is not based on disambiguation guidelines. -DePiep (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fabzapp brought up the point of original use not me; and my post was to state that that specific argument is not valid and therefore not based on disambiguation guidelins. If we go for a change it should be for the right reasons, and it is not up to me to provide these but to the original editor proposing the move.
 * I (it) did not read "original use" as in etymology. And did you really refer to DAB guidelines? How come I missed that? What I read was and is: you opposed for reasons out of MOSDAB. And, where does it say the OP should be the only reasoning one? Do you mind if I join?
 * The name of the province is derived from the city. The city has about 2.5 times the links to province in mainspace. Clear. -DePiep (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with DePiep. The article should be moved. It is unlikely that many people searching for 'Utrecht' will be looking for anything but the city. The city is without a doubt the important entity here (primary topic). Mark in wiki (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) The province is derived from the city - Yes but that happened over 500 years ago. The province name has long been accepted as a stand alone usage of the term. If I read Disambiguation such a derivation is no argument against having a disambiguation page (if you disagree please give me the exact argument from the guideline).
 * That brings us to the primary topic; which is a relevant argument. I agree that the usage of Utrecht as city is more frequent, but the guidelines does not say "more frequent use" but says "highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined". This hinges on the interpretation of the subjective phrase "much more likely" and in my view anything less than an order of magnitude is 'merely' more likely. In any case the is not "Clear." but something to discuss. Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - the Netherlands city, with more than 300,000 population is the primary meaning even though there are other smaller towns and an administrative area with the same name; this matches Coventry, Hartford, Plymouth etc. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Euhm can someone explain the reference to Coventry/Hartford/Plymouth as that argument seems very weird - as the respective regions/counties comparable to Utrecht province are West Midlands (Coventry), Devon (Plymouth), Hartford County or Connecticut (Hartford if the US settlement is meant). I see nothing similar in the pairing West Midlands - Coventry, compared to Utrecht - Utrecht. Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose ambiguous usage in English, due to the treaties. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The province is the only other entity that comes close and it's derivative.  The treaties aren't called "Utrecht", they're called "Treaty of Utrect".  No ambiguity there.  —   AjaxSmack   00:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: per AjaxSmack and 76.66.200.95. Rehman(+) 08:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, as I motivated in the discussion above. The city name is the primary meaning. -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, as stated above: I think it is unlikely that many people searching for 'Utrecht' will be looking for anything but the city. The city is without a doubt the important entity here (primary topic). Mark in wiki (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * comment it seems the vast majority supports this move based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (which is a relevant argument). I do agree the city is most frequently mentioned but (as I stated above) am not sure the difference in mentioning is large enough. However I am clearly a minority in that view. Therefore I withdraw my opposition and will go with whatever you agree on. Cheers. Arnoutf (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)