Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:20, 13 September 2024 editJohn Smith Ri (talk \| contribs)283 edits →Primary topics and WP:USPLACE: new sectionTag: New topic ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:34, 23 October 2024 edit undoBlueboar (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers53,079 edits →Primary topics and WP:USPLACE: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
(9 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 32:		Line 32:

	Consensus is sought as to the correct way to refer and link to major American cities such as ] and ]. The discussion is being held at ].		Consensus is sought as to the correct way to refer and link to major American cities such as ] and ]. The discussion is being held at ].

	== Should ] apply to US territories? ==
	{{archivetop\|Regarding the below question, there is consensus for the answer to be '''Yes'''. There is a clear numerical majority, and no particularly strong arguments from those opposing to counteract that. ''']''' <sup>(] \| ])</sup> 06:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)}}
	I would like to initiate a discussion on whether USPLACE should apply to US territories as well as US states. I will not propose anything on places in US states since the discussions of those have been exhausted with no consensus to change. There didn't seem to be much discussion on whether US territories should be included in the guideline as well. I would like to discuss the applicability of the guideline for US territories. The question I would like to answer is "Should the guideline apply to US territories?" Please discuss here. ] (]) 14:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
	*Well, yes, since they are places and are US ones. Is there some kind of concrete example you have in mind with a clear rationale for some kind of divergence? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 17:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC){{pb}}More to the point, to quote someone else below: {{tq\|if the drafters of USPLACE did not intend for it to include territories, it would not have mentioned Placename, Territory as a model to follow.}} <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 09:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:Sometimes, US territories are treated like it’s their own country. For example, in statistics, the US usually includes the 50 states and DC, but not the territories. They usually treat them as independent countries despite being part of the US. I think it would beneficial if we treat them in the same way we treat other Oceanian and Caribbean countries. ] (]) 00:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
	*::National statistics and such don't have anything to do with our article naming patterns. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 08:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
	* I would also say yes, here. Territories fall under the federal governance of the United States, and typically are assigned to the jurisdiction of a U.S. court. ] ] 00:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
	* '''No'''. The (arguable) basis for using the comma convention for US cities is that including the state name in the name of the city is the COMMONNAME for cities in US states. I know of no reason to believe that is the case for cities within US territories. This is relevant to, for example, the village of ].
	**On July 1, 2017, {{U\|Number 57}} properly moved ] to ] because "unnecessary disambiguation".
	**Then, more than three years later, on October 28, 2020, {{U\|Reywas92}} moved it to ], dubiously citing USPLACE.
	: Now, the ngram viewer (which can't search for commas but omitting it find all occurrences) shows us that Barrigada is far more commonly used than "Barrigada, Guam" , so I think {{U\|Number 57}} was clearly correct in saying the ", Guam" is unnecessary disambiguation, and I see no basis for applying the USPLACE comma convention by default, even when disambiguation is not necessary, for this or any other US territory cities (] redirects to ]). Of course, if a city's name is actually ambiguous, then the comma convention is appropriate disambiguation, as in ] (see the ] dab page for other uses), but that falls out of general ] and ] policy, not USPLACE. As a reminder, the only way to justify the USPLACE default comma convention for US cities as not contradicting ]/] is, again, by the claim that including the ", state" is simply reflecting COMMONNAME, because "City, State" is so commonly used for (non-AP) cities. The claim that "City, Territory" is as commonly used cannot be made for cities in US territories. --] ] 04:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
	::The basis of USPLACE is widespread adherence to the AP Stylebook (or its reflection of widespread usage), which for non-independent territories prescribes the use of "the commonly accepted territory name after a city name." Regarding your Barrigada example, additional context is necessary. Taking, for example, newspapers.com results and excluding "Barrigada Heights," "Mount Barrigada," and "Mt. Barrigada," the 2229 results outside of Guam break down as 1322 (59%) including the phrase "Barrigada, Guam" or "Barrigada, GU"; 842 (38%) excluding those phrases but including Guam or GU elsewhere on the page, providing context; and 65 (3%) without Guam or GU (and most of those either refer to a horse or are transcription errors). ] (]) 07:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::I'm also sketpical that random off-site usage is more often just "Barrigada" than "Barrigada, Guam", since hardly anyone knows where Barrigada is. Tooling around in Google News results, use of "Barrigada" alone seem to be mostly confined to news sources in Guam or nearby. Use of it alone appears in plenty of headlines that aren't from the region, but their actual article texts tend to specify that it's in Guam. At any rate, the argument that Barrigada by itself is not ambiguous and is in popular enough use to stand alone isn't really an argument against USPLACE at all, since it just has "Foo, Bar" {{em\|as a default}}; we have lots of places at article titles like ], ], ], etc., when an overwhelming commonness and pattern of undisambiguated usage justifies it. But there is no such overwhelming pattern for Barrigada. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 08:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''No''' per ] on ] in Guam. We should not be adding disambiguation where it's unnecessary. ] ]] 08:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Yes'''. They're places in the US, so USPLACE is the convention to follow. I see no good reason why it shouldn't be applied consistently throughout. ] <span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 11:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:The good reason USPLACE shouldn't be applied consistently to the territories as it is applied to places in the US is that the territories aren't places '''in''' the US; they are only places that '''belongs''' to the US. This is like your wallet: it '''belongs''' to you, but it is not '''in''' you, nor is it '''part of''' you. Your lungs and throat. on the other hand, are '''in''' you, so they are '''part of''' you. The territories are like your wallet: they '''belong''' to the US; the states and DC are like your lungs and throat, they are '''in''' the US. ] (]) 03:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
	*::But the guidelines make no such distinction. It's one you're trying to impose, not a rationale for why the current guidance shouldn't apply. "I want to change {{var\|X}} to {{var\|Y}}" isn't an argument that {{var\|Y}} applies now. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 17:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' USPLACE applies to US territories. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Yes'''—per SMcCandlish's well-reason comments and the common sense idea that a place in the US should follow USPLACE as a naming convention. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''] ]'''</span> 19:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - the territories are not in the US. See the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for the which has a map and explains that the US is 50 states and DC. ] (]) 23:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:''Our'' article literally says "The United States of America...consist of 50 states, a federal district, five major unincorporated territories, and nine Minor Outlying Islands." ]<sup>]</sup> 00:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
	*::Which article is incorrect, and which is one reason we don't use Misplaced Pages as a source of reliable information in discussions like this. The United States consists of the 50 States and DC, not the territories or, more, accurately, not the <u>'''un'''</u>incorporated territories. Unincorporated territories are possessions, so they aren't a part of the US and, thus, places in the unincorporated territories aren't places <u>'''in'''</u> the United States, which is why ] should not apply to the unincorporated territories, but only to the 50 States and DC. ] (]) 03:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:They don't need to be "in" the US to still be US places. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 09:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:]: Per ]: {{tq\|The term "United States," when used in the geographical sense, refers to the contiguous United States (sometimes referred to as the Lower 48), the state of Alaska, the island state of Hawaii, the five insular territories of Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, and minor outlying possessions."}} Since we're here to discuss ], that seems pretty clear. ] <span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 09:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

	*'''No.''' As it currently reads, that ''"According to the comma convention, articles on populated places <u>'''IN'''</u> the United States are typically titled "Placename, State" when located within a state or "Placename, Territory" in US territories"'', ] uses "territories" implying ], yet '''UN'''incorporated territories are, by definition, not '''IN''' the United States, making the statement at ] self-contradictory. For a territory to be '''IN''' the United States it has to be part of it, i.e., it has to be '''IN'''corporated into the United States, which the territories are not.<ref>], 182 U.S. 244, pp. 141-142.</ref> The United States consists only of the 50 States and DC.<ref> USGS. Retrieved 2 November 2023.</ref> The territories (or, more precisely, the "'''UN'''incorporated" territories) are possessions of the United States but aren't part of it.<ref>Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)</ref><ref>Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244.</ref><ref>Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138.</ref><ref>Christina Duffy Bernett. ''Foreign in a Domestic Sense''. Duke University Press. 2001. p.1</ref> ] (]) 00:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:Your USGS link starts with "Geographically (and as a general reference), the United States of America includes all areas considered to be under the sovereignty of the United States, but does not include leased areas." ] makes clear that "American territories are under American sovereignty." I'm not even going to touch the racist Insular Cases. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
	*::The link is from the US <u>'''''Geographical'''''</u> Survey so, naturally, it points out that they do <u>'''''geographical'''''</u> work that includes the unincorporated territories, and not just the 50 states and DC. You need to read further down to locate their definition for "United States", namely '''''"The 50 States and the District of Columbia."''''' This definition is in agreement with the definition the SCOTUS has used since 1901 (and for which I already included 4 references above) and with the definition of other reliable sources, such as the US Department of State.<ref>US Department of State. ''Foreign Affairs Manual.'' Vol. 7. Section 1121.1.</ref> ] (]) 03:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC) ] (]) 03:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:I believe the question asked is "should it apply", not "does it apply". You are answering the latter question, which is besides the point. (And the answer to that question is in fact obviously yes, because if the drafters of USPLACE did not intend for it to include territories, it would not have mentioned Placename, Territory as a model to follow. You're essentially saying, because they worded it slightly incorrectly, we should throw out whatever they had to say about territories, instead of making small adjustments to technical definitions in order to interpret it in line with their intent.)
	*:But the purpose of this discussion is to argue whether or not the guideline should be modified to say "no, it does not apply to territories". And for that we want to study common practice in those territories, rather than pore over what "in the United States" means. -- ]]]] 04:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
	*::USPLACE didn't used to include reference to territories. Mention of them without any consensus I can see shortly after the Dededo RM (which decreed the disambiguation wasn't necessary) by an editor who had fiercely opposed removing the disambiguation from that page. It was quite rightly some time after by ], but was subsequently by the same editor, although with reference to "some" usage, which they to "most". IMO its inclusion has no legitimacy – it was added in a response to an RM not going the way someone wanted – and should be removed until there is shown to be consensus for it. ] ]] 16:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:::This is true, but it is also clear that the RM should have been closed as 'no consensus' (further, roughly two-thirds of non-local mentions refer to it as "Dededo, Guam," so even the COMMONNAME argument fails). This discussion is, I believe, effectively to determine whether that inclusion stays in an edited form or goes. ] (]) 17:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:::Number 57: The convention currently states, {{tq\|"articles on populated places in the United States are typically titled "Placename, State" when located within a state or "Placename, Territory" in US territories."}} That is accurate, ]. (A quick tally suggests around 80% of populated places in US territories are so titled.) ] <span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 18:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:::Number 57's ] objection to changing the guideline text without consensus after the Dededo RM seems to be valid. (And I think there's a more narrow shortcut to something about changing policy/guideline pages without consensus to "win" a content dispute, but I don't remember what it is.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 07:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
	*::::I was pointing out that the specific language Number 57 mentions is , and either way simply notes the form that's typically used. ] have done so since their creation. (Incidentally, I for input on the very thing we're now discussing: how we define what's included in a country for the purposes of applying our geographic naming conventions.) ] <span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 10:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:::::That's fine, I guess, but I wasn't replying to you (note the indentation level) and what you said isn't really responsive to what I wrote. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 11:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''No''' As demonstrated above, this is neither the original intent nor something that has been added via consensus later. --] (]) 18:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''', while they may not be "in" the United States, they are certainly "of the United States." USGS, which determines official names in the territories, considers them part of the United States, they participate in the same postal system that has made "city, state/territory" so ubiquitous, their governments are thoroughly intertwined with the larger United States, and the vast majority of non-local media coverage of the territories is in the United States. ] (]) 18:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:I am not sure where you got that the USGS "considers them part of the US". Did you not read the USGS link included herein? The USGS considers the territories part of their geographical work, but it's a stretch of the imagination to imply that means the territories are "part of the US" -- especially when the USGS is already saying the US is composed of the 50 states and DC plus nothing else. Likewise, the USPS and non-local media coverage operating in the territories doesn't make them part of the US, simply makes them part of their operational territory. I suggest the read the SCOTUS court cases: they have all established the territories aren't part of the US... that's why they are called "UNincorporated territories". ] (]) 03:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
	*::You continue to focus on and emphasize irrelevant points. Whether or not the constitution extends in full to the territories has little bearing here, particularly with congress having granted birthright citizenship to 4/5 and SCOTUS determining that the territories ] their own, separate sovereignty. All that matters here is whether the United States' naming practices have extended to them, which extends largely from whether or not they are functionally part of the United States. For two of the most relevant agencies, and (along with plenty of others), they functionally are. That the vast majority of American media coverage of the territories is non-local for the territories is also irrelevant; that's simply how American media works. Media in the Chicago Metro doesn't need to specify a state when they refer to Naperville, Kenosha, or Waukegan, but 95%+ of other American media will specify a state(/territory) if it's not made clear by context. ] (]) 07:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
	*Yes, per SMcCandlish. --] (]) (]) 13:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' - AFAIK, "city, province" & "city, territory" is used for Canadian places. Therefore why not the same idea for US "city, state" <u>&</u> "city, territory". I believe roughly the same is done for post-1707 British places. ] (]) 18:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
	*:] and ] are very different concepts. ] and ] are not interchangeable. ] (]) 19:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::They should be interchangeable, as they're all parts that make up a sovereign state. ] (]) 19:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	*:::The sovereignty of U.S. Territories is open to question -- they are considered to be ] and not an integral part of the nation. The uninhabited places are for the most part treated as if the federal government were the sole proprietor. But the inhabited territories occupy a gray-ish area between fully independent and an administrative subdivision. ] ≠ ] 20:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	*::::On the federal level: ], ], ], ] & ], can't vote in US presidential elections, but they can vote for delegates to national party conventions. They don't have voting members in the US House or US Senate, but do have non-voting members in the US House. So there'en lays the question - Is this enough to call them Americans? ] (]) 20:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''', because 1.) we are already ''de facto'' doing this, 2.) because it aligns with common usage, and 3.) neutrality on the internal/external distinction argues for that choice. 1: We already do this almost all the time for U.S. territories, and removing the territory name would be considerably more disruptive to local consensus for specific articles and territories. Looking in ], I see that all the municipalities in Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, and half of those in American Samoa include the territory name. (Except ]; if it hadn't been mentioned above, I wouldn't have noticed it was moved from ] because its category was not also moved, and in the years since 2015 it seems other Guam municipalities have not been changed.) The municipalities in the NMI don't, but they are a bit weird in that three out of four of them are also islands. ] says it's a good reason not to follow the national convention when municipalities and islands are co-terminous. So like we have ] instead of "Nantucket, Massachusetts", I'd support keeping those three as they are and moving the fourth to ]. Today I came across an American Samoa village article that was missing the territory name, and for me this violated the ] since I'd gotten used to US and AS locations having it. (Which is how I ended up on this discussion page.) Making the remaining AS articles consistent with the existing territory articles makes more sense; I expect they are different mostly because they have been neglected. 2: The states, territories, and federal district of the United States form a uniform ] that does not distinguish between the different types of top-level entity. If you are addressing a letter, putting your birthplace on a form that is asking for "City, State", or mentioning the full name of a town in a national or international presentation or written conversation, you would be expected to write something like "San Juan, Puerto Rico" just as someone else might write "Springfield, Massachusetts". 3: ] suggests "City, Country" as a reasonable default rule, so whether you consider any given territory to be geographically part of the United States or not, our current use of e.g. ] is a safe choice. Choosing to write "Arecibo" instead could be interpreted as a disputable assertion that Puerto Rico is not part of the United States, because it breaks with the convention used for all other U.S. places. Pointing to the fact that it's an unincorporated territory (as are all the inhabited territories) doesn't really resolve that dispute, especially given (2). ] are probably the closest-affiliated entities that are indisputably ''not'' part of the United States. -- ] (]) 00:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
	::(I guess not ''completely'' neglected: there were discussions on ] and ] about whether or not to move them to match the other AS articles that include the territory name, but I guess concerns over lack of broad enough participation are what prompted this discussion. -- ] (]) 00:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC))
	::One difference about American Samoa is that birth-right U.S. citizenship does not apply there. People born there are instead United States ]. Persons born in the other territories do have birth-right U.S. citizenship. I would still argue for using , American Samoa, for articles about places there, as the territory is under U.S. jurisdiction. ] 17:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

	<!--Keep this template at the bottom of the discussion-->{{reflist talk}}
	Since there are no comments recently, do you think we are ready to close the discussion? ] (]) 19:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
	:{{reply\|Interstellarity}} Not sure my long comment adds anything new; if there are no replies within a week, I'd say it's time to wrap this up one way or another. -- ] (]) 00:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}

	== Capitalisation of "oblast" when used as the name of a Ukrainian administrative division ==		== Capitalisation of "oblast" when used as the name of a Ukrainian administrative division ==
Line 114:		Line 59:

	How should we decide the primary topics of "{{xt\|Placename, Country}}", "{{xt\|Placename (city)}}", "{{xt\|Placename (town)}}", etc., especially for some countries (like the ]) whose cities cannot have articles named {{xt\|Placename, Country}}? ] may be useful references. ] (]) 15:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)		How should we decide the primary topics of "{{xt\|Placename, Country}}", "{{xt\|Placename (city)}}", "{{xt\|Placename (town)}}", etc., especially for some countries (like the ]) whose cities cannot have articles named {{xt\|Placename, Country}}? ] may be useful references. ] (]) 15:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
			:{{ping\|John Smith Ri}} There is a difference between naming conventions and eligibility as a primary topic, i.e. a page name does not need to be eligible to be the preferred title of an article in order to be in contention for primary topic; it is sufficient for the page name to be eligible either for preferred title or redirect. For example, ] is the primary topic of ] even though the latter would never be allowed as the title of the article. And so ] is a primary redirect to ] even though ] exist in the US. (Note that ], England, is not in contention for primary topic since ] is neither a valid title nor redirect to that topic.) -- ]]]] 16:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
			::However, ], England is the primary article for “Birmingham”. ] (]) 17:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:34, 23 October 2024

Please post discussions about Railway station names at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (stations).

view · edit Frequently asked questions Why is the article on Georgia named Georgia (country), and Georgia is instead a disambiguation page? The consensus is that there is no primary topic for the term "Georgia". Supporters of that position successfully argued that since the country is not significantly more commonly searched for than the US state of the same name, it cannot have primary topic over the US state. Opponents argued that internationally recognized countries should take precedence over sub-national units like the US state. Some opponents argued that the current setup conveys a US-centric bias. Attempts to rename the articles to a natural disambiguation title like "Republic of Georgia" or "State of Georgia" have not reached any consensus (see the list of archived discussions). Why is the Ireland article about the island, while the article on the country is named Republic of Ireland? The naming of Ireland articles dates back to 2002. Previously, content for both the island and country appeared on the same page, but it was then decided to move content and the page history about the country to its official "Republic of Ireland" description, while keeping content about the island at "Ireland". Ever since, this issue has been heavily disputed, but there has not been any consensus to change this status quo. Previous failed proposals have included making the country the primary topic of "Ireland" instead, or using parenthetical disambiguation titles like "Ireland (island)" and "Ireland (country)". According to an ArbCom ruling in 2009, discussions relating to the naming of these Ireland articles had to occur at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. In 2023 this requirement was withdrawn so discussions can take place on the talk pages as normal. Why do articles on populated places in the United States primarily use the ] "comma convention" format? Why is there an exemption for cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring a state? This is an issue where different rules of Misplaced Pages:Article titles can conflict with each other, thus consensus determines which ones to follow. Most of these articles were created by User:Rambot, a Misplaced Pages bot, back in 2002 based on US Census Bureau records. When creating these pages, Rambot used the "Placename, State" naming format, initially setting a consistent naming convention for these articles. Supporters of keeping the "Placename, State" format argue that this is generally the most common naming convention used by American reliable sources. Opponents argue that this format is neither precise nor concise, and results in short titles like Nashville redirecting to longer titles like Nashville, Tennessee. After a series of discussions since 2004, a compromise was reached in 2008 that established the Associated Press Stylebook exception rule for only those handful of cities listed in that style guide (the dominant US newswriting guide) as not requiring the state modifier. There has been since no consensus to do a massive page move on the other articles on US places (although individual requested move proposals have been initiated on different pages from time to time).

Need for clarity on linking major American cities

Consensus is sought as to the correct way to refer and link to major American cities such as Los Angeles and Boston. The discussion is being held at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Need for clarity on linking major American cities.

Capitalisation of "oblast" when used as the name of a Ukrainian administrative division

I have made an ngram review of "X O|oblast" for the oblasts listed at Oblasts of Ukraine#List. While many of these do not give an ngram result, where they do, they do not show that oblast is consistently capitalised in sources (per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS) that would lead us to a conclusion that we should cap these names on WP. See Chernivtsi Oblast, Donetsk Oblast, Kharkiv Oblast, Kherson Oblast, Kiev Oblast (no result for Kyiv Oblast), Lviv Oblast, Poltava Oblast and Sumy Oblast - others retured no result. A cursory look at Google Scholar results would confirm mixed capitalisation - Sumy Oblast, Donetsk Oblast and Kharkiv Oblast. For these names in Cyrillic, oblast (о́бласть) is not capitalised. There is therefore no to argument that capitalisation from the native language gives rise to a need to capitalise the term in English. The same would be true for other administrative divisions (eg raion). The same is likely true where the same terms are used for other nations (eg Russia). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but see Talk:Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast/Archive 1#Requested move 29 April 2022, Talk:Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast/Archive 1#Requested move 11 June 2022, and especially Talk:Cherkasy Oblast#Requested move 12 May 2022. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

RM results that boil down to "capitalize because the sources I prefer and cherrypicked like to do so" are pretty common when people deeply involved in some topic show up in force to dogpile an RM (or one or two bloviate at tremendous length with their personal WP:OR about why something "is" a "proper name" despite numerous RS not treating it as one by capitalizing it). As our editorial pool shrinks, the entire RM process is starting to fail because too few editors pay any attention to it at all, and those who show up to comment too often have a "screw the guidelines and policies, I want capitalization in my topic else" attitude with no regard to sourcing and guidelines. The way to get around this is to do a bunch of source research beforehand showing that the capitalization level is nowhere near what we'd expect for WP to be capitalizing. Not just n-grams but Google News and Google Scholar and IA Scholar results – e.g. here showing that lowercase "oblast" clearly dominates in journals, but do more such searches for all these terms so the evidence is unassailable. Then do a mass RM that is "advertised" at various higher profile venues like WT:MOSCAPS and here and WT:NCCAPS and even WT:AT and WP:VPPOL if it seems to warrant that. Make it clear that the earlier RMs were based on false claims about the capitalization level in the source material and that you can prove it. This is basically the same situation as all that sports raft stuff: topic-devoted editors are hell-bent on over-capitalizing, but do not have the sourcing to justify it. Same with the state panhandles (an RM saga that still continues). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure practices in other languages should be used to decide what to do in English; different languages just have different conventions. French, for example, capitalizes noun forms (like Amérique for America) but definitely not demonyms (like américain for American). French does Amérique centrale for Central America but Amérique du Sud for South America, though that may be similar to the difference between "North America" and "northern America".

I guess in English there's disagreement or uncertainty over whether the type descriptor is part of a proper noun or a separate noun being modified by a proper noun adjunct. Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (US stations) says "station" is lowercase except where "Station" is already part of the name, leaving that question up to sourcing. Conductors say South Station and not "South", and "Penn Station" not "Penn" (which means the university). But they might say "Back Bay" or "Yonkers", so we have Back Bay station and Yonkers station. But many people write e.g. "Back Bay Station" as if "Back Bay" is a short version of the full proper name, just as "New York" is a short version of "New York City", which is never written "New York city". This is somewhat unsatisfying, but so is the difference in pronunciation between "Kansas" and "Arkansas", so c'est la vie.

Given sometimes the type descriptor is incorporated into the name and sometimes it's not, and given that capitalization of type descriptors in general seems to be common in English though not always universal, I think declaring as a style choice that English Misplaced Pages always capitalizes would be acceptable as an arbitrary choice between two common conventions, and also safer in that we'd never mistakenly lowercase a name where the descriptor has been incorporated, which seems to happen over time or for words where the short version is already taken.

It looks like Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places) already favors the capitalized version, and given that some professional English sources use that convention, it's not wrong for Misplaced Pages to choose it arbitrarily. Especially given that the short versions of these names are already taken by city names, it seems likely that the type descriptors have or will some day be firmly incorporated by English speakers. -- Beland (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, the naming convention page is silent on capitalisation except for the usage. Weirdly the Ukrainian English-language newspapers I can find use the word "region" instead of oblast in their reporting... SportingFlyer T·C 21:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Region-specific guidance for Turkish cities

Can we add some specific guidance for Turkish cities? For some cities, this is almost getting to ridiculous levels. For example, count how many Smyrna's are in the lead of İzmir in this version (there's one extra in the footnote as well). Btw, there's also Smyrna and Old Smyrna articles. Historic names should usually be presented in "Names" or "Etymology" sections, except significant ones such as Constantinople in the lead of Istanbul for example. However, non-English alphabet versions should also be in "Names" or "Etymology" sections. Turkish is spoken by 85-90% of the population. The rest is mostly Kurdish. Except Arabic, other languages would be less than 0.1% Bogazicili (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Türkiye

Could we get a section addressing users adding Türkiye or replacing Turkey with Türkiye? I usually revert those edits and point to wp:commonname or another MOS-related guideline, but it would be helpful to point here. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably easier to have a generic “use the main articles title”; we may eventually move the article to Türkiye, and even we do we will have the problem in the opposite direction. BilledMammal (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Sněžka", Śnieżka or an English exonym, if there is one ?

A discussion at Talk:Sněžka#Requested move 17 July 2024, regarding a mountain on the Polish—Czech border, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Primary topics and WP:USPLACE

How should we decide the primary topics of "Placename, Country", "Placename (city)", "Placename (town)", etc., especially for some countries (like the United States) whose cities cannot have articles named Placename, Country? The existing rules applied to Canada may be useful references. John Smith Ri (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@John Smith Ri: There is a difference between naming conventions and eligibility as a primary topic, i.e. a page name does not need to be eligible to be the preferred title of an article in order to be in contention for primary topic; it is sufficient for the page name to be eligible either for preferred title or redirect. For example, Barack Obama is the primary topic of Obama even though the latter would never be allowed as the title of the article. And so Birmingham, United States is a primary redirect to Birmingham, Alabama even though other Birminghams exist in the US. (Note that Birmingham, England, is not in contention for primary topic since Birmingham, United States is neither a valid title nor redirect to that topic.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

However, Birmingham, England is the primary article for “Birmingham”. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)