Talk:Paisley, Renfrewshire

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland High‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Town Centre

Currently Paisley suffers many problems common to towns throughout central Scotland. In the last 10 years, the development of out-of-town retail sites, in combination with a poorly-planned town centre pedestrianisation and an unfathomable one-way road system around the town centre, has led to a loss of many retail outlets and poor access to the town centre. The once bustling High Street of Paisley is a shadow of its former self. This is a result of unimaginative local government-sanctioned town planning. Many of the town's citizens feel that they deserve better.

Whilst I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment, this is clearly opinionated. Perhaps someone more familiar with the town's current situation than I am could rewrite it? - Hayter 16:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fiercely agree with this sentiment, and would like to add my distaste to the way our 'local government' handles its affairs. I found this paragraph particularly accurate! And the neds! User:mrweetoes 14:04, 18 December 2005

Requested move

Paisley, Renfrewshire → Paisley – The Scottish town is by far the most notable Paisley. Indeed, the others are named after it. Have a look at the long list of links which are currently pointing to the disambiguation page: as far as I can see they are all referring to the Scottish town. Also, look at how many pages link to the Scottish town article compared to the others: by far the most significant. The other Paisleys are all villages.

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support --Mais oui! 04:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. - Hayter 16:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obvious move. - Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, entirely sensible. Even I didn't know Paisley was in Renfrewshire. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. —Nightst a llion (?) 11:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD

The related Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Paisley constituencies has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

--Mais oui! 09:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate

I was pretty shocked that "paisley" directs here. While this is clearly the largest place with that name, it is still a relatively small place. The paisley design is very well-known and there are also several well-known people with Paisley as a surname. I was pretty surprised when I "pressed go" to find the article of a town that I barely knew existed and I can't imagine that most readers will expect to see this article when they do so, particularily those outside of the UK. --JGGardiner 21:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Paisley pattern is named after the town and it's quite possible that the surnames and other towns with the name originate in the same way, it's hardly surprising in that case that Paisley directs here and that the other uses are in the disambiguation page. Perhaps you've learnt something, isn't that what wiki is all about after all? Fraslet 21:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I already knew that the design was named after the town. I also have some knowledge of British history which makes me one of the few North Americans to know that this little place exists. In any event, the website should be organized for the navigational convenience of our readers and not to rank the articles by importance or etymological origins (or possible origins). WP:D gives the example of Mercury which all originate etymologically with the mythological figure but disambiguates nonetheless. --JGGardiner 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a hundred times the size of the North American villages of the same name, the largest town in Scotland is not relatively small. The paisley pattern is found on this page in its proper context. The comparison with Mercury is ludicrous because the planet and the element are probably referenced at least as much as the Roman God. One redirect will help you find the First Minister of Northern Ireland if that is whom you seek, hardly a great navigational inconvenience. Laurec 19:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. That's like saying you ran a search on Kalamazoo looking for the card index system of that name and instead were directed to an obscure city in Michigan. Ulysses54 09:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I’d like to ask for a little civility please. I’m not used to the Scottish-related articles and I don’t know the Wiki-culture associated with them but I’m not used to seeing arguments labeled as “ridiculous” and “ludicrous” simply because you disagree with them, however strongly.

I agree with some of what you said Laurec. This is certainly the largest place named Paisley. And I agree with the criteria which you advanced in the Mercury sentence (that hits are what matter). Etymology is not, as I understand it, an appropriate criteria to consider. While I suppose that one redirect is not much of an inconvenience, that doesn’t seem to me to suggest which article should predominate because one redirect would work for such users as long as any one does. Our goal should be to have as few users redirecting as possible.

Ulysses, I agree with you completely that Kalamazoo should redirect to the city. The article for the city most likely gets many more searches than the card index system. Although incidentally there isn’t an article for the card index system anyway so it wouldn’t be a real concern. If I thought that this town of Paisley got say 75% of the Paisley searches, I would recommend that it redirect here. But I doubt this Paisley is so predominant.

The only gauge that I can think of which would show how many user would have an interest in the various articles is the other languages. This Paisley appears in seven others, the design is in six, Ian is in thirteen and Bob is in seven. That is obviously a very rough guide but it indicates to me that interest in this is place is probably not much greater than in the other ones and perhaps even less so. Obviously this is an English-speaking place so the English interest would be greater but how much so?

Are there some other particular criteria which you consider? If so, perhaps we should discuss them. Or perhaps we should ask for a third-party comment. Thanks --JGGardiner 09:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The principal criterion as far I am concerned is derivation. The names of the textile design, the other towns and the people ultimately derive from the town of Paisley in Scotland. Ulysses54 09:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, I don't think that etymology, in itself, is a valid criteria at all, let alone the paramount one. That is why I gave the mercury example which is shown on WP:D. But there are many others. Philadelphia and Memphis come to mind for example. --JGGardiner 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A much belated addition to a dead conversation, but I think Gardiner is right. Etymology is irrelevant. What matters is why people are searching for the term to begin with. Are they more likely to be searching for a small city, the pattern or a person?

It's not obvious to me how to answer this. I'm tempted to say that they are obviously searching for the pattern, but this may be Yankee shortsightedness. For what it's worth, when I google "paisley", the first hit is the Wikipedia page on the pattern, and the second hit is this page. Maybe that's because of regionalized or personalized search results, but try it yourself and see what happens.

I think this page should be a disambig page most likely. Phiwum (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In American google yes but try google.co.uk and you will find the town comes first. Same for the uk Bing. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really at a deadlock with this? I just did a search on "Paisley" looking specifically for the pattern, and I got an article on Scotland, and now have to negotiate my way through things to get to the pattern. While I am all for retaining the most fundamental use of a particular word as its primary Wikipedia entry, that feeling gets trumped when I hit on a meaning for a word that I have never, every heard before occupying that namespace. I would like to host an RfC on the matter. See below. KDS4444^Talk 11:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Rocks

Am I right in thinking that the Scottish Rocks no longer play in Braehead? I have been in the Kelvin Hall Sports Centre recently and all ove the place is Scottish Rocks? Any objections to removing the info about the Rocks? Kyro (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic

I'd like to again bring up what the primary topic for "Paisley" should be (with, I think, Paisley, Scotland v. Paisley (design) v. Paisley (disambiguation) being the finalists). To start, lets look at the three sources of statistical information mentioned at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic?: incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere, Wikipedia article traffic statistics (http://stats.grok.se/), and Google searches (web, news, scholar, and book).

For wikilinks, in my opinion it is clear that Paisley, Scotland is much more common. There are lots of geographic articles that use it, and a good number of biographical articles as well.
For google (all of the following were done from a USA-based IP address with cookies blocked):
- a cookie-free web search prioritizes Paisley (design) over the place name; by comparison, a cookie-free web search of "Madras" (another city/town that's the fifth largest in its country), priorities Chennai over Madras (cloth)
- a book search returns a mixture of people's names (Ian P, William P, and the place name
- a blog search suggests three "related blogs" (one by someone named Paisley, one about singer Brad Paisley, and one for the Paisley Daily Express; following those, the design and the country singer seem to dominate
- a news search leads with a quote from the singer, with other Paisley people mixed in; the first Paisley place name at the time of my USA-originated query was for Florida
- a news archive is dominated by Ian the politician
- a scholar search returns surname matches
the grok.se stats for July 2009 list the design at 14,400, Ian the politician at 9,800, "Paisley, Scotland" at 400, and "Paisley" at 10,000; the results for January 2008 were proportionally similar

I could probably come up with a preliminary conclusion about these results, but that would be jumping the gun. I'd be interested in seeing what others would add to the list of statistics, including non-USA google searches and other search engines. Thanks. 72.244.203.120 (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Gockston

There's nothing in this article to establish its own notability, and what limited content there is would be better handled here, perhaps in a "Suburbs" section. Rodhull andemu 01:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "Suburbs" section as it contains no additional information and is trivial. It was also entirely lacking in notability, containing no references.Alfrew (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paisley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061002125259/http://www.paisley.org.uk/history/russell.php to http://www.paisley.org.uk/history/russell.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. It has been open more than three months with no opposition. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Thornly Park be merged into Paisley. The former is an unsourced stub of little potential, concerning a small area of the town. Any information on it can comfortably be accommodated in the Paisley article. Jellyman (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Thornly Park article does not pass Wikipedia:Notability since there is insufficient non-trivial coverage of the topic in reliable media. Rincewind42 (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Merge. KDS4444^Talk 11:41, 29 March 2016 (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.

RfC: Should this title point to the Scottish town or the fabric pattern?

The following is a closed 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: MOVED to Paisley, Renfrewshire, disambig page now at Paisley. Per discussion, new title satisfies naming convention; and without a clear primary topic, a disambig page at previous title was the better choice. Hadal (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paisley → Paisley, Renfrewshire
Paisley (design) → Paisley

– Reopening as requested move discussion due to opposition on the basis of wrong venue. This is the path of least resistance. See the below discussion for the substance of the rationale. ~ Rob^Talk 23:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should the title "Paisley" point to the town in Scotland or should it point directly to the fabric pattern? KDS4444^Talk 11:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paisley isn't a namespace. It's the article title, and the namespace for that article is alternatively "main" or "article". --Redrose64 (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and fixed it. Wugapodes (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design main results in a google search are about the pattern. This page, despite being primary, gets about 450 views per month. The Paisley (design) gets about 700 views per month. It seems clear that the primary topic is the design not the town in Scotland. Wugapodes (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC) See below. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 20:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Design. The town can be renamed to Paisley, Scotland. The page view stats do seem to indicate that the design is what people are looking for. If the town is moved to Paisley, Scotland, it will still be very easily and intuitively found. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Design, or dab, per page views. The design is international, the town is local. jonkerz ♠talk 13:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: move the town away from this title. No comment on what page should replace it. jonkerz ♠talk 18:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question above was wholly inappropriate for this page. I agree that is it sensible to ask whether the town should relinquish the primarytopic position. The right thing to do is then the move the disambiguation page to Paisley, not to arbitrarily assign a new primarytopic. "No primarytopic" is a much better result for such an ambiguous term; "or dab" as jonkerz said; the stats from Wugapodes are not nearly enough to suggest primarytopic status for the pattern. Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Design !votes above are from when the question was phrased like a WP:TWODABS situation ("Should the title 'Paisley' point to the town in Scotland or should it point directly to the fabric pattern?") and the question of whether there should be a primarytopic at all, and the existence of a disambiguation page Paisley (disambiguation) with lots of things on it, had not been brought up. Plus nobody considered the UK place naming conventions as RGloucester points out below. So hopefully those responders will have another look and say what they prefer. Dicklyon (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dicklyon - those !votes above should be disregarded. The default position is a dab page, only if either of the 2 candidates can be proved to be absolute majority subject can one of them claim to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444, Redrose64, Wugapodes, NinjaRobotPirate, and Jonkerz: Pinging to notify past participants that this was closed, contested, and then reopened as a requested move discussion as the path of least resistance. ~ Rob^Talk 00:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the primarytopic grab for the pattern, but Support and Oppose Paisley → Paisley, Scotland and Support Paisley → Paisley, Renfrewshire per RGloucenter's info re UK place name convention below. This is NOT as WP:TWODABS situation as it was presented. See the huge number of related articles at Paisley (disambiguation). Nobody has suggested that any topic is primary among that lot. Secondarily, moving Paisley (disambiguation) → Paisley gives us a chance to notice all old links now pointing at a disambig page and have them automatically flagged for fixing; this is a lot better than having the town links suddenly to to the pattern. (This !vote and further explanation is in addition to my previously-post-close note above). Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The place names can be disambiguated through commas per WP:COMMADIS. The people named Paisley are already naturally disambiguated. The rest of the stuff is mostly partial title matches, which shouldn't even have been listed in the disambiguation page. Paisley (UK Parliament constituency) needs to be disambiguated, but I doubt that could possibly be considered to compete with the design. The design seems like the primary topic to me, and everything but the constituency can be naturally disambiguated, anyways. I don't see what the problem is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving Paisley to Paisley, Renfrewshire, per the WP:UKPLACE guideline, and recreating Paisley as a disambiguation page. Strongly oppose Paisley, Scotland, which is not the correct format per WP:UKPLACE. RGloucester — ☎ 03:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the proposer has changed his proposal to Paisley, Renfrewshire, with this edit. I reiterate my support for that move. I still oppose primary topic status for the cloth pattern, and instead support making Paisley a disambiguation page. RGloucester — ☎ 03:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the design as primary. No comment on moving the town. — AjaxSmack 03:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving Paisley to Paisley, Renfrewshire, per UKPLACE. Oppose the design move, since it is not the PRIMARYTOPIC. Too many things are named Paisley, which should be the disambiguation page's title. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Oppose per SMcCandlish. Tony (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, per SMcCandlish. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving the town to Paisley, Renfrewshire. Oppose moving the pattern to the base name – the disambiguation page should be moved to Paisley. Note however that moving the town to Paisley, Scotland, though not my preferred option, would be acceptable under WP:UKPLACE, which allows such disambiguation for "larger towns or islands that are likely to be well-known outside of the region". --Deskford (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No such larger town exists (smaller towns do), which is why that exception does not apply. RGloucester — ☎ 14:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder. The article on Paisley (design) currently gets around 1,000 hits per day; this article, as it stands and on the Scottish town, gets between 450 and 550. The disambig page gets 15-20 hits per day. To me, this means that of the people who come here, very few go on to the disambig page. We don't know how many then go on to the design page, but it seems not unlikely that the 450-550 that land here per day are not entirely lost (and other Scottish towns like, for example, Inverness, which has fewer people, get around 1,000 hits per day and are never confused with a design pattern). I am willing to concede that the design may not be the primary topic, and would support a move to make "Paisley" into a disambig page with the Scottish town moved to Paisley, Scotland or something similar. KDS4444 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support both. I still believe the design is the primary topic because of google search results and page hits here, but if this got turned into a dab page, I wouldn't be too upset. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 20:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving Paisley → Paisley, Renfrewshire / Oppose moving Paisley (design) → Paisley / There is clearly no primary topic. Have dab is primary page name. CookieMonster755 ^📞 ^✉ ^✓ 21:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving Paisley → Paisley, Renfrewshire / Oppose moving Paisley (design) → Paisley see "Paisley is" test in books, no absolute majority "primary topic", hence should be a dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving Paisley → Paisley, Renfrewshire / Oppose moving Paisley (design) → Paisley per reasons above. There's no primary topic. Lizard (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed, i.e. have the design as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. SST flyer 09:53, 30 May 2016 (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.

Just saying: I am pleased with how all this turned out. Not the way I might have initially wished, perhaps, but still, in the end, a nice thing, a good thing, and a right thing. KDS4444 (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying so. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Paisley, Renfrewshire. 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:

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) 22:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]