*Oppose. Primary topic exists to serve those users who use the "Go" button. I strongly believe that to be a tiny proportion of readers, and the vast majority of people arriving at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester will have come from an external search provider (eg Google) or a direct link to the article (a wikilink or a link from another website). This undermines the value of page views as a metric - you cannot infer anything about the number of misdirected readers, who got here by "Go". 
 :The page one results of a Google UK search for Worcester exclusively relate to the English city, and one of the hits is this article. I believe a Google.com search in the US exclusively returns Worcester, MA on page 1, including a link to Worcester, Massachusetts (can a US editor confirm? I don't trust Google.com to ignore my location). In other words, UK and US readers using links or Google already arrive at the correct article. 
 :What will happen to the vast majority of users if this page is moved? Wikilinks to this article will be temporarily degraded. External links to this article will be degraded for a longer period, some permanently. 
 :As for external search - we can see what will happen, by comparing to Durham. The page one results of a Google UK search exclusively relate to the English city, except there is a link to a WP disambig instead of the WP article. Presumably that will change to the Durham, England article, and I will be intrigued to see how long it takes for Google to repair that. Meanwhile a Google.com search in the US is unaffected, and continues to be exclusively for Durham, NC, including the wiki article. 
 :I would expect the same here in event of a pagemove. This will result in zero benefit to US users, except that small proportion who try their luck with "Go". It will significantly degrade the utility of this article to UK users, as they will no longer even see this article in a Google search (for at least a month). This is not about UK vs US, its about providing a minor benefit to a small fraction of users, and ignoring the principle of stable URIs and the damage a rename causes. IMO - The costs of this move outweigh the gains. I realise this oppose is really an opposition to guidance/policy than the application of that guidance to this case. However, we can see the actual negative impacts that will happen here, by comparing to the Durham case.anion