Talk:Lexington

Comments

There is no article, not even a rambot entry, on the most important Lexington, Lexington, Massachusetts. Ortolan88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortolan88 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 7 January 2003‎ (UTC) [reply]

Arranging the entries

I moved the Kentucky entry up into the primary list, because it would probably be sought more often than some of the other entries there. If the Mass. city would be too, it should be moved up as well, instead of moving the Kentucky entry down. -- JHunterJ 16:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the MA Lexington ("the shot heard 'round the world") is as prominent as KY. I think textual blurbs are more effective to draw attention these than positioning them out of alpha order. Without any obvious reason expressed, it is unclear why that one or two entries are sorted separately from the rest of the places. older ≠ wiser 16:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the main article should redirect to Lexington, Kentucky, and this be moved to Lexington (disambiguation). That seems to be the norm when one stands out and it is only a mid-sized city. CrazyC83 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closed per WP:SNOW. It's early, but there is no support for moving the page and it seems obvious the consensus will remain against moving it. (non-admin closure) Hot Stop 06:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lexington → Lexington (disambiguation) – Lexington should re-direct to Lexington, Kentucky. This is the Lexington that most people are familiar with. Georgia guy (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, at least absent evidence. Lexington, Massachusetts has great historical importance. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this historical importance recent enough for some of today's people to believe that this city is a more important meaning than Lexington, Kentucky?? (The city in Kentucky has been a city since 1831.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, there's no city in Massachusetts called Lexington; the area in Massachusetts called Lexington is not a city, but a town. Georgia guy (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about cities? We're not discussing Lexington (city). You're making a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claim; you should provide evidence for your position. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cities should always be more important meanings of geographical names than towns. Towns are generally small and obscure; cities are more well-known. Georgia guy (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't disagree more, mostly because jurisdictions can have wildly different definitions of cities and towns. For example, Virginia has an idiosyncratic definition of a city, defined by the type of local government rather than (necessarily) size. Idaho calls just about any organized settlement a city, so you get places like Genesee, Idaho, with fewer than a thousand people. As often, New Jersey just has its own thing going on. Again, please focus on our criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rather than subjective judgments about one place being better than another. --BDD (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lexington, Kentucky is the largest city named Lexington, and I'm sure it's the meaning most people today think of when they think of this name. Any pros of the Massachusetts town being more important in some ways?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that the Massachusetts town is more notable than the Kentucky city needn't be addressed here. There is no proposal to redirect "Lexington" to that town. But if it is to redirect to the Kentucky city, proponents should show (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) that "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." (my emphasis) — AjaxSmack 23:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the argument that the Massachusetts town is more notable to some people's points of view, not the argument that it is to all people. Have you done research to see how frequently each meaning is searched?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked January page view stats before commenting. The two aircraft carriers and Lexington, Massachusetts together had more views than the Kentucky city. If you add in a few of the other cities, you can almost double that. — AjaxSmack 01:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Let's see...a very notable battle, a score of other towns and cities (several of which have populations well over 10,000), a handful of very important ships, a car marque, a famous racehorse, and sundry other entities versus one mid-sized city. No case for a primary topic yet. — AjaxSmack 21:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm from the UK; I'd never heard of Lexington, Kentucky. The only Lexington I'd heard of is the one where the battle was, and I only just learned that it is in Massachusetts (I presumed it was the only Lexington in the USA...). So I would say leave it as it is. There are far too many Lexingtons to have a clear primary topic, and any move may not recognise the world view. --Rushton2010 (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the Lady Lex USS Lexington is primary if anything. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2014 (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.