User talk:Jooler/lengthy and pointless discussion

Cburnett 19:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 That means 1300 years worth of history, 1300 years worth of historical references on Wikipedia.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)
 * 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)