Talk:Exmouth

Requested move

The following is a closed 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. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Exmouth, Devon → Exmouth — Original and largest Exmouth. Only one other place with this name so disambiguation page is unnecessary. —71.106.183.124 (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as nom 71.106.183.124 (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Whenever someone types "Exmouth" they are usually looking for the town in Devon. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support; clear case of primary topic, just like recent move at Thetford. Knepflerle (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

It sure would have been nice if someone had bothered to mention this discussion at Talk:Exmouth, Western Australia, or even the original (i.e. pre-move) Talk:Exmouth. To hold a poll like this at what was then Talk:Exmouth, Devon, without notifying any of the other stakeholders, is to guarantee this particular outcome by excluding those who may hold a different viewpoint. Hesperian 04:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably an excellent case of lack of checking for an IP number to claim Only one other place is nothing short of being geographically challenged - and for a short closure within such a period of time clear ignoring what wikipedia is actually about - hahah about polling is not a substitute for discussion SatuSuro 06:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Also on a quick google search, all of the first 11 references to "Exmouth" are to the one in Western Australia, with the first reference to the one in Devon being 12th (its official site) and 14th (the Wikipedia article). This would suggest that the third "Support" above is possibly mistaken. Orderinchaos 09:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Google results mentioned are not universal and do not match those I get, in which the UK Exmouth is far more common. Remember that Google tailors search results based on your geographical and language preferences and your IP, and also which site you use.

I came across this requested move on WP:RM and coming from there my viewpoint was in no way predetermined. Knepflerle (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides, where was the poll to move this page initially? This move simply return the status quo. Anyway, I don't see how any any other 'Exmouth' can claim to be more prominent when they're named after the original one. Besides, this one has like 14* the population of the one in Australia, and on Google.com all of the first results are from the UK settlement. The move was correct. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't. But the process was grossly improper. Holding the poll at Talk:Exmouth, Devon, and not bothering to mention it at Talk:Exmouth or Talk:Exmouth, Western Australia? Pfft. Hesperian 13:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to take that up with the anon user who nominated it, or the Admin who didn't check to see if that'd been done. But seeing as nobody's even disputing the move what's the point? Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well its all water under the bridge now, but frankly (and speaking as a UK editor) I would not have supported this move. Primary topic status should be reserved for really, really well known subjects. The mental test I always apply is 'would this be obvious to an English as a second language speaker living in China?'. London just about passes that test, I think, because likely such a person will know of London. Exmouth, delightful place as it is, doesn't. The average English as a second language speaker living in China has probably never heard of any of the Exmouths, so none of them deserve primary topic status. -- Chris j wood (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you put forward quite a compelling argument. Still, this move just returns how things were before, and if anyone strongly believes this should be a disambig page, then that's a seperate issue which can be discussed. However, is having a link at the top of this article not enough to disambiguate to the only other article? Asdfasdf1231234 (talk)

I think the Australians have a right to feel aggrieved; even after all the above, they have been lumped in the disambiguation with a bit of Chile (the country) and a flower; I have altered the heading to give them a bit more prominence over the disambiguation. Afterbrunel (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And I have altered it back. Hatnotes should be used sparingly and some backwater town really doesn't deserve any sort of prominence. --Bob Re-born (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the basis of your argument here "Our Exmouth is bigger than your Exmouth"? How many towns called Exmouth are there? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Regeneration

Use of the term "regeneration" to describe the destruction of the Strand seems inappropriate. It's a marketing term used by the consultants employed by the council to put a positive gloss on what has been a highly unpopular change. (And similarly, the Council's further "regeneration" plans for the seafront deserve mention... Mhkay (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Exmouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310132450/http://www.exmouthonline.com/history.php to http://www.exmouthonline.com/history.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715035222/http://www.exmouthpeople.co.uk/Exmouth-s-Rolle-College-ndash-latest-news/story-12982826-detail/story.html to http://www.exmouthpeople.co.uk/Exmouth-s-Rolle-College-ndash-latest-news/story-12982826-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314174129/http://www.exmouthpeople.co.uk/groups/whats-exmouth/Exmouth-s-Remembrance-Sunday-service/story-10245378-detail/story.html to http://www.exmouthpeople.co.uk/groups/whats-exmouth/Exmouth-s-Remembrance-Sunday-service/story-10245378-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131208092540/http://www.avocet150.co.uk/history/ to http://www.avocet150.co.uk/history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801171106/http://phearparkbowlingclub.co.uk/clubhistory.htm to http://www.phearparkbowlingclub.co.uk/clubhistory.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)