Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

Linking to places with disambiguation modifiers

Hi,

If, for example, you wish to refer to somebody born in Falmouth, Cornwall, do you link to both Falmouth and Cornwall? I have always assumed that the correct format would be

"MDCollins (born 1984 in [[Falmouth, Cornwall|Falmouth]], [[Cornwall]] is a wikipedian."

But recently, I have come across edits, where somebody has edited links such as these to

"MDCollins (born 1984 in [[Falmouth, Cornwall]] is a wikipedian."

Is there any style/convention here, and is this the place to ask? I was going to revert some of the changes, but couldn't find anything in the MOS or Style Guides as evidence, so let it go. The former, although more cumbersome to write, does allow the reader to click to either Falmouth or Cornwall, something which would be very useful with far less common places. Any thoughts please?–MDCollins (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

{{City-state|Falmouth|Cornwall}} expands to the forumer, if you just want to avoid typing. I don't know what the convention is or should be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Falmouth, Cornwall links to Cornwall almost immediately. The rare reader who wants to go from MDCollins to Cornwall is probably well-served by this, and linking to running text is much simpler and slightly more transparent. Where the balance lies is a matter of judgment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So, do we have consensus?

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
'Wikipedia is not a democracy We determine consensus through discussion, not voting. - JPG-GR (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So, do we have consensus for the move all the cities listed above in the AP list?

Even if you don't count the IP address, the vote is 36 in support of moving every city listed without any exceptions, vs. only 13 against. That's pretty overwhelmingly one-sided, especially for issues on this page. I don't think it would be reasonable to seek to achieve more consensus than this. --Serge (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your analysis is incorrect. You cannot assume that someone who posted an unqualified statement of support is making a statement desirous of support sans exceptions. I, for example, supported the notion without making any specific conditions, but I also support the notions that exceptions to this rule be allowed. You are habitually presuming to expand upon the meaning of statements that are not yours - you should avoid this sort of behavior. Shereth 23:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
How much more consensus do people want? I count almost 3/4 in favor of the mass move. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I would agree that the move has gained sufficient consensus - I am just objecting to Serge's characterization of the consensus to do so without exception. There is no such thing as without exception on Wikipedia, and while there are good-faith objections to moving individual cities, the consensus to update the wording of the naming convention should not supersede individual discussions for individual articles. Shereth 23:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Shereth, I'm sorry, but the proposal made by Dr. Cash was clearly stated as, "let's just vote on moving all of the aforementioned cities over to the 'city' article name instead of 'city, state' name". If you (or anyone else) voted in Support of that proposal, without mentioning any caveats, what else can we presume but that you support "moving all of the aforementioned cities" (i.e., without exceptions)?
If we are to interpret every Support vote to possibly imply some possible exceptions, then how are we to fairly decide which on the list constitute exceptions? What has happened is that mostly those who oppose the entire move have raised objections to individual moves as well. You say you "support the notions that exceptions to this rule be allowed". Which rule, exactly, do you mean by "this rule"? What should the exceptions be? How should they be decided? It opens up a whole can of worms that this proposal was specifically put forward to avoid. Perhaps you did not understand that and so voted incorrectly in support of it? If so, I urge you to change/clarify your vote accordingly.
By the way, I support exceptions too. And I do think that's implied for all support votes. But one or two people (especially if they are in the minority opposed to the proposal) "raising questions" is nothing more than filibustering. It appears to me that the only conceivable legitimate individual exception (that is assuming you're not opposed to exceptions to the comma convention in general, but correct me if I'm wrong) is when the city in question is not the primary use of the name, and that issue should be dealt with on the city's talk page, starting with proposing that [[Cityname]] not redirect to the article about the city (which I agree it shouldn't if it's not the primary use). But there is no evidence that there is anything close to consensus on this point for any city on the list. Am I missing something? --Serge (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Several of us who oppose have given samples of our objections; Geometry Guy may well be one of these (and I think, and have said, his specific objection on Cleveland is not unreasonable). In any case, he opposes a universal move, and should be so counted. That makes the total support, even counting the IP, about 73%; that is not consensus, and never has been, especially for a massive move like this. (A closing admin should also consider the arguments; this is not a matter where civic pride should be considered, because using Boston, Massachusetts or Portland, Maine says nothing either way about "world-class cities".) This should be done, and should have been done, as a series of requests at the individual talk-pages, where such questions as the ambiguity of Los Angeles can be considered as necessary. This would presumably result in moving some of these and not others, but we cannot yet see which; let us see who is dogmatic enough to object to such a settlement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I should also note that Serge is begging the question: single-named American cities, whether one or five or twenty, will be always be exceptions against a great mass of places named City, State. They must be; the majority of American place names are ambiguous, and adding the state is the idiomatic way to disambiguate them.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Nothing I said contradicts the point that single-named American cities will always be an exception (whether it's true or not) relative to all articles about American cities. The context of the without exception phrase was with respect to the list of cities in the proposal which clearly proposed moving all of them. --Serge (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    • No one except Serge, in his various incarnations, supports moving all American cities, or even the minority of unambiguous ones. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm far from the only one who supports moving all American cities for which [[Cityname]] already redirects to the article about the city currently at [[Cityname, Statename]], not that that has anything to do with the content of any of my posts made here. --Serge (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Please provide several examples; far from the only one is a strong claim. Whether a redirect exists is largely accidental; whether it has been changed depends on someone having both noticed it and bothered to fix it. This is a weak test, scarcely above dowsing or scapulimancy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
        • However, all American cities to which there are redirects is a different class than those which are unambiguous. I note the retraction; may it continue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Note that when Serge wrote "which clearly proposed moving all of them", he meant "all of the aforementioned cities" (my emphasis), referring to Atlanta and San Francisco but specifically not to Kennebunkport or Buffalo Soapstone. His stance on these is well-known, but for whatever reason, he has chosen not to bring it into this discussion, an example we should all be able to follow. -- Jao (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Serge, what you are doing is putting words in my mouth. When I say I support the original proposal that means just that; I support the proposal. It does not imply "with exceptions" or "without exceptions" - in fact, it does not imply anything at all. What you are missing is the fact that exceptions to rules are one of the fundamental precepts of editing Wikipedia. You really shouldn't be trying to "interpret" what people are saying, at all. You keep straying off into shaky territory by trying to ascribe a deeper meaning to people's simple statements. If you are going to insist that my "support" is tantamount to "support with no exceptions" then I will be forced to clarify it by revoking said support. Shereth 01:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Shereth, you're preaching to the choir when it comes to exceptions and rules. But I asked you above, what rule are you talking about? This isn't about a rule, it's about a specific proposal to move all cities on a specific list. "All" means "no exceptions", by definition. That's just plain English. And as I discussed on the Los Angeles talk page, you don't seem to understand that communication between humans requires interpretation. In fact, all communication via writing comprises two separate process of interpretation. First, the writer interprets his or her thoughts into English written words -- that's one -- then each reader interprets those words into his or her own thoughts -- that's two. This two-step process is inherently prone to error and misinterpretation at each step, but there is no way to avoid it. The potential miscommunication can be mitigated, however. One way to ensure that miscommunication has not happened is for the reader to restate his or her understanding in different words, different words that mean the same thing to him or her. Please stop chastising me for interpreting words as I read them. There is no other way for a human being to understand the words of another without interpreting them first. Serge (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So, basically, by closing this discussion, you're saying that a mere 27% of users opposed to this can hold this up over the 73% that support it? Sounds like a filibuster to me,... Dr. Cash (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, really what we need is for an uninvolved admin to come along and close the discussion. Serge's attempts at calling consensus are a little tainted by the fact that he has a very firmly vested interest in it going down one particular way .. Shereth 15:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Filibustering is potentially disruptive and not acceptable if some minority tries it. Ask on ANI with a link to this !vote for an admin to close it. rootology (C)(T) 15:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes; Wikipedia is not a democracy. The proper course at this point is for the majority to see what concessions they need make to get the minority to declare the remainder genuinely is consensus. We are prepared to act slowly, or not at all, as the price to make sure that what does get done is actually at least tolerable to almost everybody. There may well be a core of cities here which no-one would object to moving; we do know that there are objections to moving all of these. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Remember, the vetted AP list referenced in the current proposal is the product of a discussion to identify the compromise list of cities acceptable to be moved from the comma-convention by most. As far as I can tell, with maybe 2 or 3 exceptions (including maybe you), from what I can tell from their comments, almost everyone in the minority opposed to the proposal is opposed to the entire proposal, not for some of it but opposed to all of it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but do you know of even one city on the list for which more than two people have expressed opposition to moving that city in particular, but are okay with the rest, or most of the rest? Where is the wiggle room for compromise? --Serge (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Even the posting of absurdities and falsehoods would not justify personal attacks. More importantly, when you claim someone is posting absurdities and falsehoods, the least you could is be specific about what you believe those absurdities and falsehoods to be. Just because something seems obvious to you, does not mean it's clear to anyone else. So please assume good faith and state who the members of the minority opposition (besides you and Vegaswikian) are that all agree that any one particular city does not belong on the list (but are not opposed to all of the moves individually), and what that city is. Now, is that number of people, whatever it is, anywhere near the size of the consensus in favor of the proposal as is? By the way, each of those cities have been specified in the list in the guidelines for about a year, without objection, except for Vegaswikian's recent attempt to excise Los Angeles without consensus. And what exactly do you think I said that the San Diego and St Louis discussions above allegedly reveal to be falsehoods? Thanks. --Serge (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    • who the members of the minority opposition (besides you and Vegaswikian) are that all agree that any one particular city does not belong on the list (but are not opposed to all of the moves individually), and what that city is.
      • Serge may know what he means by this tangle, but I do not; therefore I cannot answer what appears to be a question.
    • Now, is that number of people, whatever it is, anywhere near the size of the consensus in favor of the proposal as is?
      • It doesn't have to be the same size; it has to be enough to make it doubtful that there is genuine consensus on the whole proposal.
    • By the way, each of those cities have been specified in the list in the guidelines for about a year, without objection, except for Vegaswikian's recent attempt to excise Los Angeles without consensus.
      • This is disingenuous. What the guideline has said, and now says, is that these cities may have their articles named City provided they are the primary topic for that name. This sets up three conditions for a move:
        • the city must be on the AP list (so this guideline opposes moving Lucas Township, Minnesota even if Lucas Township would be unambiguous.
        • the city must be primary usage for the simple name (this is the ground on which moves to Cleveland, St. Louis and so on are being opposed.)
        • There must be consensus to move (hence may); this page opposes moves of other cities unconditionally.
      • Therefore a city being on the list does not, in any sense, imply it should be moved; a city off the list should not be moved. Therefore how old the list is is irrelevant to the question of what should be moved.
    • And what exactly do you think I said that the San Diego and St Louis discussions above allegedly reveal to be falsehoods?

← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← (reset indent)

Okay, let's look at the four editors who have allegedly "objected" at #St. Louis. (1) Are you seriously counting as an objection Polaron who just "threw it out there", notes he would expect it to be a redirect to Saint Louis, but recognizes that "a good indication [of whether the city is the primary use] is if the unqualified name already redirects"? (2) Will Beback hardly qualifies as someone who is "okay with the rest [of the moves in the proposal], or most of the rest". (3) I'll give you Appraiser, but (4) Hmains wants all U.S. cites to be at city, state (see his vote on the main proposal). As to San Diego, it's the perennial (1) Vegaswikian, and (2) Hmains again. (3) Arthur Rubin simply notes that the issue needs to be resolved at the San Diego dab page (which by the way, does not even have a talk page, a strong indication of how uncontroversial the issue of the city being the primary use really is). You see room for compromise here? Really? I have no problem with removing cities from the list after a genuine effort shows that consensus is that the city in question is not the primary use of the name. But we have not come to anything close to that with a single city on the list. --Serge (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I never said the matter is beyond the scope of discussion. I'm just saying that when you have some two dozen people in favor of a large group move, having less than a handful of people possibly questioning any one of the items in the group, especially when those people include people in the minority opposed to the entire group move as well, does not carry anywhere near enough weight to override the consensus in favor of moving the entire group. And when you don't specify the four people, I have to guess who you mean. If I'm wrong, please correct me. --Serge (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean unaninimity, of course, but in view of the slippery nature of the concept it's probably best if someone neutral makes the call as to whether we have it or not. Since we are fortunate enough in this case to have a process (WP:RM) enabling this, wouldn't it be best just to take it there and see what result comes out of it?--Kotniski (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposal has been listed at WP:RM for over a week, and is now in the backlog section. --Serge (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed fixing of the convention for US cities

The following discussion is an archived 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.

Move with two qualifications. St. Louis, Missouri because Saint Louis needs to be considered and Cleveland, Ohio Cleveland also has separate National varieties of English considerations (other cites such as Boston are much better known to other English speakers to qualify under common usage). So in my judgement these two need further specific discussions. Also see comment at the end --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If we look at what's happening in the past two months, Seattle was moved from Seattle, Washington to Seattle, and New Orleans was just moved today, and Boston is looking very likely. Rather than voting on all these individually, let's just vote on moving all of the aforementioned cities over to the 'city' article name instead of 'city, state' name. My rationale for this is that, if we're going to follow the AP Stylebook, we should follow it in its entirety, rather than debating and voting on exceptions every few weeks or so. Cities not listed by the AP Stylebook should remain with the 'city, state' naming convention. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support per Derek Cashman:
  • "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may be listed at City if they are the primary topic for that name. Cities that meet these criteria are: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle.[1] No other American city should be listed at City."
  • Lets do it right, so that there is nothing else to fight about. We either should follow our own rules and the AP style guide or scrap it all absolutely. It's not about being right, it's about whats best for Wikipedia. rootology (C)(T) 16:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. It's not obvious that they're the most common use for the name. At best, even the AP specifies they're the most common city with that name. Specific opposition to Los Angeles, and opposition to any moves without a specific link in the talk page of each city to this discusion, and a block move at WP:RM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Good idea from Derek et al. Majoreditor (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I would even support a more generic change of say, if a city is 500,000+ pop and has a unique name, then it can be moved. Just as an example. Charles Edward 17:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no reason this would settle anything, except for the time being. As soon as those 25 cities are moved, we will see a renewed push to change the rules so that more cities qualify for a page move. The only sensible policy is a rule without exceptions and that treats all US cities in the same manner, which is what the City,State policy did. At least before it was "City,State unless it's one of these 25 cities". Now, I understand that this is the new rule, but I cannot see what good would come of moving those 25 cities in one swell foop. The debate would continue. Phiwum (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, of course the debate will continue, because the root problem is not being addressed. The root problem is that convention has never been allowed to form and evolve naturally and organically in the area of U.S. city article naming. Instead, the "convention" for U.S. city names has not been a convention, but a dictated guideline automatically implemented by a bot. The only way you're going to solve this is to let go and let the editors of each article decide whatever they want to do for a few years, and then come back and see what conventions, if any, have naturally evolved, and then let the guidelines reflect that. As long as we continue to try to dictate convention top-down, the problem will be perpetuated. In fact, I'm now thinking we should just wipe out the U.S. city guideline entirely and simply state that there is a (2 or 3 year? moratorium) during which conventions will be allowed to naturally form and evolve on a per article basis. I know this idea probably horrifies the control freaks among you, but there it is. Let go. --Serge (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Right. What is the point of guidelines anyway? Who needs consistency? Good rebuttal, that. Phiwum (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the sarcasm is helping. More to the point, being consistent with a system just for the sake of that system, when there are advantages to the alternatives, suggests that consistency is hindering, not helping. Exceptions are not always evil. So if you have some argue as to how the consistency helps, by all means make it, but don't assume others will consider it self-evident.  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
If consistency was the basis for establishing the U.S. city naming guidelines, then the guidelines would be consistent with the primary Wikipedia naming convention: use the most common name unless disambiguation is required. That fact that the so-called comma "convention" (it's not really a convention since it was not developed by consensus, but was imposed by fiat and a bot) is inconsistent with this primary naming convention is why all this is so controversial. Anyone for whom consistency is really important would oppose the comma "convention" so that U.S. city articles could be named consistently with cities of other countries, not to mention to be consistent with how the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are named. How's that for a rebuttal? --Serge (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional support It may well be that all of these cities should be moved, but it's a bit much to assume all are as clear cut as Chicago or Philadelphia. That being said, if [City] is already directly piped to these cities, I would support a mass move. That way, there's very little argument for competing usages.--Loodog (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support As an editor of several of the city pages mentioned, I feel this has always been the Consensus and needs no further discussion. davumaya 17:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support but make sure the primary topic is indeed the city. A good indication is if the unqualified name already redirects. If such a redirect is deemed invalid, we should propose moving the disambiguation page to the unqualified name. --Polaron | Talk 18:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support (reluctantly). Personally, I want to see all cities (not just those on the AP list) that don't have disambiguation issues at City, and this move would be a step in that direction, so a big part of me hopes it passes. However, I am inclined to oppose it because I realize it's more important to the integrity of Wikipedia to allow conventions to develop bottom-up, organically, from the grass roots article level, than be dictated top-down from guidelines created by policy wonks. The guidelines should reflect what the conventions are (and adjust as conventions change) - guidelines should not dictate what the conventions should be. The reason this whole issue is so contentious is because no convention in this area was ever allowed to naturally evolve. Instead, in the early days a small handful of wonks made a top-down policy decision and implemented it via a bot that automatically changed the names of thousands of U.S. city names from City to City, State. This proposal appears to be based on making the same kind of top-down authoritarian error, except it is also based in large part in recognizing that the convention is changing (at least for cities on the AP list), and seeks to reflect that change in the guidelines. So, with the understanding that we're seeking to reflect rather than dictate convention here, I support it, though reluctantly because I think it's a bit premature. --Serge (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Phiwum and Arthur Rubin. While the solution may appear attractive on the surface, it creates problems. At the present time, the category structure is easy to understand, pending some more cleanup that has nothing to do with this discussion. With this proposed change, editors will need to know what cities are on the exception list to create categories or the category names should not follow the article name for clarity. This change also works on the assumption that the city is always the primary use. However we know that the primary name is often used to encompass the metropolitan area as well. For many readers they are not aware of that difference. This is being pushed more as a status issue then as something that the encyclopedia needs. Uniformity and clarity for an encyclopedia are overriding aspects for a quality encyclopedia. How many readers, and editors for that matter, are confused by place names that give them no idea what or where the place is? While one would think that all of these places are well know, comments from readers in many parts of the word indicate otherwise. Finally the list here is smaller then 30 since the other cities were dropped for various issues. Making this change is not helping anything. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Is there some policy saying the category name should always follow the article title? Also, in most cases, the metro area is in the same state as the city. So adding the state name doesn't really distinguish between the metro area and the city. Finally, whether the administrative city is the primary topic or not should be the main focus of discussion. --Polaron | Talk 18:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I believe that it is a guideline. There are exceptions for good reasons. Metro areas are usually include metropolitan area in the name, so at the article level there is disambiguation. The question is what it the primary usage. The thread here seems to be that it is the city by default. However that is not always the case based on how the phrase is used by visitors. So while the city may well commonly go by city, city may not always be used to describe the city proper. The best example of this is the US postal service which tags the name of the major local city onto mail for the suburbs that are not incorporated. Another example is the average GPS which also appears to use the primary city to locate streets in areas adjacent to the major city. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The arguments of Phiwum and Arthur Rubin have been addressed and refuted above. Cities that are already at [[City]] don't have the problems with categories that you're hand-wringing about, and you've provided no reasons for anyone to believe that there would be ill effects for these other cities. Making this change is helping in that it will more closely reflect what the editors of each article would have probably naturally named their article had they not been ambushed by policy wonk control freaks using a bot establishing an artificial "convention". I'd prefer to see each article change on its own organically, but this en masse change is okay though probably a bit premature. --Serge (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Point in response to Vegaswikian: One of your points seems to assume that [[City, State]] as the article page title is inherently more clear to the reader. I'm not sure that's a given. If people are unfamiliar with US geography, they are likely going to need the introduction or infobox in the article to orient themselves. It seems to me we can rely on same (intro/infobox) to help the reader understand the article's subject, without worrying about the page title. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: per nom. Frankly, I'm unsure what titanic work and effort some of the Oppose proponents expect there to be, or that like as with everywhere else on Wikipedia, those who feel like doing it will, and those who won't won't. We're talking some redirects and ten minutes worth with AWB. Beyond that, Serge is absolutely right: the point of our naming conventions is to reflect reality, not to create it. When English language users use the unadorned terms "Boston" or "Los Angeles," very few people are under any delusions that they don't mean the cities in Massachusetts or California.  RGTraynor  18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: It's a good move that should be done. These cities are the best-known cities with their names. Listing their corresponding state is redundant. --Comayagua99 (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • support For reasons given by the nominator, but really this dispute is getting really lame. It doesn't matter that much overall whether a few cities have their state names and a few don't. I'm mainly supporting this because I hope it will make this conflict go away. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Then you will be disappointed. As Serge has already made clear, as soon as this move has been accepted, he and others will push for other articles to be moved. The conflict will not go away by adding exceptions to the original rule. The compromise of AP guidelines was never the end goal for certain editors. Phiwum (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
My point was that the "push" is inevitable because editors will naturally be inclined to have articles named according to the most pervasive naming convention in Wikipedia: use the most common name for the subject of the article. For cities, this means Cityname only, unless there are issues of ambiguity with that name. That's a simple fact, and that's why there will be no end to the efforts to rename city articles accordingly. The Cityname, Statename comma-convention is fundamentally flawed because it is inherently inconsistent with this most important and best-known naming convention in Wikipedia. You can't blame anyone or anything for this, except those that imposed this inherently conflicting artificially constructed guideline top-down on U.S. city articles in an authoritarian manner, rather than allowing convention to naturally evolve, and those that continue to support this. --Serge (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Cheers, Rai•me 19:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support moving the cities on the AP list (and only those). It feels a bit funny that we should let our usage be dictated by one organization, but it's a lot better than chaos. I also don't buy the LA argument: we should not use Los Angeles, California to disambiguate it from other things that are also in California. That might be close to official usage, but it's very counter-intuitive. If Los Angeles the city is not the primary topic, then it should be at Los Angeles (city) or possibly City of Los Angeles (although the latter might cause confusion as it looks like an official name and I don't think that's the official name of the city). I would have no objections to making Los Angeles a disambiguation page, but there's no need for any state disambiguators to do that. -- Jao (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support The AP Stylebook actually has a pretty good reason for that list and other "virtual" encyclopedias such as World Book online, bring those cities up under their individual names when they are searched. Vertigo700 (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support for stated reasons per the AP Stylebook. GrszX 22:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as a Journalism student, the Stylebook is my bible. These cities are very well known. HoosierStateTalk 23:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Very weak oppose (edit conflict): I can see arguments for both "sides" here, but I see no obvious, objective conclusion. Ultimately, I think debating page titles like this is counter-productive. If the page title works to identify the article, then it works. The intro paragraph and/or infobox should serve to orient readers. Redirects and dab pages can point people in the right direction if needed. Worrying about this is bikeshedding. That's where my oppose comes from; this is effort better spent elsewhere. But now I'm arguing about the arguing; that might be worse. And I don't suppose people will actually stop debating or worrying about page titles just 'cause I say so. Sigh. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support In the early days of Wikipedia - around 2002 or so - there were pretty good reasons for keeping all articles at "City, State". At that point, the Ram-Bot began the lengthy task of adding demographic information for every article about a U.S. settlement/municipality recognized by the Census Bureau. With the guidance of a straw poll involving a handful of users, the bot used "City, State" with no exceptions whatsoever (even the New York City article was at "New York, New York"). Since there is no longer a technical need for a universal "City, State" format, and since consensus has clearly changed since Wikipedia's infancy, the virtually inflexible "City, State" convention is no longer necessary in regards to major cities that are the primary topic for their title. The perennial arguments for sticking with mandatory "City, State" are utterly unconvincing, and amount to "those are the rules because those are the rules". We're a wiki. We should embrace change instead of strictly adhering to rules that have long outlived their purpose. szyslak (t) 02:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I've read most of the arguments here and at a few other talk pages, and I frankly have yet to see a good argument as to why naming major cities in the US should be any different than naming major cities in the rest of the world. The AP guide mentioned above would be a good way to keep less well-known cities from doing the same type of move as larger ones, and I'm satisfied that all of the cities mentioned in that list are (by far) the most common meanings for those terms. AlexiusHoratius 02:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support making all US city articles and categories to be in the 'city, state' naming convention. I would support doing the same for the rest of the world's cities also. The 'city, state' convention is what makes the US naming structure so much easier to handle in articles, categories, etc. And it certainly does NOT harm the reader of WP. Hmains (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
We're not proposing to move all worldwide articles conform to the 'city, state' format. With all due respect, I don't think that would stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing. This proposal is also not proposing any changes to the vast majority of US city article names -- we're just trying to strengthen the exceptions that have already been granted for a handful of cities by applying it to the AP Stylebook's guideline, so that we have something concrete to go by for handling these exceptions. Currently, the exceptions to the 'city, state' format go by a vague and undefined guideline that is up to the whim of several ongoing debates. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
That is not a part of the proposal, but clearly that is the intention for some of those supporting this change. So to say it is only limited to the above cities, while technically correct, ignores the continuing fallout if this change happens. It is clear from some comments that this is what some editors plan to try and make happen. So if this change is made, then the guideline should be changed to make it more difficult for changes in other settlement names. I believe that in looking at most of the support votes, this change would not in any way be contrary to what they are supporting. In fact one could argue that without this issue being clearly discussed, this discussion should not result in any change to the guideline. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support with the strong reservation that we should not go farther than this: as long as we're basing this on a specific well-recognised authority (which this manual of style surely is), and as long as we make this a firm stance against extending it to any other cities and communities in the country. I would prefer to see everything (including New York, New York) with the state name, but it's reasonable to do (for example) as the Australians have done, removing the state names from a few leading cities and requiring it for the rest. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the list of cities at the top, I don't think that any of them would conflict with major non-US cities. (There are a few such as Boston and Los Angeles that do exist outside the US, but the US cities are much larger, to the degree that a search for 'Boston' or 'Los Angeles' already goes straight to the US city.) AlexiusHoratius 05:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Conditional support (change of vote). Agree that the list quoted above (Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle) poses no problems. But I don't think that, if the AP list changes in the future, we should automatically follow that change.
Which unfortunately raises another issue I hadn't thought of... are we infringing copyright in using the list in this way? Andrewa (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not. If that were true, we'd be violating copyright every time we cite a source. Besides, an untold number of publications use the AP Stylebook as their house style guide. Are they violating copyright, too? szyslak (t) 04:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't think that the AP list would create a bias in any way. If anything the various settlement conventions creates an anti US bias in place names. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Interesting thought... care to elaborate? How? Andrewa (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I assume you mean about the anti US bias. Currently if a US city is considered to be the primary topic, the discussion will occur on the talk page for the city outside of the US that is currently located at city. Of course the editors involved in the editing of the current holder of the city name space will oppose the suggested move. Commonly any suggestion that the current city is not the primary topic is ignored. Every other reason under the sun is used to keep something that is not the primary use at the main name space. I think part of the reason for this is that editors view the main name space as some kind of a holy grail. It is almost as if having to give that up somehow makes the city less important. Clearly this puts US cities at a disadvantage in these discussions. A commonly used point is that the other naming convention says that the current city is mandated to be at the unambiguated name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Worcester is an example of this; see Talk:Worcester#Requested move (again). Cheers, Rai•me 22:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'd support this if I thought that Cashman's assertion, that it would put an end to debate, were true. But not long ago I supported the current compromise because thee assertion then was that it would minimize debates. The naming convention works and there is little reason to mess with it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC) [commented again later]
  • Will, you remind me of an arsonist who complains about the fires he sets. If you and a few other comma-convention stubborn diehards did not oppose every proposed move to Cityname as change in the naming conventions follows its natural and inevitable change in course, then there would be no debates, and the process would go much more smoothly. For Wikipedia's sake, let it go. --Serge (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite persuasive, that. The "natural" tendency is to throw the original convention away and follow the proposal Serge advocates. Anyone who differs with this opinion is an obstructionist. When you put it so clearly, what right-minded person would oppose this change? Please, Serge, treat opposing views with respect. Phiwum (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Questions: how does systemic bias come into it? Do you mean a US-centric bias that our cities are more special, hence moves to Seattle, Boston, New Orleans? That doesn't square with systemic bias if so, because what about the bias for Portugual, with Porto instead of Porto, Grande Porto or Perm (surely a common phrase in English!) instead of Perm, Perm Krai? Or did you mean something else? As for the busy work, like has been said a few times, it's nothing a trivial use of AWB in the background of someone's PC couldn't fix with about 10 minutes of setup (if it even took that long). rootology (C)(T) 13:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Per various arguments above. There is no surprise to people when they type these names into the search box and find that the city is indeed named "Boston" or "Seattle", etc. OTOH some people outside of the U.S. may be confused by seeing unfamiliar state names after the familiar city names. It can make them think that they may have found the wrong page. There's more chance for astonishment with the state than without, etc., etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Oh heavens yes. CL — 17:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support all except Cleveland. Cleveland is also well-known as Grover Cleveland's last name. Georgia guy (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Cleveland currently redirects to Cleveland, Ohio, and has for years as far as I can tell. If Cleveland being Grover Cleveland's last name is significant enough to prevent the city article from being at Cleveland, then it should be significant enough to not be a redirect to the article about the city either. If that's what you believe, then you should try to get consensus on this point at Talk:Cleveland and make Cleveland a dab page (or a redirect to one). But barring success at achieving that, the only reasonable assumption to make is that there consensus does not exists for this view. --Serge (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I tried this once for St. Louis, but the vote didn't pass. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This move is not needed. Why should we follow the Associated Press's guide to journalism in the United States; English is not just spoken there but England, Australia, Canada... the pages should stay city, state just like all of the other ones because it is the most uniform. There should be no exceptions. I also think that if your going to bring up this kind of page move each discussion should be on its individual page not all as a whole. Oklahoma City's talk page has had 5 move request that have all failed. If it aint broke don’t fix it.--CPacker (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The consensus is (and has been for a long time) that there should at least be some exceptions. Let's move on and figure out which ones. --Serge (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • False. The consensus is that there may be exceptions. The other consensus is that this should be decided on individual pages; the cases for and against most exceptions depend on local circumstances: What unrelated things have the same name? What local things have the same name (as with Los Angeles (City, County, Greater LA...)? Is New York, New York the city? (no, it's New York County, which is Manhattan) etc. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, the consensus is that there may be exceptions, which means the consensus is NOT that there should be no exceptions, which was the basis of CPacker's comment. This move only affects names which have been "vetted"; that is, in each case [[Name]] has been a redirect to the city article for years, so consensus that that is the primary use of the name is clearly established by implication in each case. --Serge (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
(To both 25or6to4 and Pmanderson) By that general rationale, pretty much every major city in the world should go to a dab page. (Does London mean the city or Jack London? Does Paris mean the city or the son of King Priam of Troy? Does Berlin mean the city or the guy who wrote White Christmas?) AlexiusHoratius 20:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, this reasoning is so lame that votes based on it should arguably not be counted. The primary use issue of the name has been resolved in each case by the fact that [[Name]] has been a redirect to the city article in question in each case for years. If that doesn't clearly establish consensus, nothing does. --Serge (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Superfluous. This meets no tangible need and provides no real improvement or benefit, so why do it? There is a standard formal way US cities are addressed, and we should not deviate from that. The AP stylebook suggests dropping state names for certain well known cities because, in the most general sense, the purpose of a news article is to deliver information in the most concise and simplistic way that still tells the story clearly. We are an encyclopedia, so in the case of our naming guidelines, this is not compatible: Wikipedia articles need to be titled for the fullest and most descriptive common name of their subject. Okiefromokla questions? 18:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well that's the issue - what is "common". I don't commonly refer to Chicago as "Chicago, Illinois". The post office does, but I don't, and neither does anyone else I know. And I go a step further and say that someone from Thailand may be downright confused at "Chicago, Illinois". They might say, "uh-oh, is there some other 'Chicago'?! What the heck is an 'Illinois'?!" It's pointless and could be confusing. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Now we're getting into the nasty gray area of this issue. For instance, people on the west coast might not feel right about saying "Reno, Nevada," or "Bend, Oregon", but people on the east coast would probably prefer it, not being familiar with those cities. Likewise, people in India, Australia, or South Africa might not feel comfortable simply saying "Atlanta", regardless of the AP stylebook's standards. While "City, State" may or may be not be the most common name for any given city in everyday speech (depending on where one lives or how familiar one is with that city), it is the most common and universally accepted formal name for all American cities, is it not? Okiefromokla questions? 20:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Reno and Bend aren't in the AP Stylebook list anyway, so they would not be affected. CL — 04:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think we need to follow AP guidelines, just some sensible guidelines like are followed for all other world cities. If the place name is unambiguous and is the primary usage of the name, then it should clearly be present at that location. No need to restrict ourselves to the AP; they are not the style gurus of the universe. -epicAdam(talk) 19:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Then you're not really supporting the existence of a list of exceptions to this guideline-level exception to the "no pre-emptive disambiguation" rule, but rather supporting doing away with that entire exception? You would want to move Kennebunkport, Maine to Kennebunkport, for example? I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that it's far from what is suggested here. -- Jao (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Rather looks like oppose to me. The suggestion is that we make the exceptions granted by the AP guidelines and no other exceptions. Phiwum (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I read the restriction to apply only to the scope of this particular move, though I do believe that reflects current consensus, and I accept that. --Serge (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, per nom and lots of others above. --Friejose (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Very strong support. This should have been done a long time ago. bob rulz (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The editors who originally proposed the insertion of the AP stylebook exception should have been banned for acting in bad faith and failing to obtain an actual consensus (they took advantage of a period when the more experienced and mature editors like myself were too busy with professional and social obligations). As any properly educated American writer knows, you write city and state in formal written English aimed at a general audience. This poll is trolling (see WP:TROLL and WP:POINT) and amounts to beating a dead horse as this issue has been exhaustively debated many times over. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Great argument. I'm more mature, exprienced and educated than the vast majority who support the proposal, therefore I'm right and they should shut up.--Kotniski (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:Consensus can change, and please--you gotta stop with these comments of extreme bad faith that you've made more than once. Consider this a warning. rootology (C)(T) 15:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. While this makes good sense on the surface, articles may wind up with a bunch of disambiguation at the beginning, that might have been unecessary originally. Also, there is always a bunch of "media" c---p that creeps in - some "musician" has recorded a song about the place or a similarly named place, or there is a game reference which collects ad infinitum until one of us gets sick of it and deletes them. This is harder to do (collect) when the cities are clearly disambiguated as they are now. Student7 (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course we all remember that the reader is the priority. The difference in opinion here is how to best serve the reader. Do try to remember that well-meaning and well-informed persons may disagree on how to do this. Phiwum (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, Thought of proposing this myself. Most searches for major cities are by the simple name, Detroit, Boston, Miami, and so on. They are universally recognized by their simple name. Also, it is desirable to have more consolitated page view article traffic statistics. When looking at the page view article traffic statistics, which can be accessed on the revision history page, one has to look under the redircted simple name, Detroit, Boston, Miami, etc. and add those article traffic statistics to thoe the ones for city, state name to see how many times the article is viewed. The sub articles use two sets of names, creating two sets of traffic statistics. Would be best to just use the simple hame for all the major cities in order to have more consolidated viewing traffic statistics. It appears that the city, state hits are created within using inconsistenst city, state approach while some have the simple names. It would be better to have just simple name use for major cities. Placing the names for major cities under the simple name, Detroit, Boston, Miami, Atlanta, etc, as suggested above consolidates the statistics for major cities. Minor cities with similar names are searched with city, state anyway, so it should not be a problem to use the simple name for all major US cities. This is a good idea which I strongly support. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Thanks
  • Support, and suggest even further evading the 'cityname, statename' formula. 'cityname, statename' should be used when there is a need for disambiguation. There is no real need to have Buffalo Soapstone, Alaska as Buffalo Soapstone is quite enough. The 'cityname, statename' wording is highly US-centric, its a wording not used internationally. Since we don't have the same formula overall for placenames when there is no need for disambiguation, i think the US cities shouldn't be an exception. --Soman (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - and go further. All US cities should follow the naming policy. Unless there is potential for confusion, the simplest and most common name is the best for an article. That is in line with the naming policy: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Reliable sources use the name Boston: [1]. SilkTork *YES! 19:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I hate ambiguous guidelines. The current guideline essentially says that no one can oppose following the AP style guide for those 14 cities and no one can use only a city name in the United States for any other city, yet way too many people have misinterpreted an ambiguous guideline to mean I don't have to follow the AP style guide. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Is this another of Serge's socks? The present guideline may indeed need clarification: it is intended to mean that, for the listed cities, you may follow the AP stylebook, but you don't have to. That's not ambiguous; that's allowing scope for local opinion and local circumstances. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
      • One more personal attack and I will report you. If you think I am using any socks, much less another one, then report it. Good luck with that. --Serge (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose any change in the status quo. This is another pointless change in the naming conventions/MOS that serves no purpose and fixes what isnt' broken. I feel like a broken record responding to these repetitive straw polls, but here we go again: Naming conventions work best when used consistently. Consistency is a desirable quality in a reference work. Having a consistent naming convention is a benefit to readers and editors. Every naming convention results in article titles that aren't necessarily the top search engine entry. Typical examples include Princess Diana, Prius, and Spruce Goose. Calling the article Toyota Prius instead is not "pre-disambiguation", it's a naming convention. Weakening or removing the exsiting naming conventions for U.S. places will likely result in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of talk page arguments over what to call articles. That's all wasted effort, like this entire proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Naming conventions are a good thing. Redirects for the [[City]] format all exist for the most part, so the benefit for the reader is nil in either case because they'll still get to the article they want no matter the actual title. howcheng {chat} 18:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Because naming conventions are a good thing for our editors. As our article says, "Well-chosen naming conventions aid the casual user in navigating larger structures." This is why we enforce them for categories, and why our city articles should follow them as well. howcheng {chat} 03:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If I know that all US city articles follow the format of "City, State" then as an editor I will know exactly what that article's title is and I can avoid redirects, for example. Look, any system we choose is completely arbitrary. It's more professional to choose an arbitrary system that has easy-to-understand rules. The AP list is obscure, and as seen earlier with the San Luis Obispo example, it opens the door to any city with a unique name to press for an exemption to the other format. There should be no exceptions whatsoever for US cities. howcheng {chat} 15:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • As mentioned at other points on this page, the "city, state" format can be much more confusing than the simple "city" format if readers are more familiar with the city than the state. Loodog presented what I believe to be a good argument (I believe at Talk:Boston, Massachusetts) on this issue: if we were to move "Paris" to "Paris, Île-de-France" for the sake of "professionalism" and "easy-to-understand rules", but still redirect "Paris" to that page, several readers will undoubtedly get confused while still arriving at the correct article. As Boston, Atlanta, St. Louis, Cincinnati, etc. are arguably more internationally recognized than Massachusetts, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, etc., it makes more sense to use the simple "city" format here to avoid possible confusion among international readers. Cheers, Rai•me 21:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant -- we are talking here about US cities. The title of Paris, France is not at all germane to this discussion. Besides, as I said earlier Boston still serves as a redirect to the correct location, thus readers are unaffected regardless of the system we choose here. howcheng {chat} 22:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Mentioning Paris is not at all irrelevant here; I am not advocating any sort of proposal to change the name of Paris, only pointing out that unnecessary disambiguation with national subdivisions for internationally-recognized cities is confusing to readers. And it is hardly true that readers are not affected by the system we choose here. Say that a reader unfamiliar with Massachusetts looking for "Boston" (which may very well be the case for any non-American reader) is redirected to the "Boston, Massachusetts" article; the reader, unfamiliar with Massachusetts, will at first wonder "is this the Boston I was looking for?" Grant it, the reader will easily find this out by reading the introduction of the article, but this shouldn't have to occur; this unnecessary confusion is easily avoided by using an article title that is recognized by all readers, not just American ones. Cheers, Rai•me 22:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I often wonder about these stunningly confused international readers. This reader, confused by seeing "Boston, Massachusetts" at the top of the page must wonder if he has the right Boston. But what if he just saw "Boston" at the top of the page (just as one sees "Plymouth" as the title for Plymouth)? Surely, he should be just as uncertain about whether he has the right article. After all, in both cases, a search for "Boston" returns the commonest use of the name and thus, in both cases he should be equally unsure whether the city he's interested in is the city he's found. Obviously, I do not agree that the City, State convention has led to any real confusion on the parts of readers at all. Phiwum (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


Room for compromise?

I notice that some of the opposition above is based on a concern over the possibility that the cities on our "AP exemption list" are not sufficiently primary in use to warrant the move, and that's fine. In an attempt to address their concerns more directly, perhaps we can err on the side of caution by saying that any city for which a good-faith concern has been raised in the section below (regarding potential exceptions to the exception) will not be moved prior to achieving consensus on those individual points, but that the rest of them simply be moved in accordance with the naming convention?

To put it more simply, we've had about a week to address potential problems and only a small handful of cities have been identified. Since they do not seem to fall within the subject of concern, do we have enough consensus to move those that have not been mentioned? Specifically, there have been no direct objections to moving Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, San Francisco or Seattle, so do we have enough consensus to move these at least and continue discussing the potential issues with the rest? Shereth 20:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course we have consensus for those cities, we have consensus for the entire list. Can someone explain how one, two or three people questioning whether any one city is not "sufficiently primary" -- despite the fact that the name in question has redirected to the article in question for years -- somehow invalidates the votes of the vast majority who clearly have established consensus for Supporting the move of every city in the list, without exception? --Serge (talk)
Definitely some calmer heads need to prevail. I've been reading this for a while and formulating my thoughts. What really makes sense to me to to name ALL cities throughout the world with the same convention (City, State/Province/Prefecture/etc., Country) and then use redirects or disambiguation pages as appropriate for the specific city. Where the city name is specific to one location, of course that name will redirect to the syntactically-correct page. Where there is any potential for confusion, the disambiguation page will alleviate that. This really does not need to be as conflict-full or complicated as people are making it out to be. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Be careful with that wording. It assumes that the only use of the term is the city. Going back to LA as an example, it is a city, within a county of the same name and several other uses. So the real question should be is there a primary topic. If you look at Denver, the same applies. Is the primary use the name or or the city? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Which seems to validate my suggestion of disambiguation pages for these cases. --Kickstart70TC 18:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:DISAMBIGUATION does suggest that when there is discussion, then disambiguation maybe the correct choice. I think the problem occurs when the question is, should a city occupy the main name space? That is the wrong question and I personally believe that may cause some of the conflict in these discussions. Ask the right question and the results might be different. Ask the wrong question and you may well get the wrong answer. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
As to the need for disambiguation, take a look at the Plymouth discussion. The discussions there show some of the problems with these discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Summary

Just a quick summary here. I currently count 49 registered editors weighing in, and one anonymous IP (which I am not clear if it is a sockpuppet or not?). Of the 49 registered users, 36 are in favor of the move, or 73%; 13 are opposed to the move, or 27%. Most of the opposition at this point cites that either (a) it's unnecessary and a waste of time, (b) the AP list covers names of cities and towns, and the naming conventions should take into account other uses (names of people, other cities outside the US, and so forth), or (c) if we move these, there would be a renewed push to move other city names.

The following exceptions to moving were brought up during the debate:

  • Los Angeles (there appears to be consensus that Los Angeles refers to the city)
  • Cleveland (objection raised, but withdrawn)
  • St. Louis (little discussion thus far)
  • San Diego (little discussion thus far)
  • San Antonio (little discussion thus far)
  • Miami (little discussion thus far)
  • Boston (objection raised, but there is also a clear consensus in its own proposal to move the article to Boston; a proposal which began before the "mass move" was proposed).

Dr. Cash (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Comment. I considered from the points made above Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#United_States by User:Rootology relevant and it seems like a sensible solution to the need for "Use the most easily recognized name", also "Be precise when necessary" and the guidelines Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) (now a redirect to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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.

Should small city in England be at Plymouth, or should it be a dab page?

Vegaswikian has brought to my attention the fact that a small city in England (about 250,000 population) is at Plymouth, while the famous car brand and a couple of dozen other topics are listed at Plymouth (disambiguation).

Anyone else agree that is not right and that the dab page needs to be at Plymouth? I'm not sure what the best choice is for the location of this particular city article. Cork (city) worked for the city in Ireland, but that's because there were no other cities named Cork. There are many other cities named Plymouth. So perhaps Plymouth, Devon or Plymouth, England. Comments? Suggestions? Thanks. By the way I'm raising this here first because I suspect I'll get a bunch of biased opinions at Talk:Plymouth, though of course if this ever gets to the point of proposing a move I'll post it there. There was a move proposal back in 2006, though I don't know how well it was publicized, or if it was even posted here. --Serge (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that Plymouth should be a dab page, not only because of Plymouth (automobile) but also because of Plymouth, Massachusetts, the famous town associated with the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving. There are several UK city names which should probably be dab pages, most notably Worcester (where Worcester, Massachusetts gets twice as many article hits per month, has more links from Google, and has more incoming links), Newport, and Salisbury. But each of these pages, particularly Worcester, have had unsuccessful move requests. Cheers, Rai•me 23:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Serge and I agreeing on something? Yea, Plymouth should be a dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This is probably reasonable; it is, after all, the same argument that makes Saint Louis a dab page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So we have at least four of us here who would support moving the Plymouth (disambiguation) page to Plymouth, but what to do with the English city article currently at Plymouth? Well, the English city guidelines are pretty clear:

In England, disambiguated place names should go under [[placename, ceremonial county]].

So that means Plymouth, Devon, which was last proposed over two years ago, and failed (but conveniently is a redirect to Plymouth now). Since our emphasis is on putting the dab page at Plymouth, I think it makes sense to put the actual move request at Talk:Plymouth (disambiguation), and a multimove tag at the top of Talk:Plymouth, as well as the entry at WP:RM and the announcement here. Anything else? Shall we go for it? --Serge (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Go for it. Also once this is done, those who have been following the discussion may want to voice their opinion on the talk page for the proposed move. I know that not many have commented on this proposal, but I suspect there are a lot of un announced opinions out there. You may also want to post an announcement at Plymouth (automobile)'s talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to make Plymouth a dab page

Okay, the move request/discussion/poll/proposal is here. --Serge (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the predisambiguatory comma convention for U.S. cites is at least partially responsible for this entrenched situation (and countless others). Because of the comma convention, editors of U.S. cities named Plymouth don't feel their articles have a right to Plymouth in the same way that editors of city articles from countries in which city names are not predisambiguated, like the U.K. That is, from the POV of the Plymouth, Massachusetts editors, the "proper" name for their article is Plymouth, Massachusetts, while the editors of Plymouth, Devon feel the proper name for their article is at Plymouth. If the U.S. city convention was not to predisambiguate, then the inevitable conflict would not have been obscured by this unbalanced POVs, and would have been addressed years ago. I should also add that any class of article names that predisambiguates is subject to the same general problem, and there is a discussion about this (which I've characterized as the "evil" of naming conventions that predisambiguate) at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#preemptiveness. --Serge (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I cannot guess what the evil you're referring to is. Apparently, the fact that two places are known by distinct names and hence there has been no argument over which takes precedence is a bad thing. How odd.
In any case, the current policy is clear. The proper article name is Plymouth, Massachusetts. Please don't forget this plain fact. Phiwum (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Serge does have a point; this argument is exactly what editors arguing to keep Worcester, Worcestershire at Worcester used at the most recent move request (see Talk:Worcester#Requested move). Cheers, Rai•me 21:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Phiwum, I agree that the proper place for that US city is Plymouth, Massachusetts because that city is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Plymouth. But my point is that there is value in viewing this as the compromise location (due to a need to disambiguate) rather than the de facto proper place. That is, the proper place would be Plymouth if it were not for other uses of that name. Viewing it that way is important because it makes it important to make sure that this city is properly represented on discussions about whether there needs to be a dab page, that it is on the dab page, that hat notes are handled correctly, etc. What makes the comma convention "evil" is the same thing that makes any naming convention based on predisambiguation evil: it makes editors view the disambiguated name as the proper de facto place, and give less priority to representing the subject at hand properly through the basic name. Hence, for example, Plymouth ends up being an article about a small city in England. That result (and countless more like it) is not good for Wikipedia. --Serge (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you are missing a major point in that the issue is since there is no primary topic, the dab page must be at Plymouth. The fact that Plymouth, Massachusetts and Plymouth (automobile) and all of the other Plymouths are already disambiguated is not the problem. The only issue is the one that is not. This is not a settlement issue, it is a primary use issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

US Cities - new wording

Now that the above proposal regarding a full-implementation of the AP Styleguide exemption has been put through, I went ahead and simplified the wording on the naming convention to make note of the exceptions to the exceptions, as there are far fewer. Given that Cleveland and St. Louis were rejected from the above mentioned moves, I fail to see how the listing them such is inaccurate as Serge has intimated in his undiscussed reversion of the wording. Thoughts? Shereth 17:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

U.S. City guideline wording

Since the move yesterday there have been some changes to the U.S. city guideline wording. I just reverted the latest change to this wording:

As of October 2008, Cleveland, Ohio, Las Vegas, Nevada, Phoenix, Arizona, St. Louis, Missouri and Washington, D.C. have not been deemed sufficiently unambiguous and retain the "comma convention" in spite of their inclusion in the AP Stylebook exemption.

My objection is to the inclusion of Cleveland, Ohio and St. Louis, Missouri in the above list. Consensus has established that Las Vegas, Nevada, Phoenix and Washington, D.C. "have not been deemed sufficiently unambiguous", as per the original discussions over a year ago, but the consensus jury is still out for Cleveland, Ohio and St. Louis, Missouri. It is true that the admin who moved the other cities this time was personally of the opinion that these two cities might not be "sufficiently unambiguous", but one admin and a few other people hardly establishes the consensus required to justify the "have not been deemed sufficiently unambiguous" wording. These points need to be resolved on each city article's respective talk page. In the mean time, they remain "fair game" (moreso than the other three cities in the list above). --Serge (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

All of the cities on the AP list are "fair game" and consensus can change on them at any given time. If a discussion determines Las Vegas is, in fact, sufficiently "primary" in use then it too should be included. There is no reason to create a special "limbo" category for St. Louis and Cleveland. The above discussion determined that they weren't sufficiently ambiguous, but that does not mean a discussion on their individual pages cannot. Why bother twisting the semantics around? Shereth 17:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
No new "limbo" category has been created. The long-existing one has been reduced to two cities. Another way to underscore the distinction is that Las Vegas, Phoenix and Washington are all dab pages, while Cleveland and St. Louis redirect to the respective city articles. If Cleveland and St. Louis are not sufficiently unambiguous, then they should not be redirects to the cities. I don't feel strongly either way, but, again, this needs to be resolved on each talk page. If anything, it has not been deemed that Cleveland and St. Louis (for the names redirect to the cities), but they remain as redirects because their status in this request is in question. --Serge (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Shereth; your unsupported assertion that any redirect from [[City]] to [[City, State]] should be reversed, and that this guideline allows that to be done for the AP list, is not the consensus. The consensus is that any city on the AP list may be at [[City, State]], or at [[City]] if sufficiently primary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
And—Washington is not a dab page. The state is considered primary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
You (Serge) are effectively creating a "limbo" category for them by treating them differently. The naming convention is not concerned with whether or not a dab page or a redirect exists at the [[City]] title. For the purposes of the naming convention, they have been (currently) deemed insufficiently unambiguous. Changing them to dab pages or leaving them as-is is an entirely independent matter of the wording of the naming conventions, Serge. The status (for the time being) of Cleveland and St. Louis has been made clear for the purposes of the naming convention. Perhaps a more neutral wording is acceptable. I propose the following change to the naming convention :
Please note that I am not asserting they have been determined ambiguous; just that they have failed to be deemed unambiguous to date. Shereth 17:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Let's remember this is a guideline, not a news bulletin. We just need to state the agreed rule (i.e. that the state disambiguator can be dropped if the city is on the AP list and is deemed an unambiguous title) and the information needed for interpretation of that rule (i.e. which cities are on the AP list). We don't need to maintain a continuous report on the current state of play (nor do we need to tell people what to do if they think something needs changing).--Kotniski (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic point. The entire "As of .." section should just be stricken, and leave the mention that any future moves should be discussed prior to enacting .. I've modified it as such. Shereth 17:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, I do believe that a logical implication of WP:UCN is that any time [[name1]] redirects to [[name2]], and [[name1]] is the more common way to refer to the topic in question, then the article should be at [[name1]].

Note that this fundamental rule is not specific to U.S. cities, or even just to cities in general. It applies equally to all article names in Wikipedia. And from that it follows that any redirect from [[City]] to [[City, State]] should be reversed (which is of course assuming that City is more commonly used to refer to a given city than is City, State). But that is all moot here since I've not asserted that consensus is consistent with this understanding, nor have I even been arguing this point. For the record, I agree that is not currently the consensus here, and I don't understand why you feel the need to point this out. I also agree that the consensus is that any city on the AP list may be at [[City, State]], or at [[City]] if sufficiently primary. I do wish you could read my comments without filtering it with your knowledge that this is ultimately my opinion. It's completely irrelevant to my comments here. Please, try to interpret my words (and those of everyone else) as objectively as you can. Thank you. --Serge (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


Shereth, you say that I am "effectively creating a 'limbo' category for them by treating them differently." I'm not. I'm just saying that, for better or for worse, there has been a distinction made in the guidelines for over a year now (that I had nothing to do with creating, by the way), among:

(a) those cities that are on the AP list but not candidates for moving to City, State (implicit by being in the AP list but omitted from the list in the guidelines - consisting for a year of Las Vegas, Phoenix and Washington, D.C.),
(b) those that are candidates to be at city but are at city, state (listed) (long explicit list until yesterday's move which effectively reduced it to two: St. Louis and Cleveland).
(c) those that are candidates to be at city and are at city (listed separately at New York City, Chicago, etc.).

If you want to characterize one of those categories (b) as "limbo", that's fine, but that's not my doing. Please don't put that on me! What the change that I reverted did was lump the two cities remaining in (b) with those in (a) into a new category referred to as "have not been deemed sufficiently unambiguous" in which all five were listed explicitly. I just thought it was misleading to lump in the three cities about which there was clear consensus regarding their lacking sufficient unambiguity with those two remaining cities about which that status has not been determined.

Kotniski's argument made just above that this distinction does not need to be made in the guidelines is a new one. I have no problem with the guidelines reflecting this, but would like to give someone who did think it was important to make this distinction in the past a chance to say their piece. --Serge (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between (a) and (b) is purely artificial, in that you have decided to segregate them based on when/how they were rejected. The fact that those you list under (b) were rejected only recently as a result of the long discussion on the mass-move proposal does not change the fact that they were rejected. Since consensus can change, there is no reason to differentiate between those who have been on the "rejected" list for a year and those that just got there, as the community is always free to re-evaluate them at any point. In any event, this distinction is largely academic as the current (and concise) wording of the guideline doesn't bother differentiating the list at all. Shereth 22:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Shereth, please stop making this personal. You say I "decided to segregate them based on when/how they were rejected". I have made no such decision. I didn't decide anything about the wording in the guidelines. I'm just saying how it is and has been. You're conflating the recent "rejection" of moving the two cities to [[Cityname]] with the rejection of the putting the other three cities on the candidate list (the AP list vetted down by three cities over a year ago) in the first place. There was no decision recently at all about whether St. Louis, Cleveland or any other city should be on the vetted candidate list. They are candidates for moving today just as much as they were two weeks ago, just as the other cities on the list are candidates for moving back to the comma name. The three cities explicitly removed from the candidate list by consensus a year are not on that list, and have never been no more open to being moved than any other U.S. city. Again, the problem with the current wording is that it does not reflect the consensus reached a year ago that whittled the AP list down from N cities to N - 3 cities. The recent move did not affect that. The remaining cities are still on the vetted list of N - 3 cities (where N = total number of cities on the AP list... something like 27 I believe). Listing each of those cities -- and not the ones explicitly removed from it -- was a big deal for over a year, and it's a big deal to remove it now, and needs to be discussed. --Serge (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed Las Vegas, Phoenix and Washington, D.C. from the candidate list delimited in the guidelines because they were never on that list, so it reads as follows now:

The following cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may have their articles named [[City]] provided they are the primary topic for that name: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle. [1] No other American city should have its article named [[City]].

In other words, the "No other American city should have its article named [[City]]" always was meant to apply to Las Vegas and the other two cities since that sentence has been in there. That's just the way it is, and this is coming from someone who would like to see that sentence removed, but I recognize guidelines should not say what I want, but what reflects consensus (as best as it can be established). --Serge (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I rushed that and it didn't make sense. This is an improved version:

Names of cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier and which have been determined by consensus to be the primary topic for that city may be named [[City]]; these are: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle. [1] No other American city should have its article named [[City]]. Proposals for changing the names of any of the above-listed cities are initiated with a discussion per instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Okay? --Serge (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me where consensus was established that Cleveland and St. Louis may be primary topic, but Las Vegas, Phoenix and Washington are not primary topics? Shereth 13:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
In this case the consensus I speak of was worked out through this discussion, including this comment: "we're already removing cities from the list that do not qualify due to ambiguity issues" (your words). Note that the result of all that was the version from August 17, 2007 (your edit, by the way) which excluded the three cities which consensus agreed may not be moved because although they were on the AP list, they are not of primary use. --Serge (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
And the consensus that Cleveland and St. Louis should be on the list, even though they were rejected for the move? Shereth 15:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Serge, I removed the example "(for example Chicago, not Chicago, Illinois, but Phoenix, Arizona not Phoenix)" from the guideline - I never took them out of the list itself. Shereth 15:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The original consensus that Cleveland and St. Louis be on the list of AP cities that may be moved is the same as for every other city that is (and has been at least since August '07) on the list: it is implicit in that they were not removed. The fact that Las Vegas, Phoenix and Washington are not the cities and not redirects to the cities is evidence of consensus that those cities are not of primary use. Likewise, the redirects for St. Louis and Cleveland remain pointing to the cities, indicating that consensus about those cities being the primary topic for their names remains. Finally, the majority of those polled about the recent move favored the move of all the cities, including St. Louis and Cleveland, without excepting those two. Just because Cleveland and St. Louis were not moved (really due to fiat decision of one administrator more than anything else) is not evidence that there is consensus that they not remain on the list of AP cities that may be moved.
By the way, I did not mean to imply that you were the one who took those cities out of the list. There were many changes going on in the guidelines in parallel with the discussion. Some changes were accepted, others were not and edited further. The eventual wording that evolved was the AP list minus those three that were deemed to be not of primary use. The fact that this wording remained stable for over a year is further evidence (not proof) of it being supported by consensus (the premise being that if consensus was not behind it changes would likely have been proposed and succeeded). By the way, I say all this as someone who believes one of those three cities (Las Vegas) is of primary use, but I accept that consensus apparently sees otherwise, and understand that that burden must be overcome (get consensus to change and show that it has) in order to get Las Vegas back on the list of AP cites that may be moved. --Serge (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's the thing, Serge. The fact that you are forced to come up with a somewhat convoluted rationale (and one which I do not agree with) for altering the list is indicative of the problem. The guideline wording I am proposing is concise, factual, and requires no qualification; it is merely a statement of a rule and then a restatement of the AP list to save readers from having to look it up themselves. The wording you are insisting upon requires a subjective analysis of prior discussions in that it gives a modified list. Your assertion that the omission of certain cities from the previous guideline implied a strong exclusion of them (ie. Las Vegas, Phoenix, Washington may not be moved) is an interpretive statement. The guideline is not, and should not, be designed to exclude any city per se, but should give us the qualifications by which we should judge them. You keep harping on the fact that the list, sans those 3 cities, existed in the guideline for a year or so. So what? A more elegant solution has been identified. Rejecting an improvement just because something has been a certain way for a certain period of time is a rather backward way of thinking - by that reasoning we shouldn't have moved any of these cities at all, since they remained at [[City, State]] for so long! I should also note that the removal of those 3 cities were done without any discussion to obtain consensus. Sure, there was no pressing objection, but just because one editor quietly removed them and did so without complaint should not be interpreted as saying that there is a burden to overcome in order to restore the list, since consensus was never "gathered" for their exclusion in the first place.
I really, really do not know how to put this more simply and do not understand your reticence here. By selectively removing some cities from the AP list, we are allowing the naming convention to dictate the primacy of a topic. It should not do this. Whether Las Vegas (or any city) is the primary topic for its name is something that should be decided individually and not spelled out in a naming guideline! Shereth 16:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, when you put it like that... Indeed, that a naming convention guideline should not comment on (or even infer about) the usage primacy status of any particular names is a point well taken. I will only add that if you change the guideline accordingly, and nobody objects, reverts, or changes it, the longer it remains the better it establishes the existence of consensus for this change, despite the lack of discussion or polling about it. Same with any other stable change. Anyway, what you are suggesting is a change to the guidelines, but you've now convinced me of the merits to this change, and I therefore support it. --Serge (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Haha .. makes me wish I had just put it that way from the beginning, since that was the root of my concern! Okay. There hasn't been any other resistance to the change and there has been some additional support so I will go ahead and re-do the wording, hopefully if anyone else questions it .. at least we have this discussion to point to .. thanks for hearing me out. Shereth 18:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's how these discussions are supposed to work when people are really thinking about what they and others are saying. We work it out. Anyway, I did make a slight rewording, depersonalizing the part about proposing changes. For the record, it said:
If you believe any of the above-listed cities should have its article renamed, please initiate a discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves to determine if this rule is applicable.
and I changed it to:
Proposals to move any of the above-listed cities are initiated per the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and should be announced on the talk page of these guidelines.
I assume most everyone agrees that it's generally expected that such moves be announced here, and it's good to state it explicitly. --Serge (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Washington

Does it really make sense to have Washington D.C. in the list of U.S. cities?? I'm sure that Washington is the article on the state. Georgia guy (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the list should be exactly the list as it appears in AP, which we've agreed is to be our guide. Inclusion on the list doesn't imply that the article will be renamed, only that it can be provided other conditions are fulfilled. --Kotniski (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. Repeating the AP list here in its entirety means that we don't have to do any kind of debatable interpretation of our own - the list remains neutral and factual and that's it. Shereth 19:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
What you're missing by repeating the entire AP list (rather than the AP list vetted by consensus) is information about consensus being clearly reached with regard to the three on the AP list that were deemed not to be sufficiently unambiguous to be at [[Cityname]]. The guidelines are supposed to reflect consensus, and the consensus was that all but three of the cities on the official AP list are candidates for moving to [[Cityname]]. That's consensus (and has been for over a year), and I would think it should be reflected in the guidelines today. No? Note that Washington, D.C. (along with Las Vegas and Phoenix) is one of those three. Why not continue to be clear about this in the guidelines? --Serge (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The only relevant line in the naming guideline is (paraphrased) "Cities on the AP list not requiring a state modifier that are also the primary topic may forgo the comma convention." That is it. The naming convention itself does not attempt to delimit which cities those are, it merely creates the guideline. Application of the guideline - the determination of whether or not a city is indeed the primary topic - is subject to the results of individual discussions. As you say yourself, guidelines reflect consensus, not dictate it.
Take this example into consideration, Serge. WP:RS tells us how to determine when a source is reliable, but it does not give us a list of which sources are (or are not) considered reliable. It is a guideline designed to help editors in making a determination - not make it for them. Same goes here. We give a guideline but leave it to the community to decide how and when it should be applied, rather than dropping in a list. Think of it this way: the way the guideline is currently written, if a future set of editors want to establish that Las Vegas ought to be considered the primary topic, they discuss it at WP:RM and the associated talkpage. If we create a list that specifically excludes Las Vegas in the naming guideline itself, then a future discussion will have to take place here, as well, since it would be a change in the guideline and not just how it is applied in a specific example.
Finally, I think you need to go over WP:CONSENSUS a little better, or more especially, WP:CCC. Just because there is (and has been) a consensus that Las Vegas (or the others) do not qualify does not mean that has to remain so for time untold. There is no reason to hamstring guidelines with specifics like this. Shereth 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Shereth, I don't know what to make of this. You declare, "the naming convention itself does not attempt to delimit which cities those are, it merely creates the guideline." Yet delimiting which cities on the AP list not requiring a state modifier (they may not have the state in the name) is exactly what has been in the guideline for over a year. Specifically, it delimited them by listing all the cities on the AP list except for the three that were deemed to require having , state in the article title. I refer to that list as the "vetted AP list" or "the candidate list". Consensus was reached a year ago that those three cities not be on the candidate list. If you think they should be on the candidate list, then raise the issue here. I understand that consensus can change and that guidelines need to reflect changes in consensus, but we really need to establish such changes before reflecting them in the guidelines. --Serge (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I will be as simple and succinct as possible. The rule states that there are 2 qualifiers: that the city be on the AP list, and that the city be the primary use of the word. If you start picking and choosing which cities get "listed" then you are short-circuiting the second qualifier. Either the full list should be given and it left to the judgement of the community which ones are primary, or excise the list completely. Think about it. If the guideline states "Those on the following list which meet criteria B" but then you preemptively remove cities which (you feel) do not meet criteria B, what is the point of the criteria to begin with? The previous inclusion of the list was not meant to be either inclusive nor exclusive, it was merely illustrative and it has been pointed out above that this illustration is unwarranted. Shereth 01:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's entirely different. Now you're not talking about what the guidelines do, but what you believe they should do. In other words, you're arguing for change to the guidelines. That's fine. I'm just saying you need to establish consensus for that change before you apply the change. We have had stable wording for over a year and this latest move didn't change anything about what that wording said in principle, so I don't see that there is any evidence of any change in consensus that needs to be reflected in changes in the guidelines.
As to your proposed change, no one has started picking and choosing which cities get primary use of the word. That process was done and over over a year ago. The fact is, whether a given city has primary use is a relatively stable fact. For almost all of the cities on the AP list, the debate is clearly over. Note that that doesn't mean the debate is over about whether those that have primary use should be at Cityname or at Cityname, Statename. Cleveland, for example, has primary usage but is at Cleveland, Ohio. If there are changes in consensus about primary usage of the cities on the AP list, that's a minor change to the guidelines that would be very rare (probably less often than once a year, perhaps much less often).
The situation is not "those on the following list which meet criteria B" then followed by those on the list that meet criteria B. The situation is "those on the AP list which meet criteria B" then followed by those on the AP list culled down to those which meet criteria B.
I don't know where you get the idea that the previous inclusion of the list was meant to be merely illustrative. I think it clearly spelled out those cities that may be at [[City]]. That's the same list today as it was back in August '07 when it was first formulated. As long as consensus supports the idea that some cities may be at [[City]], but only those that are on the AP list and have primary usage of their name, I don't foresee much if any changes to this list. Do you? --Serge (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Because never was there any discussion to put a proscriptive list into place - the changes were made incrementally and not via discussion and consensus. I will agree with you in the case of Phoenix and Washington, for example; I don't foresee the situation with them changing. That said, just because I cannot foresee any future changes does not mean they cannot exist and that they should be prohibited. In any event, I will defer future discussion to the previous section so as to keep this topic coherent. Shereth 17:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The primary usage of "Washington"

On the specific Washington issue, I certainly wouldn't oppose making Washington a disambiguation page. Isn't the current situation a case of the Worcester reasoning all over again?

"As the American city is at Worcester, Massachusetts anyway, we don't have to consider that city when deciding on the primary use for Worcester" vs.
"As the capital is at Washington, D.C. anyway, we don't have to consider that city when deciding on the primary use for Washington"

I think there can be little doubt that the state is not the primary meaning of the name "Washington". Anyway, I'm not saying I would want the city at Washington or Washington (city), it's perfectly fine where it is. Just a thought on this strange interpretation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Of course, it's kind of pretty to avoid the (state) disambiguator, and no reader will lose out in number of clicks, but it sounds arbitrary to conclude that Washington, D.C. cannot be the primary topic (or even a co-primary topic) for "Washington" just because it's also called something else, which happens to be the article title. -- Jao (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree the state is clearly not the primary use of the name. I would support a move of
--Serge (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You would likely encounter the strong opposition to the proposal to change New York into a disambiguation page. --Polaron | Talk 00:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Judging from this discussion, you're probably right. But the point that the state is the only one that really goes by "Washington" is well made, though I have to stay that the city often goes by just Washington too, as in, "decisions made in Washington mess up everything for all of us." --Serge (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We have already had an extensive discussion that resulted in retaining New York for the city and New York State for the state. I would strongly oppose the change for Washington, D.C. given the inherent ambiguity with the state. While people will often refer to many of the other cities on the list without mentioning a state -- I'm going to "Detroit" or "Los Angeles" -- people will include the "D.C." when mentioning Washington. I am fully supportive of using the city without the state for those places listed on the AP list, but this should only be used where there is absolutely no ambiguity as to the city being the primary topic, and that would exclude Washington, D.C. Alansohn (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that Washington, D.C. be moved to Washington or anywhere else. The only issue is whether the city is referred to often enough as just "Washington" to preclude the state from being the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE of "Washington". --Serge (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Anyway, as for me, I'm not going to fiercely fight this battle, but I do think that both Washington and New York should be disambiguation pages. The fact that the cities are not candidates for the undisambiguated titles (which I fully agree with in these cases) does not mean that something else can automatically become the primary topic. -- Jao (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Exactly right, and that's the reason this battle needs to be fiercely fought. This situation illustrates the evil (in the context of what's right and wrong for Wikipedia) with naming conventions that predisambiguate - they defocus from the common name and cause other uses of the name to seem more relatively important than they actually are. The root problem in this case sprouted when U.S. cities were predisambiguated by a bot, but you can find manifestations of it associated with any class of names that are predisambiguated. But this more general discussion is for the talk page at WP:NC. See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#preemptiveness. --Serge (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Washington should be a disambiguation page; "Washington" without qualifier is a very ambiguous article title. --Una Smith (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Neighbourhoods in US cities

Now that the major US cities no longer use the City, State standard, should this apply to neighbourhoods or areas within those cities, making a city's sub-articles consistently named? This would mean moving articles such as Russian Hill, San Francisco, California to Russian Hill, San Francisco. I would probably think that WP guidelines would suggest a degree of consistency here, the closest thing that WP:PLACES mentions is consistency within a country. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion about it here some time ago. No definite guidelines came out of that long discussion, but the "double comma notation" seemed to be the least popular style. The two other styles in wide usage are "neighborhoodname, citynam" or "neighborhoodname (cityname)". --Polaron | Talk 14:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Many neighborhoods have unique names which do not conflict with any others uses, which is made evident whenever the name of the neighborhood currently redirects to the article about the neighborhood at an unnecessarily convoluted title (e.g., Pacific Heights → Pacific Heights, San Francisco, California). Those articles should have no disambiguators in the title (e.g., Haight-Ashbury). For those that do conflict with other uses, and are not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name, more precision in the title for disambiguation is of course necessary. I think , Cityname should be sufficient disambiguation in most cases, certainly for the cities on the AP list (e.g., Union Square, San Francisco). I think the highly unusual and clumsy looking Neighborhood, City, State should avoided as much as possible; only used in those rare cases where two cities with the same name have neighborhoods with the same name, and so the State is also needed as a disambiguator. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this proposal. Contrary to Born2cycle's assertion, a huge number of neighborhoods have the same names. The existing system is functional. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no system in place now, at least not across the whole US. Even some neighborhoods in a single city have inconsistent names. --Polaron | Talk 13:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Polaron is correct, there is room for improvement in terms of consistency. I have always thought that using the comma convention for neighborhoods is a mistake. For US cities, there is at least a rationale that the city, state convention results in familiar names because of the pervasiveness of postal conventions. But with city neighborhoods, the comma convention just results in an unwieldy mess. I'd prefer something along the lines of the Canadian convention using parenthetical disambiguation when necessary. That is, titles that are clearly unique would be at the simple title. Titles that are not clearly unique (and I'd favor erring on the side of NOT presuming a neighborhood name is unique without good reason) would be disambiguated with the city name in parenthesis. City, state in parentheses would be used in cases only where further disambiguation is needed. older ≠ wiser 13:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The Canadian convention does not use parenthetical disambiguation for neighbourhoods, because it was agreed that brackets should be reserved for disambiguation of geophysical features. Otherwise you've described it correctly. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I realize the Canadian conventions don't use parentheses, which is which I specifically mentioned using parentheses. I didn't mean to imply that the Canadian convention used parentheses. older ≠ wiser 14:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Will, what does it matter if the number of neighborhoods that share the same name is "huge" or not (and I never denied that it wasn't "huge")? Those that do, and are not the primary topic for that name, should have their names dabbed in the article title, just like any other topic with a non-primary ambiguous name in Wikipedia. Those that don't have conflicts, orhave conflicts but are the primary topic, should be at their name. I see no reason to make an exception for names of neighborhoods, and treat them differently from other Wikipedia topics. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Cities that are famous or distinctive enough to stand alone, such as Seattle or Boston, are one thing, but there is far too much replication between neighborhoods in other jurisdictions to move the neighborhoods I would think. rootology (C)(T) 14:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Do you have any examples of neighborhoods that would conflict with other names if they were disambiguated by city only, and not with city and state? I'm not saying there aren't any, I'm just saying it has to be very rare that so much disambiguation is required. That is, for that to happen, the two neighborhoods have to be in two different cities that share the same name. For example, perhaps Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine both have neighborhoods with the same name. If they do, then those neighborhoods would rightfully be dabbed as [[NeighborhoodName (Portland, Oregon)]] and [[NeighborhoodName (Portland, Maine)]], but such actual examples must be fairly rare exceptions. For the vast majority of neighborhoods just [[NeighborhoodName]] or, if there is a conflict, [[NeighborhoodName (Cityname)]] should do it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that you haven't traveled enough or haven't extensively used map software like Microsoft Streets & Trips (I assume probably because you can't afford either) to understand the magnitude of the problem. Names that have obvious conflicts are Brentwood, Westwood, Burbank, Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Italy, Ridgewood, etc. I could name a few more if I had the time but it's not my job to give you a college-level course in geography (and I have studied geography at the college level as well as being a lifelong reader of National Geographic). --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
In order for that to be a problem, there must be two neighborhoods of the same name within cities of the same name. There are doubtless many Brentwoods, but how many of them are in a Los Angeles? The LA in Texas is a neighborhood itself; the ones in Chile and Nicaragua are unlikely to have so Anglo a name for the neighborhood. Let us have examples of the problem, and I may agree it needs a systematic solution; but pre-emptive disambiguation should only be done when it is clearly useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I have not used Microsoft Streets & Trips because I avoid Microsoft software as much as I can. Nevertheless, I could sell just a fraction of what I have invested in MSFT and live comfortably for quite some time... I've traveled extensively throughout the U.S. and three times in Europe, not that any of this is relevant. For your list of names that have "obvious conflicts", again, I'm not saying they don't exist, but do any of Brentwood, Westwood, Burbank, Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Italy, or Ridgewood exist as neighborhoods, communities or districts of U.S. cities whose names conflict with other U.S. cities. Does any neighborhood named X exist in more than one city named Y? For example, there are Brentwoods in Los Angeles, Austin, and Holliston, but is there another Los Angeles, or another Austin, or another Holliston which also has a Brentwood? Such a conflict (that would require dabbing all the way to state, not just by city) is anything but obvious, and off hand, I know of none (again, not to say there aren't any, just that they must be very rare). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Part of the difference of view may be exactly that Born2cycle is, I gather, Californian. Neighborhoods in Los Angeles and San Francisco [or New York City, btw] really don't need further disambiguation. Neighborhoods in one of the many Springfields may; but that would be an argument to add State to Neighborhood, Springfield. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I hate the "Neighborhood, City, State" format. It's clunky, awkward and unidiomatic. Have you ever heard anyone say "Chinatown, Los Angeles, California"? And chopping off the statename wouldn't be much better, because no one says "Chinatown, Los Angeles" either. How about parenthetical disambiguation for ambiguous names like Chinatown, with standalone titles for other neighborhoods? Also, I've noticed every city seems to have its own format, which doesn't always conform with the article's title. For example the articles on St. Louis neighborhoods are disambiguated simply with "St. Louis", even though the main city article is at St. Louis, Missouri. Conversely, the Philadelphia article does not have a "statename" disambiguator, but most of the neighborhood articles do. szyslak (t) 00:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"How about parenthetical disambiguation for ambiguous names like Chinatown, with standalone titles for other neighborhoods?" YES! And as far as what should be the parenthetical disambiguator (when disambiguation is needed, for ambiguous names of neighborhoods), I'd say the city name alone should do it. Thus, Haight-Ashbury, Chinatown (Los Angeles), and Chinatown (San Francisco) would be article titles. In the very rare (if any) cases where two cities with the same name each have neighborhoods with the same name, city, state should be in the parentheses, like Downtown (Portland, Oregon) and Downtown (Portland, Maine).
But if a neighborhood with an ambiguous name is only in one Portland, then the state is not included in the disambiguator. So Hillsdale (Portland) and Hayhurst (note that Hayhurst is red? Why, because it's currently predabbed to Hayhurst, Portland, Oregon and editors typically neglect to properly handle redirects from the basic name of each topic in classes that are predabbed - so anyone who types in Hayhurst and clicks on Go gets nada - that's perhaps the main -- but far from only -- practical problem with predabbing). Make sense? Is it time to propose an addendum to the U.S. city guidelines accordingly? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c Goldstein, Norm (2004). "Stylebook, section D: datelines". The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law (39th ed.). New York: Basic Books/Associated Press. pp. p.66. ISBN 9780465004881. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(settlements)/Archive_19&oldid=1251424371"