Jump to content

Talk:Perth (disambiguation)

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

Merge proposal (February 2012)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It is proposed that Perth, Western Australia (disambiguation) is merged to Perth#Places in Australia. This is because Perth, Western Australia (disambiguation) is an incomplete dab. We don't create incomplete dabs, because it leads to duplication, and articles are easily missed. A redirect to the relevant section in the dab, in this case the section of the Perth dab which lists places in Australia, is recommended. This aids navigation, and helps editors to avoid creating new articles under the ambiguous title by accident. (MOS:DAB) This only has one more entry than the incomplete disambiguation page, and so entries are not lost within a huge list - there doesn't seem anything to lose, and therefore no reason for WP:IAR. Boleyn (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one bothered to comment previously, I've gone ahead and merged Perth, Western Australia (disambiguation) into Perth per the above. I♦A 09:32, 26 May 2012 (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.

Move discussion in progress. (May 2012)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Perth, Western Australia - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 18:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore, this was the previous move discussion. The current move discussion is below. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2012 (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.

Request for Comments

[edit]

What is the best title for this article? It has already been listed in WP:RM, but due to the tremendous controversy associated with a previous requested move a few weeks ago (including multiple moves and reverts and an arbitration case), it is desirable to gather as many participants as possible to the discussion, to try to get a definitive resolution. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The requested move discussion is in the next section below.

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus that the city in Western Australia is the primary topic for the name Perth. Bundling the renaming of the Scottish city with the first issue was unfortunate, but the conclusion is that it too failed to get support. Favonian (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– As per rather a lot of the above, and some very hasty recent closures. I'm called John, you're called John, who's the biggest Johnny etc.? Brendandh (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Shouldn't you do the "Perth, Perthshire" proposal separately? Some might oppose it even if they support the other. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background There was a previous requested-move survey which ran from late May to mid June. There was some controversy surrounding the closure and subsequent events, which involved a number of reverts and re-reverts which are the subject of an ongoing arbitration case. There was a move review process, which was closed with a finding that the original requested-move closure was endorsed; however, the move review process is relatively new and might not be universally accepted. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have suggested already at Wikipedia talk:Move review that any new requested-move survey should be publicized as widely as possible, including at WikiProjects for other countries and regions (other than Scotland and Australia) and elsewhere, in order to get as wide a range of opinions as possible, due to the exceptional circumstances and need for some kind of definitive resolution. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Perth, Scotland move - surely if a regional disambiguator was to be included, would the new title be Perth, Perth and Kinross? Hack (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There was some strong opposition by one prominent contributor to Scottish topics to the "Perth and Kinross" title back in 2008.[1] — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Australian city of Perth is arguably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for international name recognition outside of Australia or Scotland. Page-visit statistics show that the Australian Perth page in English Wikipedia gets at least seven times more visits than the Scottish Perth page.[2][3], which is indicative (compare, say, London, England to London, Ontario where the ratio is about 13 to 1;[4][5] but London is probably one of the world's top ten cities). Although mere size is not a conclusive indicator, the population of the Australian city is about 1.7 million; the population of the Scottish city is about 45,000. The Scottish city is the namesake of the Australian city and other cities such as Perth, Ontario, but that does not make it a primary topic: Boston in Massachusetts was named for Boston, Lincolnshire, yet the American city is indisputably the primary topic. Perth, Scotland has a rich tradition, but it is not what most people think of today when they hear the world "Perth", and page statistics indicate that is not what most people are looking for when they visit Wikipedia. It is readily accessible, however, by clicking on the hatnote at the top of the Perth page, which ought to remain a page about the Australian city. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. The [higher] notability of Perth (Australia) is undisputable, a hatnote is sufficient. The current state is the best.--Zoupan 03:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - move of Perth to Perth, Western Australia. Using usage criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Perth, Western Australia is overwhelmingly the primary topic for people accessing Wikipedia.
Incoming wikilinks - Prior to the page name change the split of incoming wikilinks from mainspace was Perth, Western Australia 7822 vs Perth, Scotland 1550.
Article traffic stats - Between January 2011 and June 2012 a combined total of 1,828,561 hits were received for Perth, Western Australia and Perth, Scotland, with a 1,607,679 to 220,882 split - a ratio of approximately 7.2:1 (88% of hits in that period)Source.
Google search - (with personal search options deactivated) - search for "Perth -Scotland" 383m results vs "Perth -Australia" 188m results.
I don't think the google results count for much but the internal stats are quite clearly in favour of Perth, Western Australia being the primary topic for users of Wikipedia. Hack (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is currently requested on three pages and is going to become confusing as editors comment at different ones (this has already happened here). I am going to assume this is the best place for it (it currently has the most comments) and remove the requests from the other page. I will move the IPs comment to this page. AIRcorn (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Think it is sorted now. AIRcorn (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved per htonl's comment, below. Thank you! Definitely an Oppose. Metao (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Both Perth in Scotland and Perth in Australia are very well known for different reasons. Perth, Scotland, is far more historical, the capital of Perthshire and the origin of the name for Perth, WA. The latter is now far larger and the capital of Western Australia. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: two completely separate actions are being proposed here: (a) the proposal to declare the Australian city not to be the primary topic, and associated move of dab page: I see no evidence that it is not the primary topic (much as I would personally prefer to see the Scottish city accorded equal prominence), and (b) the proposal to rename Perth, Scotland to a name which would be much less immediately identifiable (there could well be a "Perthshire" elsewhere than UK), which seems unhelpful: IAR if need be to keep it at its current article title. (Aargh, have just found that there exists Perthshire, Mississippi which is not linked from [{Perthshire]] ... will see to that.) PamD 07:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Perth, Scotland" is specifically mentioned on WP:UKPLACE as an exception to the general rule of "Placename, Council area". - htonl (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I hope I've voted for the dab to stay (this motion is in itself confusing). Bermicourt has hit on something important. History is often the reason people search in an encyclopedia. The sheer size of a town doesn't necessarily give it greater importance. Perth in Australia is a very young town, whereas the history of Perth in Scotland is long, rich and varied - at one time it was considered the capital of Scotland. Perth, WA, on the other hand, is just big. What would happen if Paris Texas grew to be bigger than Paris, France? Could it ever match its history, or splendour? History doesn't need size - it shouldn't be cast down into second place because of concrete office blocks and housing estates. Could I also mention, with regards to importance, that the place that a reader is looking for is the most important to that person. It must be annoying when searching for the Perth in Scotland to be confronted by a page about Western Australia, with the Scottish one as a hatnote, if that's not what you were looking for. At least with a disambiguation page you can choose. Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 07:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perth is no Paris. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Boston in Massachusetts is bigger than Boston in Lincolnshire, and the US one is also the primary topic, despite the UK one having some "history". 70.49.127.65 (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Perth, Perthshire is useless to anyone except the tiny monority who already know that Perthshire is part of Scotland. Perth, Western Australia does identify the country but it's claim to WP:Primary is strong. So my !vote is to keep Perth, Scotland (because hardly anyone outside of Scotland itself have ever heard of Perthshire) and allow Perth, Western Australia to go to Perth. A hatnote on Perth linking to Perth, Scotland puts it only one click away. Roger (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close as per WP:CANVASS which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate — is considered inappropriate the statment left by PT Aufrette at multiple Wikiprojects including[10][11][12][13][14] isnt neutral it say that a decision has been made at move review specifically which was closed with a finding that the original requested-move closure was endorsed; . While factual this has salted the request for discussion as its told potential participants the desired outcome. Gnangarra 09:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't anything P.T. Aufrette posted could be considered canvassing. The note posted to other noticeboards was, as you noted, factual. Indeed, WP:CANVASS states "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." I♦A 09:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The notices I posted didn't actually mention that the original requested move was in the opposite direction. So the aside about the move review outcome might actually have created the exact opposite impression from what you fear. In giving background details, I mostly just wanted to explain to people at the other regional WikiProjects why I was posting to their boards with an unrelated topic. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could easily have said posting here to request addition insight not mentioned anything else. When someone comes here to read the discussion you repeat the comment and add the move review process is relatively new and might not be universally accepted that is asking for comment to support the review decision. As I said you have factually reported but you have also lead the people commenting to a desired conclusion of endorsing the prior RM and the move review. Gnangarra 09:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any bias in the posts on various WikiProjects (I came here as a result of the post on WikiProject South Africa). In fact even after reading this entire page I still don't know if P.T. Aufrette supports or opposes the proposal. Roger (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any canvassing; I think the note is ok. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Frm a look through all the other language WPs, it is variants on the above proposal which is the norm, and only the English one which is out of kilter (pun intended!) Brendandh (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per several grounds: 1. Least surprise to readers - page stat views show that when readers ask Wiki for Perth, in over 80% of cases they are seeking Perth, Western Australia. 2. International readership - Perth WA is capital city of an Australian state with a mining boom and a significant influx in population which has hosted the 1962 Commonwealth (then Empire) Games, various World Swimming Championships and most recently the CHOGM gathering in October 2011, amongst others. Most of this international readership would never have heard of the Scottish Perth, or any of the other Perths unless they live near one of them. 3. Although some aspects of disambiguation policy with regards to Australian place names are occasionally under dispute, one which has never been under dispute is the notion that capitals should where possible be located at their primary topic - so we have Adelaide, Melbourne (despite Melbourne, Florida), Sydney (despite Sydney, Nova Scotia), Brisbane and Canberra. 4. Academic and news searches are even more adamant than Wiki on the primary topic - in part due to Perth WA being home to five universities. I don't think the Scottish Perth needs to be moved and can't really improve on Roger's reasons for holding that opinion. Orderinchaos 16:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment total hits to all perth articles linked via disambiguation page in Jan 2012 167,260 only 64% were to Perth WA if your going to quote stats be accurate. as for capitals Perth, Scotland was the capital from 900 AD until King James I was killed there in 1437, the capture of Perth and the throne resulted in Scottish civil war Cromwell built fortifications in english civil war, focal point for Robert the Bruce, been sacked presbertians, occupied by Jacobites 3 times, its been a garrison town since 1200's a major rail hub since 1848, significant port since 14th century. Its been at the centre of Socttish politics for 1200 years, he who hold perth holds the scottish throne with the Coronation stone just 2 miles from the city. Gnangarra 23:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure where you're getting your numbers from - I went to grok.se and got the stats for all of the places called Perth, and get a long-term average of 81.28% (st dev 2.75%), with a January 2012 average of 81.14% - and that's including two places, Perth Amboy and Perth-Andover, which are differently named; and further, is counting hits to "Perth, Australia" *outside* the WA total. Including things which aren't places doesn't really work as the primary topic identification is place-based. Otherwise, good points. Orderinchaos 07:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Perth -> Perth, Australia, Perth (disambiguation) -> Perth; oppose Perth, Scotland -> Perth, Perthshire. That the latest move sequence has generated so much controversy is itself the best reason not to apply WP:primary topic, and make Perth a disambiguation page. "Perth, Perthshire" is an unhelpful page title because it provides no useful information to the uninitiated reader. Deryck C. 22:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can wear my stupid American hat and say "Perth"? There's more than one? But seriously, Frankfurt provides a perfectly sensible answer:
Frankfurt
This article is about the city in Hesse. For the town in Brandenburg, see Frankfurt (Oder). For other uses, see Frankfurt (disambiguation).
So... Perth, this is about the city in Australia. For the city in Scotland, see Perth, Scotland. For other uses, see Perth (disambuguation)
There is no useful purpose to using ", Pertheshire" unless obfuscation and confusion are our goal. So, upon consideration:
  • Support Perth -> Perth, Australia, Perth (disambiguation) -> Perth; Oppose Perth, Scotland -> Perth, Perthshire, per Deryck C's reasons. Bjenks (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Perth -> Perth, Australia, Perth (disambiguation) -> Perth; Both are important cities for different reasons - one is modern and the other is historic. Neither are WP:PRIMARYTOPICs as defined. Oppose Perth, Scotland -> Perth, Perthshire which would only confuse. Moondyne (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose' - Perth -> Perth, Australia & Perth, Scotland -> Perth, Perthshire as per my previous comments on this issue. Dan arndt (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Perth -> Perth, Australia, Perth (disambiguation) -> Perth; This is a case where one article (Perth, WA) describes a city that is larger and better known outside Scotland than the city it is named after, but the very fact of the lengthy and tendentious discussions is a clear indication that the former does not have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. Oppose Perth, Scotland -> Perth, Perthshire which is both inaccurate (Perthshire is no longer a council area, the disambiguator suggested by WP:UKPLACE) and does not resemble any usage I have ever seen elsewhere. Ben MacDui 07:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We really should only consider evidence that is from sources external to Wikipedia. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Perth -> Perth, Western Australia (or even Perth, Australia) , current article naming is consistent with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Strongly Oppose Perth, Scotland -> Perth, Perthshire, as it does not follow any current disambiguation norms. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 12:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; the primacy of the Australian city has been established in a prior move request, and the finding of that establishment has been verified at move review. We have discussed it to death, and consensus is clear; it's time to just let it go for a while. Powers T 14:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Australian city is the contemporary PRIMARYTOPIC. This is the expected landing page for most readers who search for "Perth" (judging by other people's comments, this is the target for anywhere from 2/3 to 4/5 of all readers, with all other uses of "Perth" making up the remaining 1/5 to 1/3 of the readers). Page titles should reflect the concept in question from a global perspective, not a regional one. Mindmatrix 15:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The requested move of Perth, Scotland to Perth, Perthshire is odd, as Perthshire appears to be a defunct county (it was abolished in 1930, and counties were abolished in 1975). A proper disambiguating term should use modern geopolitical administrative subdivisions, so a more appropriate target would be Perth, Perth and Kinross (yes, it's somewhat quirky, but it's accurate). Perth, Perthshire is anachronistic, and if such an article were to exist, it should be about a place that no longer exists (per se), similar to the article about Upper Canada vis-a-vis Ontario. A redirect from Perth, Perthshire to the final destination of Perth, Scotland (as is currently done) is certainly acceptable, though. Mindmatrix 15:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC only has two conditions, usage and long-term significance. The evidence supporting usage for Perth in Australia has been well established, both in the previous RM and in this one. On long-term significance, both cities have been around for what Wikipedia typically considers 'long-term', which puts them on equal footing on that condition. This places Perth in Australia ahead across both conditions. Lastly, moving Perth, Scotland to Perth, Perthshire seems to also be incorrect based on indications by editors above that the county has been defunct for decades. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     05:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Perth, Western Australia -> Perth, disambiguation. I don't think Perth, WA meets the primary topic perfectly, and am more in favour of disambiguation because of the long term significance and educational value of Perth, Scotland. Oppose Perth, Scotland -> Perth, Perthshire. It's fine as is, and more valuable to the reader. OohBunnies! (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. Usage clearly supports Aussie Perth as the primary topic. The Perthshire move is an unnecessary tangent and should have proposed separately if it has any merit. older ≠ wiser 11:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the move of Perth (disambiguation) to Perth (if you have to argue about whether something is a primary topic, it means there isn't one). Support the move of Perth to Perth, West Australia (there are two places called Perth in Australia, so disambiguating by state is the best choice). Oppose the move of Perth, Scotland to Perth, Perthshire (everyone knows what Scotland is; hardly anyone knows about "Perthshire" or where it is supposed to be).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 28, 2012; 13:07 (UTC)
  • Oppose Perth Australia should be the main article with a hatnote to the other city because it is much more trafficked. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Perth of nearly 2 million inhabitants should not need any qualification, nor should not be equated with the Scottish Perth few have heard of. DMC (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perth Scotland is far more helpful to readers internationally. أبو خالد إبن المهندس (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per P.T. Aufrette. Khazar2 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as this is really getting silly. The proposal to move Perth, Scotland to Perth, Perthshire is likely to be especially confusing to the casual reader. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose' The Australian city is both the primary topic and the subject with long-term significance. As for the related suggestion, the proposal to move Perth, Scotland to Perth, Perthshire would require (assuming the move is found to be desirable on its merits, which appears to be an open question) a concurrent minor revision to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United Kingdom, as Perth, Scotland is explicitly mentioned in the naming convention. As such, I have put a notice of this discussion on the talk page for the naming convention. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Perth, Australia is clearly primary here. bd2412 T 18:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term significance

[edit]

As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic". If there is no consensus "then the long-standing article title is kept" (ie Perth, Western Australia and Perth, Scotland), as the "article title[s have] been stable for a long time". Also remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy nor any other political system. We won't come to any consensus if we just give our supporting or opposing reasons (based on policy and guidlines of course) - though please feel free to continue above - we need to start conversations. Therefore, I'm opening this new subsection below to discuss long-term significance - the key sticking point. As always, refrain from personal attacks - focus on the arguments, and perhaps some people may change their minds. - Evad37 (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC actually says is:
There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:

  • A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
  • A 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.
Discussion

Frankly, neither of them have stronger claims to long-term significance. Both were only known by the name 'Perth' in the mid 19th century (Perth, Scotland because it was known as St. Johnstone before then; Perth, Australia because it was founded then), both of them have extensive records of prior settlement (Perth, Scotland by tribes, the English and Scots; Perth, Australia by a number of Aboriginal tribes in the Whadjuk group), both were the site of historical battles and bloodshed (Perth, Scotland involved in warring between the English and Scots; Perth, Australia involved in warring between the English and Noongar Aborigines). Perth, Scotland peaked in importance centuries before it was even known as Perth, with few events of enduring note since the late 18th century; Perth, Australia is arguably still at its peak importance (which continues to grow), driven by its drastic growth in population and wealth and its position as central hub for mining and primary resource industry throughout most of the western regions of Australia. Perth, Australia has also a significant port for the arrival of migrant ships since the 1940s, similar to the way New York was used as an arrival point for migrants in the United States.

It could be reasonably argued that Perth, Scotland's long-term significance has fallen over the last few centuries, while Perth, Australia's long-term significance has grown. In either case, the difference between the two, solely with respect to long-term significance, is insufficient to make a clean declaration for or against either one. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This, I believe, is what was used as the rationale for the close of the previous move. Long-term significance doesn't mean "significant for a long time". It refers to notability and educational value. Scotland has a thousand years of history, but as a state capital with ~200 years of history, Australia has equal international long-term significance. Usage, however, is Australia by a large margin. This was precisely what sold me on the current status, despite my voting against the move initially. Metao (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing the relative intrinsic importance of things that are both quite important is useless. Primary topic should be only applied as a criterion when it is clear and unambiguous and worldwide at least for those who know English. Rome is a good example. Living in NYS, I'm quite aware of the city in upstate NY also when I here the name, but in a general context I know that is almost always not what is intended. Anything less clear than that should go to a disam page. The definition of "less clear" is that a plausible argument can be made." I consider even Ithaca as a borderline example: to me, the default meaning if there is no context at all is the city where Cornell University is located, I doubt most people worldwide would think so, but most people much involved with US colleges would. (Perth to me means the city in Scotland unless I know the context is Australian. But certainly it should not directly go there, because Australians are a sufficiently large group who would almost always use it otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perth_(disambiguation)&oldid=1241354460"