Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:59, 15 November 2006

Archives

/Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 - "City" vs. "City, State" arguments /Archive 7, /Archive 8, /Archive 9, /Archive 10 /Archive 11 - Not yet full /U.S. convention change (August 2006) /One international convention (August 2006)

Tariq's Proposal

Part I

The canonical form for cities in the United States is City, State (the "comma convention"). However, if a major city has a unique name or is unquestionably the most significant subject sharing its name, such as Chicago and Philadelphia, it can reside at a disambiguated location, without the state. Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county, borough or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina). Smaller locations, those which are not well-known outside their immediate vicinity, such as Walla Walla, Washington and Garrett Park, Maryland, should not be moved from "City, State"; they should remain disambiguated with their respective state names, regardless of the uniqueness of the names of the cities.

An U.S. city's article, however, should never be titled simply "city, United States" (e.g "Houston, United States"), although it is permissible to create a title of this type as a redirect to the properly titled article. Similarly, a title that uses the state's two-letter postal abbreviation should never be the primary article title, although creating a redirect is permitted.

Part II

Additionally, can we agree to move the twenty-seven cities mentioned by john k in his AP-related proposal, as they would abide by the requirements needed for disambiguation.

I can easily see agreeing with Part I and disputing some of Part II; it is possible to agree with Part II for other reasons, and oppose Part I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs)

Survey -3

This is for later use; but if anyone has decided, fine. If you want fine-tuning, please comment below.

Support Votes -3

1. Support. --Serge 06:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Support I'm okay with this as-is. This would a) create a brief statement for the guideline, b) leave the Canadian guideline alone, c) provide a starting point for moves according to the guideline, d) still leave the possibility of future moves open, and e) make sure very small cities like Garrett Park, Maryland retain the state disambiguation. -- tariqabjotu 16:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. I've also implemented the wording change Septentrionalis proposes below. But I agree that discussion needs to continue. john k 12:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Support the current phrasing. older ≠ wiser 13:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Anything to end the ridiculous convention we have now. --DaveOinSF 01:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC) (I suppose I have to change my UID to DaveOinSF,CA)
6. Support, It's about time we had some common sense on this. G-Man * 16:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support for now. I think this is strong enough to make clear that we only disambiguate cases like Chicago. Septentrionalis 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Support for now. Sounds as a sensible attempt to achive peace. Duja 11:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per a nice balance of common sense moves and put-the-brakes guidelines. I worry this straw poll will be invalidated due to the numerous earlier polls, but it's worth a try.. -- nae'blis 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Georgia guy 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Makes sense to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Support: per previous my points in archived talk or Seattle talk page. —Asatruer— 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Support --josh (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Support with reservations about definition of "well-known." At this point, I'd prefer to move forward and hope for a Part III, but these discussions (including this one) need to take a break. This is a "good enough for now" compromise. --ishu 04:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not Yet Votes (please specify change, if any, required for you to support)

Oppose Votes -3

To facilitate moving towards consensus, please consider a "Not Yet" vote in the section above, including suggesting a change to the proposal that would allow you to support it, rather than an all-out "oppose" vote.

1. Oppose Once again, don't see the point. Another attempt at changing the policy, since all the previous attempts have failed. Hey, keep trying! Eventually, the opposition will forget to vote! Phiwum 04:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose let's get out the laundry list...

   -Introduces a needless inconsistency into the US naming convention. There is no practical benefit to having some cities at CITYNAME and other at City, State. On the flip side, there is no harm to having every US city consistently at City, State.

   -As an "objective criteria" the AP guideline is flawed in the fundamental difference between a newspaper dateline and an Encyclopedia article entry. The sole purpose of a dateline is to state where the store was filed and may have little or no relevance to the subject matter of the article itself. An encyclopedia entry article title, however, DOES have mark relevance to what the article is about. Additionally, even AP reports don't rely on the single CITY dateline alone to convey the full context of the location as evident by these article titles. The fundamental difference is that we are writing encyclopedia articles about a location, not filing the report from that location.

   Georgia Early Voting Numbers Up - AP ATLANTA

   Dinosaur City planned for Texas in 2008 - AP HOUSTON

   VFW Passes Over Veteran in Illinois - AP CHICAGO

   Pennsylvania business news in brief - AP Philadelphia

   Doyle adds Aaron's big bat to Wisconsin campaign lineup - AP Milwaukee

   -Furthermore, the AP style guidelines is not even used consistently on AP news reports with several instances City, State datelines even for the 27 cities listed above. Like Philadelphia, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Boston.

   -Does nothing to curb the endless debate and page move request because of its reliance on subjective criteria which editors are obviously bound to disagree over- namely the potentially unstable criteria for determining what "is unquestionably the most significant subject sharing its name." To whom? For the Irish and others the city of Cork is unquestionably the most significant subject and they were quite passionate and vocal about that with attempts to move it to what other editors felt was "unquestionably the most significant subject" of the material Cork. Considering the absence of a practical benefit to have these "exception inconsistencies" the continued opening for constant debate and endless debate on Page Moves is high price to pay for little or no gain.

   -Similarly, this subject criteria goes over to the "smaller locations" as editors are just as open to argue that Walla Walla IS well known for its onions (or its propensity in the alphabet drinking game which adds to its fame for my German friends) or that Tallahassee should considered "well known" because it's a state capital or Kingsburg, California should be at just Kingsburg and worthy of world reknown because it home not only to the World's largest raisin box but also the World's largest teapot to boot. Of course my little sister and her "worldwide friends" on Myspace would be aghast at the lack of recognition for the world renown of Kentwood, Louisiana birthplace of Britney Spears. The subjective nature of this criteria does nothing to stop the continued onslaught of page moves. As Serge himself wondered outloud during the previous proposal as to why even unincorporated areas like Assawoman, Virginia should be City, State so to can other editors do the same wondering and do the same page move request.

   There is more to be said but now I'm tired though I'm sure I'll have another opportunity once the rebuttals come. Agne 09:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

   The point of the AP list is that those are the cities they consider to be significant enough to not require the state name. Usage is datelines is not different from usage in text. In fact, I believe the AP guideline applies to text (I don't have a stylebook with me so maybe someone can check). You can propose a different set of criteria if you think the AP list is still too subjective. The onslaught of page moves you are saying is unlikely to occur in practice. It is a self-limiting mechanism. The lesser known a city is, the more people will oppose moving it. In the end, I think you'll find that whatever reasonable criteria one chooses for what a major city is, we'll end up with something more or less the same as the AP list. --Polaron | Talk 15:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

   If there is reason to fear an onslaught of page moves after this wording, my amendment wasn't strong enough. How can it be strengthened? Septentrionalis 22:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

   As I reminded folks elsewhere, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". "Consistency" within a given category (say, U.S. cities) is less important than consistency with the general Misplaced Pages guidelines on article naming and disambiguation. The city of Los Angeles, California is undeniably the most common meaning for Los Angeles — and indeed, Los Angeles redirects there. Why shouldn't the article be at the simplest name for such a clear-cut case? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

   The practical benefit of having all American cities consistently titled the same way is completely eviscerated by the practical deficit of having the American convention be so radically different from the conventions in use for any other country on the planet. Bearcat 03:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose as usual. See my arguments posted on other proposals. AJD 23:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. This vote would apparently override the votes held recently, such as talk:Los Angeles, California and Talk:Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I also strongly disapprove of "legislating" an inconsistent convention. -Will Beback 22:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I see no value in creating unnecessary exceptions to a straightforward, sensible convention. New York City is the only case with some justification. —wwoods 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

   Yet you see a reason for a U.S. city specific convention that is itself an unnecessary exception to the straightforward and sensible conventions used throughout Misplaced Pages? --Serge 01:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose. "Major" city is far too subjective a description and depends on your point of view. Even with this change, we'd still see debates on talk pages about whether or not a particular city is "Major". I don't think this particular proposal would accomplish much other change the focus of the current debates. -- The Bethling 20:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

   Would you prefer a specific list? The AP list is one concept of what a major city is. If you have other thoughts, please do share them. Also, naming debates in Canada died down when they allowed some cities to be exempted. --Polaron | Talk 20:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

   I don't like the idea of a list (for example the AP one), since it strikes me as arbitrary. A defintion of what makes a city "major" would be something that I'd consider. --- The Bethling 20:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose. For completeness in case somebody just counts edits here, I oppose the idea of exceptions to the US city article naming convention. If the supporters win the case for exceptions, then the AP List with non-city ambiguity removed (part II above) is by far the best list I have seen discussed here so far. --Scott Davis 06:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Will B and others. Jonathunder 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Having two conventions (with no clear purpose or method) would be confusing to the reader - one convention or the other for clarity. THEPROMENADER 12:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

   There are already two different conventions, with no clear purpose or method for the difference: one for the United States, one for the entire rest of the world. Bearcat 17:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose Among other things, it would make two conventions for city names in the U.S., and the decision on which cities don't need the state to be specified would be arbitrary and the source of much contention. -- Donald Albury 23:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Leave them all at City, State. FairHair 20:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion -3

comments here, please.

We would need to resolve any possible issues about the redirect target for LA and LV. I think those are the only two that might still be an issue. Vegaswikian 06:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain how this proposal differs or is similar to previous proposals? Can we have a summary of some kind? -Will Beback 08:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It is different from Serge's proposal in that it explicitly states that very small cities should not be included in the change. It also proposes immediate moves for the 27 largely non-ambiguous cities from the AP list. john k 15:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any serious problem for LA. When Los Angeles County is meant, one says "Los Angeles County," e.g. "Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department." The issue of metro area vs. city proper is not unique to Los Angeles, or to American cities. Las Vegas is more problematic, but I don't see how Las Vegas, Nevada any more clearly indicates the city proper than Las Vegas would. I think it's a very bad idea to say that it does on the basis of postal usage, because wikipedia articles on American localities are based not on postal usage, but on formal municipality boundaries and census designations, which are often very different from postal usage. City of Las Vegas would be the only completely clear way to indicate the city proper, I think.

It's probably worth mentioning that another vaguely possible confusion might relate to Honolulu. There are no municipalities in Hawaii. The formal name of Honlulu County, which includes the entire island of Oahu, is the "City and County of Honolulu," or something similar. Our Honolulu, Hawaii refers to the Census-designated place, which apparently corresponds fairly closely to common usage of "Honolulu" in Hawaii itself. I don't think this is a serious issue, but I think it's more liable to cause confusion than Los Angeles.

That being said, I don't think any of the moves will lead to the creation of any greater confusion than already exists. Not only do Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Honolulu currently redirect to the articles on the cities (or, in the latter case, CDP), but attempts in the pass to make the simple title in similar cases redirect to the disambiguation page have always been miserable failures. The Las Vegas issue is certain to cause some confusion unless the article is called "City of Las Vegas," which is an awkward title. But Las Vegas is no worse than Las Vegas, Nevada. The important thing is that the article clarify the situation. I might change my opinion if Vegaswikian can explain how Los Angeles, California and Las Vegas, Nevada indicate more clearly that the city proper is meant than simple Los Angeles and Las Vegas do without resorting to the post office. I think this proposal is sensible, makes fair allowances for the reluctance expressed by many users towards a wholesale change in the convention, and would lead to a reasonable solution that I, at least, can live with. john k 15:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be best to keep things simple and understandable to all (no matter what country) in designating "cityname" as an article on the census definition of cityname - or the "city proper" - as anything outside of this is a grey-area "concept" with many many different possible meanings and interpretations. It is of course that the "cityname" article speak of an area greater than "cityname" within the article, but only through the context of "cityname" core. In other words, a "cityname" article should cover the area spoken of in a textbook definition of "cityname". Naming practices may differ from country to country, but at least this method will conform with each's existing practices, methods and - surtout - references. THEPROMENADER 12:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Reluctant support, provided that we go "on record" that any extension of this policy to undisambiguate minor cities would be strongly discouraged. (This means you, Serge.) As for Las Vegas, perhaps we should move Las Vegas metropolitan area to Las Vegas, and move the article presently at Las Vegas, Nevada to City of Las Vegas, Nevada or Las Vegas, Nevada (city), with Las Vegas, Nevada changed to a sub-disambiguation page of Las Vegas (disambiguation). (I feel that, in common usage, Las Vegas, Nevada does indicate the city, while Las Vegas indicates the area or gambling in general — just as the most common usage of Hollywood is to refer to the Los Angeles County-based) entertainment industry, rather than the community within the city of Los Angeles.) Although the most common usage of Los Angeles is to refer to the metropolitan area, I don't think it's as confusing, as the city is also an important referent. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Change to "smaller locations, those which are not well-known to the majority of the world's population, such as Walla Walla, Washington and Garrett Park, Maryland, should not be moved from "City, State"; they should remain disambiguated..."? Septentrionalis 17:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Metonymy should not be considered for primary topic status. The White House is both the building the president of the United States lives in, and a metonymy for "the current administration." Both usages are very common, but White House is still about the building. john k 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, am I correct that this proposal states, on the one hand, places that "are not known to the majority of the world's population" shall be disambiguated; and on the other hand that (based on the AP guidelines) 27 cities shall use city only, whether or not these places are known to the majority of the world's population. I was in Europe once, and a group of German tourists asked me what state I was from. When I said I was from Maryland, one replied, "no, no, what state are you from?" I question whether these folks would have recognized Baltimore. (One could argue that they are in the minority of the world's population, but that's a thought exercise.) I'm inclined to support this proposal, but I just want to be clear on how it works. --ishu 05:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that is partly because of the US-centric nature of the AP guidelines and also the fundamental difference between a guideline for a newspaper dateline and an encyclopedia article entry. A dateline is not as directly relevant to the newspaper article as the title of an encyclopedia entry is to its subject matter. Agne 07:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the majority of the world's population knows about Hildburghausen and Caserta? The idea that this is "US-centric" is absurd. This proposal would allow for far fewer American cities to be moved to just "City" than cities in other countries. john k 13:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• One is a proposal for the guideline; the other a proposed implementation of the guideline. If you dispute that the AP list is "known to the majority of world's population", support Part I and Oppose Part II; or vice versa. Septentrionalis 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  I would suggest that "well-known to the majority of the world's population" is perhaps an infelicitous way of phrasing it. How many American cities are known to 3 billion people? There's obviously a lot of people who are ignorant, especially about geography. I'd suggest that what is meant is "well-known to the majority of people who are reasonably well-educated about geography," or something similar. Perhaps some modification of the phrasing could be made. john k 13:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  Do tweak at will; I don't think it will make much difference to the declared !votes. Certainly "English-speaking" would be justified by general policy. Septentrionalis 19:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  There's obviously a lot of people who are ignorant, especially about geography. I'd suggest that what is meant is "well-known to the majority of people who are reasonably well-educated about geography," or something similar. I agree that many people are ignorant about geography, but that's not a verifiable population. WP:NC states that article names should be governed by "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." It's not U.S. English speakers, but English speakers. Since 1.7 billion live in the British Commonwealth, any way you count English speakers, a majority of live outside the U.S. I really want to support this proposal, so as to reduce these discussions, but the guidelines should be coherent, and I'm just not convinced that they are. --ishu 20:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  Pretty much every self-described non-American who has participated in this debate over the years has generally expressed the opinion that they are only vaguely aware, at best, of what states most American cities are in, and that places like Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, and so forth are much better known to them than the states in which they are located. You yourself mentioned your German acquaintances who had never heard of Maryland. In terms of who are "English-speakers", I think traditionally this has been interpreted to mean "native-speakers". Once you include the entire population of India, the whole exercise becomes somewhat pointless. "Would an Indian peasant recognize Baltimore?" This gets to the point of silliness. Americans are probably a slight majority, or nearly so, of native English-speakers, and adding in Canadians, who are reasonably familiar with American geography, you have a fairly solid margin. At any rate, your own comment suggests that your German friends would have been just as baffled by Baltimore, Maryland as by Baltimore, if not more so. What argument exactly are you looking for here? john k 01:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  When I wrote "any way you count," I meant that literally--including using conservative criteria. Canada (30M) + UK (60M) + Australia (20M) = 110M; toss in a mere 10% of the commonwealth, and you're already at 280M, and I suspect the English speaking pop'n in the commonwealth is significantly higher than 10%, given 300M "middle class" Indians (although many of these are marginally English speaking). There's nothing silly about looking about it this way.

  I'm not looking for an argument, just a coherent guideline. The AP test conflicts with WP:NC and Part I of the proposal as I described. The point is not whether the German tourists would be baffled by Baltimore, Maryland but whether Baltimore would be recognized by "the majority of English speakers." --ishu 01:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  What is silly is the comment I added in my edit summary (2 billion English speakers). My apologies. Shouldn't have done it that way. Sorry, John. --ishu 07:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a contestant on Jeopardy! once proffered "What is Calgary?" for the answer "Ottawa, the capital of Canada, is located in this province." I don't personally think other people's lack of geographical knowledge needs to circumscribe our naming conventions. But YMMV. Bearcat 11:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also prefer a different way of phrasing it. Why don't we say something along the lines of small cities that are not well known to people from outside their immediate area, or something similar? Baltimore may not be well known to the majority of the world, or even the majority of English-speakers, but it well known to people not from it. Garrett Park, on the other hand, is not even known by most people who live in the Washington, DC area, much less to outsiders. Would this be an acceptable substitute? john k 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This goes back to my original concern, that any such phrasing is difficult to verify, and would conflict with WP:NC. I'd agree that most English-speaking people know Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington, DC. On the basis of their roles in popular culture, I'd toss in Chicago, Miami, and maybe even Boston. But the other 21 AP cities are a stretch, since most English-speaking people don't know anything about them... yet this is also true of most topics in Misplaced Pages, for what that's worth. --ishu 07:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where verifiability comes into it. Verifiability is a requirement for article content, not for conventions. The name "Baltimore" is verifiable, and is commonly used for the place. That's all that WP:V would require, as far as I can gather. I'm not sure why it would conflict with WP:NC. I also notice that you're still arguing about most English-speaking people, which is not what I proposed at all. I said that we should change the wording to refer to whether the city was well known outside its immediate vicinity. Obviously, this judgment is subjective. But any basis would have to be either a) subjective; or b) completely arbitrary. I'd prefer a subjective judgment that more or less conforms to most of our instincts on this to an arbitrary one. The response to my AP proposal suggests that an arbitrary basis does not have a great deal of support. Any judgment of a primary topic has to be ultimately subjective, so I don't see why this is any more problematic. john k 13:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest a slightly different take on which US cities are known outside the US -- Cities that are international ports of entry. This was mentioned earlier (by Tinlinkin I think) but never formally proposed. Hopefully, this removes some of the subjectiveness in choosing which cities to include. --Polaron | Talk 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean exactly? What about "cities that appear on maps of the world published by major map-making companies like Rand McNally"? There's any number of possible ways of judging this. I think something vague and subjective is the best way to go, which would allow any individuals to apply whatever specific criteria they want to. I think that "widely known outside their immediate vicinity" is the closest to what we've generally meant. If people want to apply clearer, more stricter standards in applying such a rule, that is, of course, perfectly appropriate. john k 14:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There is actually such a specific list by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyway, it was just a suggestion since some people seemed to think the AP list does not necessarily mean well-known outside the US. As I said before, the list we would end up will be more or less the same no matter what criteria for being well-known we use. --Polaron | Talk 15:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you post a link to this list? I would support that proposal, since it would overlap onto significant portions of the AP list, while also being grounded in some meaningful international relationships. People may enter the country via Baltimore or Seattle without ever setting foot there or learning any more about the place beyond its role as a port of entry. Of course, they would never enter through Garrett Park, or Kansas City, Kansas. --ishu 16:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Do most Indian peasants speak English? If so, please document. Mumbai is not, I think, supportable as majority English usage; it's supportable because Indian English is a national variety of English, like Australian, American or British English, and IE usage is clear. Septentrionalis 15:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether a majority of Indian "peasants" speak English. The issue is: Who is included in "the majority of English-speaking" people, as per WP:NC. Secondarily, of these people, how many would recognize which cities by cityname only? Most likely, a significant majority of the 1.1B Indians do not speak conversational English (say, an arbitrary 50% or more of the conversation). However, I am claiming that a significant minority of them can be included as "English-speaking people," which weighs against Americans (or even Americans+Canadians) as being a majority by themselves. Much of this discussion is threaded with the American assumption, and that's not what WP:NC states. (It also does not specify native English speakers, but second-language people would be difficult to quantify.) --ishu 16:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ishu, I think you're confusing two separate issues. WP:NC merely says that articles should be at names that are recognizable to "a majority of English speakers." Since many things that have articles on wikipedia are things that most English-speakers have never heard of, this can't mean what you are arguing it means. What it means is recognizable to a majority of English speakers who have heard of the place. This is a rule designed so as to mean that articles can't be at foreign language names that English-speakers are unfamiliar with - Cologne rather than ], Florence rather than Firenze. It has no role here. The other issue is what the proposal here says. We can make it say whatever we want. There is no requirement that cities that get moved be ones that the "majority of English-speakers have heard of. john k 20:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe John's interpretation about the intent of the WP:NC requirement to choose names that are recognizable to "a majority of English speakers" is correct. It cannot possibly mean that any Misplaced Pages article title must be recognizable to "a majority of English speakers" because so many subjects are unrecognizable to "a majority of English speakers", not matter what you call it. It has to do with preferring English to foreign spellings. --Serge 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Having said that, I would fully support the proposal if we add the following:

Part III: Further exceptions will be made if both of the following conditions are met:

1. The city has an airport on the list of international ports-of-entry published by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
2. A consensus can be reached per the existing request-for-move policy.

The benefit is that the DHS list (150+ cities) is much longer than the AP list, and provides an outer boundary to the number of possible moves. Many of the cities on that list (e.g., Ontario, California) are simply inappropriate on dab grounds, while others (e.g., Teterboro, New Jersey) are clearly not well-known internationally. Again, Garrett Park and Kansas City, KS would not be eligible for move because they fail test #1. --ishu 21:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I could accept the AP list, but not the DHS list as a claim of "well-known" outside the USA. I consider myself reasonably geographically aware. --Scott Davis 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The DHS list is an objective "floor", meaning that a city must be on the DHS list even to be considered for a move. Subjective criteria of "well-known" would be used only for cities on that list. Any other city would be ineligible for a non-disambiguated article name. This would limit the potential candidates (and discussions) to just over 100 cities. --ishu 04:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

How do we decide which cities are "well-known"? -Will Beback 06:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may: This is exactly where I find this discussion to be narrow-minded - it does not treat the issue on a global scale. Few of the world's people outside the US know where a state is, let alone the city spoken of, or even the fact that that city is in that state... and this separating cities into "having this or not, this big or not" status will make things even more complicated. Although having the state name in the title would have some informative value, the administrative heirarchy perhaps would be more practical elsewhere, say in the article introduction and as the article categories.

This naming discussion really should not be about convention - it should be about finding a correct form of disambiguation. THEPROMENADER 11:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ishu, I think the DHS list is problematic. I've made a (not quite complete) list of the cities it would cover at User:John Kenney/Airports. It is heavily biased towards airports near the Canadian and Mexican borders. I would think that Baton Rouge, Louisiana, or Des Moines, Iowa, are much better candidates for a move than International Falls, Minnesota, or Del Rio, Texas. The basis on which the airports are chosen is also odd. Teeterboro Airport in New Jersey but not La Guardia? I'm not really sure I quite understand what is going on with that list. If we are going to have a floor of places to consider, I would prefer if there were a number of different potential qualifiers. If we must have a series of objective criteria, the airport business would be okay as one criteria, but I'd suggest having other potential "minimum" criteria which would allow a city to be considered even if it didn't have an airport on the last. I'd notably suggest that status as a state capital, and probably that a certain agreed upon minimum size of either the city or the metropolitan area of which it is the center, or both, should qualify a place to be considered, if we're going to go that route. But I'm not sure that's necessary. There is no need for this convention to be tied to what "the majority of English-speakers" or "the majority of people in the world" would recognize. I still think that the simplest way to do this would be to use the criterion of whether a city is well-known outside its own vicinity. I've suggested this a number of times, and nobody has really responded. john k 11:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remember that the DHS list is not the sole determinant of whether a city may be moved. The border airports like Teeterboro (as I mentioned), Del Rio and International Falls aren't eligible because they are not well-known. La Guardia isn't a concern because New York City would be eligible for unqualified article name thanks to JFK airport. I think most of us agree that we wouldn't want more than 150 move requests. This list accomplishes that goal while also referring to a list of "less well-known" cities that people abroad might actually have reason to know since they could have traveled to/through/from them. Other people in the U.S. might know them for the same reasons. We don't have to guess (or worse, argue over) whether Garrett Park is "well-known" because it isn't a port of entry. Of course, we would have to discuss whether International Falls, Minnesota is "well-known," but that's a pretty simple discussion in my opinion. Even if legions of International Fallsians disagree with me, the Garrett Parkians would automatically be disqualified. In other words, while we may have disagreements over what "well-known" means, one couldn't apply "well-known" to any random city, only those on the DHS list. And the not-at-all-well-known cities on the DHS list aren't frequently used as ports of entry/exit by most people. I think this is a reasonable compromise. --ishu 12:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ishu, my point was that I don't see why we should a priori exclude relatively unique and well known places like Baton Rouge and Des Moines, while starting from a list that includes many much less well known and less important places. I don't see why there is this obsession with cities that people from abroad might be familiar with. There is absolutely nothing requiring that this should be our criterion. The AP list, at least, represents the efforts of a well known organization which is trying to do something that is at least comparable to what we are trying to do. Ths DHS list is completely arbitrary. It excludes many worthy, fairly obvious candidates while including a fairly substantial number of places that don't qualify under any reasonable definition of "well known." john k 13:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that the DHS list is not particularly useful to sorting out what is "well known" or "world class". Any article which currently redirects from City Name to City Name, State would be eligible in my view per the "common name" convention, but I understand that's probably a minority view on this page. Failing that, the AP list isn't bad, or the Global city list. -- nae'blis 18:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the AP list is a good starting point, as indicated in my original proposal, which stated "I would fully support the proposal if we add" the DHS list as a "Part III" to Part I (the comma convention) and Part II (the AP list). The intent of the DHS list is not to determine whether a city is "well-known." The separate "well-known" test would also be required for a move. The DHS list is intended to limit the list of candidates for "well-known" cities. My "obsession" strong preference is to find an objective list of features that would assure a city is indeed "well-known." A place that is familiar to people abroad is likely to be "well-known outside its immediate vicinity" and can be identified with the two-part test I have suggested. To this point in this discussion, no one has even claimed to be able to define "well-known." The best suggestion is to limit the definition to "not well-known outside their immediate vicinity," but that is still pretty squishy. Can we use this discussion to set guidelines around what defines "well-known?" For example, we have discussed two criteria, (1) being a state capital, and (2) being an international port of entry. If we can build some additional example criteria into the guideline as to what characterizes "well-known" I'd support the proposal. --ishu 22:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

At least twice on this page, I have suggested the objective criteria of being

1. The capital of a state and
2. The largest city in that state.

I recognise this rules out a number of the cities other participants would like included, and may introduce some odd choices, but it is objective and has been suggested, so the claim that no-one has attempted to define objective criteria is unfair. So far, the AP list is by far the best suggestion I have noticed. --Scott Davis 23:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be unfair if we were talking about the same thing. But on both occasions, you appear to be referring to the criteria for allowing unqualified cityname. I did a search on this page for well-known and found no instances where someone defined "well-known," which is the term that has been suggested repeatedly as a criterion for unqualified cityname. --ishu 05:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Scott, true, although I think that's very problematic unless there are additional criteria. A criterion by which Columbia, South Carolina is eligible to be moved, but Los Angeles, California and Chicago, Illinois are not, is very problematic. Effectively, your proposal would allow Boston, Massachusetts, Atlanta, Georgia and Honolulu, Hawaii to be moved. Possibly also Des Moines, Iowa and Nashville, Tennessee (I'm not sure if they're the largest cities). I can't think of any other - Charleston, WV; Columbia, SC; Providence, RI; etc. john k 12:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Scott is presenting these as exhaustive criteria, but John has a good point. I'm going to continue this discussion under the "Objective Criteria" section below in hopes of attracting a few more participants. --ishu 12:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• If I'm reading the oppose votes correctly, I sense a problem with the definition of what the exceptions would be for the reasons to oppose. Either major is not well defined or there are problems with the proposed list. If that's the case, then maybe we are close to consensus. There is support for the concept of the current proposal but the method for selecting the exceptions still needs additional refinement. Vegaswikian 20:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's also possible that those who are attached to the comma convention for irrational/emotional reasons will rationalize all kinds of reasons to oppose it (because they have no identifiable consistent rational reasoned argument to present). So if you try to satisfy one such objection they'll just conjure another and another... Not that I'm cynical or anything, but I've just seen it too much... --Serge 20:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Serge, I really wish you'd calm down and scale back your cynicism. Your ownership issues over this process appear to be driving some supporters away through voting fatigue, and hardening the positions of some opponents. Can you consider allowing other people to take the lead on this for a while? -- nae'blis 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Vegaswikian, I agree that this seems to be the sticking point, although even ironing out will certainly not lead to unanimity, so far as I can tell.

Could someone explain what will happen to the city articles where recent surveys decided to keep their current names if this proposal passes? Does this proposal override those votes? Could a small survey here override a larger survey in a city article? Does the override work both ways in the case of a city that is not on the AP list? -Will Beback 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Will, those surveys generally did not "decide to keep" the current name. They had no consensus either way, and thus the current name was kept by default. I think this is worth noting. john k 12:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that many of the oppose votes on the individual city votes cited the guideline as the reason for opposing, I would say a change to the guidelines changes everything. --Serge 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems unfair that we could use a survey that gets perhaps 16 responses to override a recent survey that got 35 responses, a survey that got 27 responses, one that got 24 responses, and another that got 30 responses. That precedent could mean that sometime in the future a handful of people could respond to a survey that would move cities like Chicago back to Chicago, Illinois. -Will Beback 00:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The logical and fair thing to do is to call all those participating in all former concerned motions to participate in this one. THEPROMENADER 01:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe notifications about these surveys have been made at most if not all of the relevant city talk pages. Have any been missed? --Serge 01:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that many editors are suffering from survey-fatigue. The notifications that were sent out were for the previous survey, which did not find a consensus. There were no notifications made for this new survey, at least that I am aware of. -Will Beback 01:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If they're not sufficiently interested in keeping up with what's going on here, then they're voting... abstain. You can lead a horse to water, but... --Serge 06:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, putting the priority on bringing a discussion to a logical conclusion instead of calling a vote when things swing one way or another would help too. Making "compromises" based on other participants (stubborn) points of view doesn't help either - it's an objective view on what the reader sees and understands that should be the nexus of discussion here.
I think it would be best to call everyone possible into one organised discussion on "fresh ground" - this one's been going on so long and in so many circles that more than a few - including myself - have become tired of it too. THEPROMENADER 09:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm back to this debate! Thanks, Polaron, for acknowledging my suggestion on international airports. The DHS list is a nice start, but that's not what I originally had in mind.

My inspiration comes from when I recently flew from New York to Manila via Northwest Airlines. When I traveled back to the US, in Tokyo, I remembered how Detroit and Minneapolis/St. Paul were stylized: without states. I also watch The Amazing Race, in which destinations are frequently said without mentioning the state. In an airport, there likely doesn't need to be a state in listing international destinations because that would not conform with listings of other destinations. But that also means that in international destinations, the U.S. cities are known without mentioning their states. (That doesn't mean they disregard the existence of the states, ever.)

The idea I was thinking of was: current or previous non-chartered passenger international service to United States airports in determining which U.S. cities don't need disambiguation. I would also add that passenger service should be outside of Canada and Mexico. This subset will probably parallel the AP list, I don't know. But I think it is a justifiable suggestion, since it shows how countries outside the U.S. consider which U.S. gateway cities they should serve.

I also support adding state capitals with my suggestion. Tinlinkin 15:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

I have initiated an alternate discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/comma for all cities to discuss whether we would be able to build consensus towards naming article about all citites and towns using City, State or City, Country style. This would be a big change which would require careful introduction if it were able to be agreed on. --Scott Davis 10:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the number of proposals popping up on top of each other will be barrier in trying to get a broad sampling of community consensus. Some visitors may have saw Serge's invitations to his poll and came over when that was opened and think that is that. Now we have Tariq's and now we have we this one, so do we conduct another mass posting "No wait! Here's another poll!". We got a rather thin consensus sampling with Serge's proposal as it was and I fret that we are going to get an even smaller sampling for both of these. That doesn't set up either proposal to have much credibility if only 15 or so editors comment on them. Agne 19:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement that Scott's proposal is not ready for approval in its present condition; so that's not a worry provided invitations link to the section on Tariq's proposal. Septentrionalis 22:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Cease fire?

An idea would be for all sides to agree to a "cease fire" of sort. (No new page move request to Cityname only and no action to move the current exceptions back to City, State). Let the dust settle on this for a month (and archive this page!). Then open up Dec with either Tariq's or Scott's proposal and try to get as much outside community input as we can. Leave that poll open for 2-3 weeks and see what kind of consensus we get. If there is no consensus move on to the next proposal. Again I think it's vital for the credibility of any proposal/compromise that comes out of this discussion to have as broad of a sampling consensus as possible. Plus "new blood" and new sets of eyes can be more productive then the "regulars" on this page debating the same points back and forth. I know that I, personally, would not have a problem with Tariq's proposal if it had the credibility of a clear consensus among a broad sampling of editors taking part in the discussion. (I would hope at least 50-60 editors taking part) I would also hope that some of the CITYNAME only folks would feel the same way if Scott's proposal passed with such a clear consensus. Right now I don't think either proposal would get anywhere near that amount of participation (Outside of vote stacking which no one would want) and so I think it would be best to have a "cease fire". What do you guys think? Agne 20:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to think that there would be consensus to stop renames either way pending a new proposal. I don't think that discussion should stop. The discussion on the list of exception cities should continue to make sure that we know how all of them will be handled for any possible exceptions to the exceptions. That way when a vote comes all of these possible concerns have been addressed. This should allow a proposal to be presented that has been well discussed and possible issues have been resolved. Then the vote should be cleaner since we are not still discussing should xxx, state not be changed because... Vegaswikian 03:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think there is harm in a continuing discussion (kinda like what they are doing with Scott's) but what is going above is a vote. I would also like to see this issue resolve but I don't think there is prudence to being impatient at this point. It is absolutely vital to the credibility of either proposal (Scott or Tariq's) to have a clear consensus from a broad sampling of community consensus or else nothing will be accomplished. Considering the large number of articles affected and the recent events with the US Highway debate, a token consensus made among the same 15 editors will have little weight. Unfortunately, even at this point, without the interjection of the fresh blood that encouraging a broad sampling of community consensus would give, the discussions among the same 15 editors will just be a recycling of the same discussions we've been having. If someone wants to follow Serge's footstep and add a "But wait!!! Come back! We have a ANOTHER proposal to vote on now" message to the Village Pump, active proposal and all the City pages, it might help to bring in some more views. But I'm worried that the folks who stopped by during Serge's proposal will either get confused with the proposal merry-go-round or not realize we have a new proposal.Agne 07:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Objective criteria suggestion

The information at List of U.S. states' largest cities could be helpful in establishing an objective criteria. For example, any city that meets any one of the following criteria is not to be predisambiguated (disambiguated when there is no ambiguity issue to resolved) with the comma convention:

1. Is a state capital.
2. Is one of the three largest cities in any state. See List of U.S. states' largest cities.
3. Is one of the five largest cities in one of the five largest states.

That's just an example. Thoughts? Comments? --Serge 01:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a solution without a problem. Why do we think that the articles for these particular cities, as opposed to others, need to be moved? Why should the third largest city be moved but not the fourth or the four hundredth? It still seems arbitrary and unnecessary. -Will Beback 02:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What's your suggestion for how to define a major or well-known city? Would you rather leave it open-ended as in the current wording of Part I? That works too but some people seem to want concrete criteria. If you have ideas as to how to delineate a major city, please share them so we can discuss more. --Polaron | Talk 03:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we leave all cities at the "City, State" naming convention. Right now we're picking almost random lists of cities with the justification that they "need" to be moved. -Will Beback 03:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Will, actually, as I think you know, I agree with you about this being arbitrary. I believe all city articles should be at Cityname per standard Misplaced Pages naming conventions regardless of whether they are "major" or not, unless there is a known ambiguity issue with that name. But there seems to be a contingent of folks who think cities that are not "major" should be predisambiguated, regardless of WP:D, WP:NC(CN), et. al. That leaves us with the problem of defining "major", for which this, or something like this, is merely a suggestion. This is a solution to that problem. But the core problem we're trying to solve, at least to some extent, is that we have hundreds of U.S. cities sitting at article names that are in violation of fundamental Misplaced Pages naming conventions and guidelines. --Serge 03:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The overall naming convention allows for variations, such as the dozens of specific naming conventions that exist. If you don't think that these varied naming conventions should exist why don't you propose deleting all of them? Why have an intentionally inconsistent U.S. city naming convention? Especialy when it is already consistently applied with very few exceptions? -Will Beback 03:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The overall naming convention allows for variations in how articles are disambiguated when disambiguation is required. That's fine. Why do you think proposing the deletion of the dozens of varied naming conventions would be consistent with my position? The specific naming conventions have an important purpose: to specify a consistent fashion in which to disambiguate articles within a given category of articles when disambiguation is required. But they should not be used to disambiguate preemptively which is contrary to widely followed conventions expressed in fundamental guidelines like WP:D and WP:NC(CN). It's unfortunate that some of the naming conventions have gone in the direction of violating these fundamental principles, but it's not too late to correct. Canadian city names have moved in the direction of correction, as have TV episode names (the preemptively disambiguated episode articles of Star Trek and Lost are on the brink of being corrected). Putting unambiguous U.S. city names at "City, State" is a solution to a non-existent problem, and, more importantly, the creation of an unnecessary problem of Misplaced Pages inconsistency. Why leave it broken when we can fix it? Let's do it! --Serge 06:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• The AP proposal makes more sense than any other means of calculating whether a city should be able to be recognized without being chained to its state. However, I am of the opinion that the matter is one for editors to use their judgment with. That would allow us to use Misplaced Pages's greatest resource - a plethora of editors, and not succumb to the hobgoblin of little mindedness. Therefore, I propose letting the generic naming convention "disambiguate when necessary" apply to all articles, US city or otherwise. --Dystopos 04:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The current US city article naming convention (without the exceptions) is consistent with the quoted (at right) naming convention in a nutshell. Especially once you've seen a few articles named this way, it's easy to extrapolate to guess what other city articles will be named. Article titles are generally unambiguous, and linking to them is easy and second nature without having to check whether there is somewhere or something else using the name. Once the exception lists grows beyond about seven, most editors will no longer be able to remember which city articles need a state and which don't. If the majority of people need a bunch of exceptions, I can accept the AP list. I know my capital-and-largest criteria are not suitable for the US. --Scott Davis 13:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I support a no-exceptions comma convention, but there appears no chance of a consensus on that proposal for years, if ever. That being unlikely, the pragmatist in me prefers to draw lines around the exceptions (the alternative would be to continue these discussions... ugh!). --ishu 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

How about something like this:

Smaller locations that are not well-known outside their immediate vicinity should not be moved from "City, State"; they should remain disambiguated with their respective state names, regardless of the uniqueness of the names of the cities. Features that characterize a "well-known" city include (1) being a state capital; (2) being the largest city in the state; (3) being a port-of-entry for routinely scheduled international air traffic.

This being a guideline, the list would be neither definitive nor exhaustive, yet provide more guidance about what is meant by "well-known." Please feel free to suggest additional characteristics to include in the list.

I think every AP city should qualify under these guidelines, and this wouldn't explicitly refer to any outside lists, although one could use external lists to make the case for a particular city. I considered adding a fourth feature:

(4) being the largest contributor to a major industry in the state

to allow a chance for places like Biloxi, Mississippi. People probably won't like the "international airport" criterion, but we'll need at least three criteria if we want to include places like San Diego, California without relying on the AP list. I don't like using n largest cities, since it requires awkward formations like "five largest cities in one of the five largest states" to include San Diego and San Antonio, for example. --ishu 13:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What about

(3) Giving its name to a major professional sports team?

That would include, besides state-capitals and largest cities in states. If we add this to state capitals and largest cities, that gives us the following list of potential cities (obviously ambiguous ones striked through - this doesn't mean that other names might not be ambiguous, just that they don't strike me as clearly such):

• Birmingham, Alabama
• Montgomery, Alabama
• Anchorage, Alaska
• Juneau, Alaska
• Phoenix, Arizona
• Little Rock, Arkansas
• Anaheim, California
• Los Angeles, California
• Oakland, California
• Sacramento, California
• San Diego, California
• San Francisco, California
• San Jose, California
• Denver, Colorado
• Bridgeport, Connecticut
• Hartford, Connecticut
• Dover, Delaware
• Wilmington, Delaware
• Washington, D.C.
• Jacksonville, Florida
• Miami, Florida
• Orlando, Florida
• Tallahassee, Florida
• Tampa, Florida
• Atlanta, Georgia
• Honolulu, Hawaii
• Boise, Idaho
• Chicago, Illinois
• Springfield, Illinois
• Indianapolis, Indiana
• Des Moines, Iowa
• Topeka, Kansas
• Wichita, Kansas
• Frankfort, Kentucky
• Louisville, Kentucky
• Baton Rouge, Louisiana
• New Orleans, Louisiana
• Augusta, Maine
• Portland, Maine
• Annapolis, Maryland
• Baltimore, Maryland
• Boston, Massachusetts
• Detroit, Michigan
• Lansing, Michigan
• Minneapolis, Minnesota
• St. Paul, Minnesota
• Jackson, Mississippi
• Jefferson City, Missouri
• Kansas City, Missouri
• St. Louis, Missouri
• Billings, Montana
• Helena, Montana
• Lincoln, Nebraska
• Omaha, Nebraska
• Carson City, Nevada
• Las Vegas, Nevada
• Concord, New Hampshire
• Manchester, New Hampshire
• Newark, New Jersey
• Trenton, New Jersey
• Albuquerque, New Mexico
• Santa Fe, New Mexico
• Albany, New York
• Buffalo, New York
• New York, New York (at New York City)
• Charlotte, North Carolina
• Raleigh, North Carolina
• Bismarck, North Dakota
• Fargo, North Dakota
• Cincinnati, Ohio
• Cleveland, Ohio
• Columbus, Ohio
• Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
• Portland, Oregon
• Salem, Oregon
• Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
• Providence, Rhode Island
• Columbia, South Carolina
• Pierre, South Dakota
• Sioux Falls, South Dakota
• Memphis, Tennessee
• Nashville, Tennessee
• Austin, Texas
• Dallas, Texas
• Houston, Texas
• San Antonio, Texas
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• Burlington, Vermont
• Montpelier, Vermont
• Richmond, Virginia
• Virginia Beach, Virginia
• Olympia, Washington
• Seattle, Washington
• Charleston, West Virginia
• Green Bay, Wisconsin
• Madison, Wisconsin
• Milwaukee, Wisconsin
• Cheyenne, Wyoming

I think that professional sports times are actually a fairly good measure, because those cities are more or less familiar to most Americans. Most cities that I would consider are well-known enough to go in, despite not having a pro-sports team, qualify for one or both of the other reasons, like being the largest city in a state (notably Las Vegas). There's a few cities that one might be inclined to move, despite not fitting one of these criteria (Tucson, Arizona comes to mind), but I think this would be a fairly reasonable list of "well known" American cities. Thoughts? john k 15:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not crazy about the sports team criterion, but it seems to work. John, can you tag the cities that are on this list only because of the sports franchise? And I assume you mean "major league," right? Don't want Hagerstown, Maryland or Pawtucket, Rhode Island to claim they're "major."

I've bolded the cities that qualify only because of the sports team rule. And, yes, I mean cities with teams in Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, and/or the National Hockey League. john k 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I still don't like the concept, yet I like the result more and more. Nearly all of the sports-team-only cities are places that most people would indeed recognize, certainly within the U.S., and many of them abroad, too. --ishu 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is what "most people would recognize" even a consideration? The WP:NC guideline says "give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize", but what that means is to give priority to recognizable English terms over foreign terms; it does mean to use a name so that "most people would recognize" the subject of the article from just seeing the name, which is how it seems to be interpreted for U.S. city names. If that were the intent, then most Misplaced Pages article names would be much, much longer. For example, if that were the intent, in the realm of cities, we would have to include the country in all city article titles for all but the most famous cities. This is why I don't understand the preference of many of you for a proposal that calls for predisambiguated titles for lesser known cities, and to not require predisambigation only for cities that "most people would recognize" by Cityname alone. Why is what "most people would recognize" even a consideration for U.S city article names when it is not a consideration for other articles in Misplaced Pages? Why should U.S cities be an exception? --Serge 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is what "most people would recognize" even a consideration? Serge, you often refer to WP:NC (CN), which states "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Hence the "most people recognize" standard: What is the common name of a place? Our dilemma is: What is the "common name" for places that are not "well-known?" And, "who is the relevant 'common group' when deciding what is the 'common name'?" If I understand correctly, you would have us use the local name except when there is a disambiguation issue, since that is the only "common name" for an otherwise unknown place.

This suggestion (if it is what you prefer) presents a practical problem identified by Scott Davis: Inconsistent article titles make linking difficult. There are probably tens of thousands of places if not more in the U.S. Under a consistent convention, it is simple to link from an otherwise non-notable place like McComb, Mississippi to pages of celebrities like Britney Spears (or [[Brandy Norwood and Bo Diddley). Given the hundreds (if not thousands) of places that would require such disambiguation, and the guesswork required when linking, some balance is needed between ease of linking and the "common name" of a place. Otherwise, linking will be difficult, and name conflicts and mis-pointed links will occur.

Finally, place names are different for a number of reasons, but most importantly because place names are an example of "everyday disambiguation" It's very common to refer to a place on first reference as as Paris, France or Greenville, South Carolina, and virtually nobody believes that the "common name" of the place is Paris, France or Greenville, South Carolina. It's understood that the country or state or province is a disambiguation. Put differently, disambiguation is not exclusive to Misplaced Pages, and is commonly used in daily life. Other topics like animals are not understood in this way, since common names (e.g., "monkeys") are clearly inappropriate when referring to species or even monkeys from different parts of the world. --ishu 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ishu, why do you interpret "the most common name" to mean "the most common name for places that are not well known"? How is how "well known" a subject is relevant to the question of what is the most common name used to refer to that subject?

The red herring ease-of-linking argument is oft-repeated. No one is suggesting eliminating "city, state" as redirects, so all the links will work and new ones can be made.

As far as the place names argument goes, yes, places are often referred to with additional contextual information (Paris, France), but the name is still the Cityname alone, and that is the way they are most commonly referred to by the vast majority who refer to them (the extra contextual information is a first-time exception and is never part of the name).

Finally, it is useful in Misplaced Pages to know that when you get to a page titled Name, that there is no other subject that shares that name. Currently, when clicking on a link to "Cityname, Statename", if the article we are taken to is named Cityname, Statename, the reader has no way of knowing if there are any other subjects that share the name Cityname. This is confusing and inconsistent. If we only disambiguated with Cityname, Statename when disambiguation was required, then the reader who lands on a page named Cityname, Statename would know that there is at least one more subject that shares the name Cityname. That it is an interesting and useful feature in Misplaced Pages. Why take that from the reader with U.S. city articles? --Serge 23:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Where a sports team plays should not be a criteria. They move! Also the team may be associated with a city and be located in a small city or a different state New York Giants being an example of the latter point. Vegaswikian 18:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not say "where a sports team plays". I said "cities that have professional sports teams named after them." The New York Giants are named after New York City, not after wherever the Meadowlands are. The point is what city it's associated with, not what city it actually plays in. I said it that way for a reason. In terms of moving, sure. If a new city gets a franchise, and isn't on the list for another reason, it could be considered for a move. If a city loses all its franchises (which seems unlikely), and is not otherwise eligible, we could then consider it for a move back. At any rate, the point isn't sports teams per se. The point is that the cities with professional sports teams map fairly closely to "most important cities in the country". We could add other potential categories on, if you like, so that sports teams aren't alone in being odd. Or we could give those particular rules as simply being examples of the kinds of things that would make a city "well known outside its immediate vicinity", without being an exhaustive checklist of all able criteria. For instance, we could say:

Smaller locations that are not well-known outside their immediate vicinity should not be moved from "City, State"; they should remain disambiguated with their respective state names, regardless of the uniqueness of the names of the cities. Some features which might characterize a "well-known" city would include (1) being a state capital; (2) being the largest city in the state; (3) having a major professional sports team which shares its name; (4) being served by a major airport; etc.

This would make clear that other criteria of a similar type would also be acceptable as reasons for a city being considered to be "well known." john k 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously - I've been away from this discussion for a while, but since returning it seems that I'm waaaay over my head. How did the naming an article reasoning descend to such criteria as airports and basketball teams? Could you imagine the Encyclopedia Britannica delegates depending on such criteria for their article naming conventions? No, they think beyond this. This line of thinking is an end to itself - not wiki readership objectivity.

Really. Pretend that the person reading doesn't know where the city in question is, nor what state it is in, and think from there. THEPROMENADER 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea: let's just stay with the comma convention unless there's a real need to make an exception (e.g. Springfield, Wisconsin). The comma convention is straightforward. It's easy for editors to use and for readers to understand. Changing it will gain us nothing, or less.

Creating exceptions will lead to disputes, as people treat short-name titles as a promotion that some cities 'deserve'. Look at how much trouble it's been to find objective criteria to justify exceptions: "major" cities, AP-dateline cities, capital cities, well-known-in-India cities, cities with airports, cities with sports teams, cities with major industries ... all of which are subject to change. Why don't we just skip all that? If a city's so great, let's spend our time explaining why inside the article.

The current situation, where we have a rule that about half of wikipedia editors don't particularly like, has also led to disputes, and continues to do so. john k 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And it's not like we're starting from scratch; we've already got thousands of articles with names which correspond to their subjects, with zillions of incoming links. Moving a bunch of articles, and updating their links (and then, oops, having to move some of them back) involves a fair amount of work—entirely unnecessarily. Consistency, clarity, and stability are good things. Other than Serge, does anyone actively oppose the established naming conventions?

—wwoods 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, consistency, clarity, and stability are good things. By supporting the use of the comma convention for U.S. city article names that do not require disambiguation you "actively oppose the established naming conventions" that practically define Misplaced Pages and are reflected in guidelines at WP:NAME and WP:D. --Serge 23:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Many of us actively oppose the current state of affairs. I also don't understand why Springfield, Wisconsin would be an example of a need to make an exception to the comma rule - that's a clear case where the comma rule is necessary. john k 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Springfield, Wisconsin is a dab page between (largely) different Springfields in Wisconsin. The individual articles therefore must be exceptions to City, State. The (existing) solution of Municipality, County, State seems to work fine, however. Septentrionalis 17:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing is incredibly irritating. Whenever anyone tries to develop a specific list, people whine that it's arbitrary. Whenever we say it should be up to individual judgment on a case-by-case basis, people whine that it's vague. What the hell do people want? Australia has a specific list - state capitals plus Canberra are eligible to be moved. That works fine. That particular criterion wouldn't work well for the US, because most of our large cities aren't state capitals, and many aren't even the largest city in the state (Cleveland, Ohio, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, San Francisco, California). So if we want to come up with formal criteria for excluding some cities, we need to come up with some sort of list that will include most major American cities, while excluding most others. I tried to say the AP list, but people complained that it was arbitrary. Now I try suggesting a more multi-part criteria, and people complain that it's arbitrary. Look, any pre-created list of American cities is going to be arbitrary, because the easy criteria (capitals, largest city in the state) are inappropriate and would leave out very important cities while leaving in much smaller ones.

The other option is not to have a pre-created list, but to use common sense about which cities are "well known outside their immediate vicinity." This would be my preference, but there seems to be a great deal of opposition to this idea, too. I thought we were actually moving towards at least some kind of consensus that Tariq's idea might be a good basis for changing the rule, but instead we're getting nowhere. Dare I mention mediation again? john k 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with john. I'd rather not create an explicit list but do include a non-exhaustive list of characteristics that a city might have to make it eligible to be moved to the unqualified name. Even without a definite list, I do not believe there will be this onslaught of moves that some people are afraid of. Surely, common sense will serve as a limiting factor. --Polaron | Talk 00:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A list of cities that qualifies as "exceptions" is not arbitrary, its entire purpose is to appease the Wiki editors themselves... ! What about the readers? Of course it is irritating to come up with a unique naming convention, especially when other conventions (sometimes seen as flawed) are used in argument against reason - endless circles, man.

What we seem to have here is, because a majority of Wiki's editors US contributors, a majority of Wiki editors comfortable with the (often oral) very-US practice of saying and writing "City, State". Most foreigners are not aware of this practice, and most foreigners do not know where states are, let alone the cities. What you have to decide here is the target audience - US comfort of standard US practices, or foreign ignorance? - only then should you decide on a form (and level) of disambiguation. THEPROMENADER 09:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any basis for your claims about majorities? Many of us US editors are irked that major American cities, unlike major cities that are primary topics in every other country in the world, are pre-emptively disambiguated. Of those who have voted in favor of the proposal above, User:Tariqabjotu, User:Bkonrad, User:DaveOinSF, User:John Kenney (er, me), User:Georgia guy (I assume), and User:Josiah Rowe are all American or live in the US. Over at Talk:Philadelphia, I see that among those who voted to move from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Philadelphia were the following who are either American or live in the United States at present: User:Evrik, User:Kafziel, User:Dralwik, User:Looper5920, User:Danntm, User:Ccwaters, User:Spikebrennan, and User:John Kenney (er, me). That's only among people who indicate their nationality on their user page. All indications suggest that the vast majority of people who have participated in this debate on both sides are American. john k 12:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, you can include me in those lists. I'm a native Californian. --Serge 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected then - especially since I made it sound like a "US vs. the rest of the World" question. There is at least large part of the majority of American editors who opt for the "City, State" nameform because they feel comfortable with it - this part of my affirmation you can retain. As for being "irked" ad a pre-emptive disambiguation... why? Uniformity? If this is to be "World wiki" for a worldwide audience and a single standard, this I can understand. THEPROMENADER 13:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Pre-disambiguation should be decided based on the risk of an eventual need for disambiguation. Of two placenames having the same name, the more important of the two should retain the disambiguated state, and the second most important would take the disambiguated form - this is where a "list of criteria" could come into play. THEPROMENADER 13:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pre-disambiguation should be decided based on "the risk of an eventual need for disambiguation"? Why? Regardless of the risk, if it's relatively well known (like Boston), it should be at Cityname. If it's not so well known, it should be at Cityname anyway, unless there is an ambiguity issue. If there is no amibiguity issue, but there is a "risk" of one, what does that matter? Leave it at Cityname. If another topic comes up, moving it to Cityname, Statename will not be a big deal by definition, since it's not relatively well known, and, so the number of links to Cityname at that point will be limited. --Serge 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. Ask yourself: What are the chances of more than two placenames having the same name? How often will this phenonmenon occur - if so, will disambiguation be so widespread as to appear almost general? At what level (city, state) will it not occur so often as to retain some form of uniformity between articles, and make those needing disambiguation seem an obvious and comprehensible exception to an obvious standard? THEPROMENADER 00:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

PPS: Yes I know that this may create a "level of disambiguation" conflict - between "cityname" disambiguated and "community" or "neighbourhood" disambiguated. It may be propice to decide on a "target level of no disambiguation" - for example, "cityname" without disambiguation (if possible) and anything under that (community or neighbourhood) associated with its city name (or "neighbourhood, City). If you wanted to target "statename" as a level of "no disambiguation", evey cityname would be associated with its state and every community with its city (meaning "community, city, state"). This would create a uniformity from one article to the next - the uniformity that is important for reader comprehension. This problem must be approached and resolved constructively for comprehensive results. THEPROMENADER 14:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Of two placenames having the same name, the more important of the two should retain the disambiguated state, and the second most important would take the disambiguated form... This is the big problem. It is simple to conclude that ] should refer to Boston, Massachusetts and not Boston, Georgia. But most places are un-"important" and not "well-known" so it is difficult to determine which of the communities named "Lakewood," "Englewood," or "Glendale" is the "most important" or most "well-known." Sure, we could say "When n or more communities share the same name..." but determining n is arbitrary. Besides, there are five places in the U.S. called Boston (not including four other places like Boston Heights, Ohio and South Boston, Virginia or those named New Boston).

This topic was productive when John and I and a few others were hashing out a set of (sample?) criteria that can be used to determine whether a city is "important" or "well-known" enough to merit CityName only. Can we return to that discussion? I now agree that a fixed list should not be used (and is not necessary). --ishu 16:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The "big problem" you describe is standard everyday stuff for Misplaced Pages that is faced by every article. Why is it a "big problem" only for U.S. city articles? --Serge 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How would you determine which of the communities named "Lakewood," "Englewood," or "Glendale" is the "most important" or most "well-known?" There is significant redundancy in place names that is unique to places. Consider the article for Monkeys that discusses this particular group of primates, and links to particular suborders, families, etc. of monkeys. The "average reader" of WP would likely call them all "monkeys." Would this be the "common name?" At any rate, the topic structure for Monkey (and animals in general) is inappropriate for places, many of which share nothing in common except for the name. --ishu 17:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

WP editors are constantly determining whether one particular subject is "most important" for a given name, or whether all subjects with that name should be disambiguated and listed on a dab page, like Portland, or A Trip to the Moon. This "big problem" is neither "big" nor unique in any respect to U.S. cities. The way you determine which if any "Englewood" or "Glendale" is the most important is using the google test, counting WP links, discussion, surveys, being bold, etc. In fact, all this was already resolved long ago for your three examples of Englewood, Lakewood and Glendale - they are all dab pages. There is no "big problem". --Serge 17:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course they're all DAB pages. For example, of six Englewoods, all--except for Englewood, Chicago--were created by the bot that you loathe so much--which created them under article names following the comma convention that you loathe so much.

Of 14 Glendales, nine were created by a bot except for Glendale, California, Glendale, Kentucky, Glendale, Nevada, Glendale, Queens, Glendale, Rhode Island. The earliest article appears to be Glendale, California, in 2002. The five later articles created by editors and could have been created under ], but weren't because the editors observed the comma convention.

But if the current comma convention had not been in place for U.S. city articles, then the situation would be the same as for any other articles in Misplaced Pages, and the creators of the five later articles would have still disambiguated, because ] would still have already been a dab page per standard conventions and WP:D and WP:NAME guidelines. I don't understand why think disambiguation within a given category (U.S. city names) cannot be normally dealt with per the accepted general naming conventions and guidelines. Why do you feel all names within that category must be predisambiguated in order to avoid some "big problem"? This is not the case for any category in Misplaced Pages, including for city names for the vast majority of other countries. Why do you think this is uniquely a "big problem" for U.S. city articles? --Serge 19:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions: Your proposal opens the door for one of the six Englewoods to move to ]. How would you determine which of the communities is the "most important" or most "well-known?" Since the Google test provides no guidance on this particular issue, how would you use a search engine to determine which Englewood should have sole use of the term? If you believe Englewood should remain DAB, then how would you determine when to make a city DAB and when not to? Please recall that the comma convention is much clearer as to when DAB and when not DAB. Of course, Los Angeles, Boston, and Chicago are the easy cases, but you wish to use unqualified cityname much more widely than most people in this discussion. How do you determine when one place gets unqualified cityname and when cityname goes to DAB? --ishu 18:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You determine these issues the same way the same determination is made for every other set of two or more subjects that share the same name and have articles in Misplaced Pages. Again, this is not a "big problem", nor is it unique in any respect for U.S. city names. I don't understand why you seem to feel the answer might be different for U.S. city articles than it would be for any other articles in Misplaced Pages. Can you explain this please? --Serge 19:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good lord. I think one should take the "more important" example with a grain of salt - and I meant it only for obvious examples such as "big city vs. burg". Would you suggest all locales at the same adminstrative level be disambiguated? A possibility. Actually, forget everything I said but "target level of non-disambiguation" - deal with this for questions of uniformity (for reader comprehension), and the other problems will show themselves afterwards. THEPROMENADER 23:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This latest tack makes no sense. Of course Glendale and Englewood are disambiguation pages; there's no one Englewood or Glendale that springs to mind for most non-local readers, thus no primary topic. Los Angeles, Biloxi, etc are totally different. -- nae'blis 00:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Renaming

The argument has been made here that the U.S. isn't building new cities; with the implication that we have a fixed set of names, so it is easy to tell which are unambiguous. That conclusion does not follow. Aberdeen, New Jersey used to be Matawan Township, New Jersey; Ocean Township, New Jersey changed its name, in the past election, to Toms River, New Jersey. Now both names for Aberdeen require disambiguation; Ocean Township has, I think, moved from one that does to one that doesn't. But how does the poor editor, or reader, know, without consulting a place-name guide before consulting an encyclopedia?

That's why we should dismbiguate pre-emptively, as we do with royalty; see WP:NC (names and titles). As with royalty, a few cases, like Los Angeles, are so well known as not to need dabbing. Septentrionalis 18:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the rationale for why only a limited set should be exceptions, and also why the burden should always be on the part of those who want a move. At any rate, as I've said before, I think Tariq's proposal, as currently worded, would more or less correct most of the problems that those of us who dislike the current convention have seen, without opening things up to much more radical change that many wisely wish to avoid. john k 18:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

State of play

It gets really annoying how any time we are in the middle of discussing one proposal, somebody comes along and proposes a completely different one. Given that, in the case of Promenader's proposal, it is a) not well-tailored to the actual issues we have been discussing, but rather designed to address a perceived problem that apparently exists throughout our city article naming; and b) highly unlikely to actually succeed, given the responses to Serge's somewhat similar proposals earlier, it seems to me that we should put it aside, at least for the moment.

On the other hand, Tariq's proposal has so far generated a fair degree of support. At present, about 60% of those who have weighed in have found it acceptable. Unless anyone has any specific wording changes they'd like to propose, I'm going to suggest that we

1. Clear off the talk page, except for Tariq's proposal and the votes which have already been made for and against it; and
2. Advertise the vote as widely as possible, and set formal poll guidelines (time limit, etc.).

Thoughts? john k 13:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly not an open-minded proposition, john. It doesn't matter who has been in this discussion, nor for how long, it's what's being discussed that is important. No-one here can expect any newcomer to the discussion to have a) followed the discussion from the start and b) make propositions based only on what has been discussed in the talk page.

That aside, my propostion in fact is based on what I've seen here. In some ways it seems that a few of you are just making compromises with each other (for reasons I don't know - impatience? exasperation?) and I really do think there are several issues being mixed here and points being missed. Especially as far as the latest compromise is concerned. I'm not even proposing anything per se - all I propose here is that we take a step back from the fray and attempt to look at this objectively from a reader - not contributor - point of view. THEPROMENADER 14:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: But do as you will. If you all feel locked into something that you feel must be completed, than so be it. Just allow me to express my own reservations and thoughts from my (hopefully objective) "outsider" point of view. THEPROMENADER 14:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

To be blunt, Promenader, I think your proposal, as far as I understand it (I must admit I find it a bit confusing), represents the worst of both worlds. It abandons the familiarity of the "City, Larger Subdivision" form, which is the natural way to disambiguate city names in most of the anglophone world, but doesn't even seem to result in simpler names, as apparently your proposal would require Orléans (France) - that is to say, it would require moving articles from simple titles to more complicated ones. It seems like there's something to dislike for everyone, and very little to like. john k 18:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Argh, did I explain myself so badly? I proposed quite the opposite - to retain a "simplest form" if at all possible. If you'd read again my example I left on the "(France)" just for the sake of example. Boston is still Boston just above. All I have ever proposed here is a separation of convention and disambiguation methods for (readership) clarity. Please look again to the end of the #Yet Yet Another Proposal thread for another example. Perhaps I should start afresh in another thread under a more fitting title. THEPROMENADER 18:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you had better state your proposal exactly, and in a new section. At the moment, it appears to have much the same effect on American places as Serge's proposal, here, while being both vaguer and world-wide in scope. Serge did not have a majority, let alone consensus. This is why yours being dismissed: we've just been through this. Septentrionalis 18:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, apologies for the repetition. I do understand that things did get quite "obsessive" here for a while (which is exactly why I left the discussion months before) but my presentation is nothing of the kind - I would like it to speak for itself and be damned any similarities to anyone's former actions. I'll do you one better: I'll start a sub-page. Find it below. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Discernible Disambiguation

I've outlined my thoughts/proposition below. This is more a line of debate rather than a definitive solution in itself. THEPROMENADER 19:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary

I think it clear until now that there has been a mix-up between convention and disambiguation, and it is this that is making this discussion so long and complicated. Each element should have its own purpose, be instantly identifiable as such, and be treated in its own context for what it is. This would create a) different naming convention possibilities and b) make disambiguation identifiable as such to the reader. This should be taken step by step.

I - Create an Identifiable Disambiguation method

I chose brackets. These allow for the "pipe trick" in article Wikilinking (although I hear the comma works too now), and it seems that whatever is between is obviously identifiable as "secondary". States, counties, burgs, or anything would do the trick. This immediately makes several naming conventions possible, as the following. Nota: "most famous" places are left in their "long form" for sake of example. Once separated from the rest of the title by brackets, the "disambiguation text" can take on any form and still be identifiable as such.

• City convention
  • Boston (Massachusetts) ... Boston (New York)
  • Central Park, Boston (Massachusetts) ... Hill Street, Boston (New York)
  • Springfield (Dane County, Wisconsin) OR Springfield (Wisconsin, Dane County)

• City, State convention:
  • Boston, Massachusetts ... Boston, New York
  • Central Park, Boston, Massachusetts ... Hill Street, Boston, New York
  • Springfield, Wisconsin (Dane County)

II - Choose a Convention

Once the method of disambiguation is clear and identifiable, any convention will be identifiable (as such) as well.

III - Choose what (should be/deserves not to be) disambiguated

If at all possible, keep the shortest form of course. What qualifies as "best known" is a debate in itself.

IV - in light of the above

Anything from here down are my views on a "working model" made from the above elements.

Optimal solutions?

The "City, State" format is tenacious probably because it is both "comfortable" (US common usage) and "naturally disambiguated" (without being identifiably so). Yet from an encyclopaedic point of view it is rather pointless - it provides an only 'in-part' additional administrative information, and this information is only useful to those who are familiar with the state itself. It is probably for both these reasons that Encyclopaedias (US and foreign) do not disambiguate using the City, State method. In fact, most encyclopaedias do not disambiguate at all. But Wiki is not paper, and it must disambiguate. Thus, since disambigation is obligatory and unavoidable, best have an easily-identifiable disambiguation method to avoid its confusion with conventions.

Personally I think that "Cityname" should be the standard, but with bracket disambiguation, any disambiguation would be possible. For example the US could retain "City, State" and France could retain "City" as long as any "disambiguation words" outside the identifiable "country convention" are placed between brackets. Personally I don't see the sense in "City, State" but at least with this separation, a switch won't be painful.

If there is one additional thing to add, that would be that I see much logic in creating a convention whereas a "city locale" is always followed by its city (separated by a comma) as the risk of conflict at this level is great enough to merit this rule, and frankly it seems logical that placename below the "placename" administrative level (town, etc) should be identified with its owner.

I think that about sums it up. THEPROMENADER 19:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• I like your definition of the City, State convention better then what we have now for cases like Springfield, Wisconsin (Dane County) rather then Springfield, Dane County, Wisconsin since it maintains the editorial sytle and makes clear what is being disambiguated. If nothing else changes from this discussion, the dabs for multiple use within a state should be changed to the format you are suggesting. I would be suprised if there was a problem with getting consensus on this one point. Vegaswikian 23:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about your Hill Street, Boston, New York example. If this is a street and if we dab duplicates in a state as you suggest, then it may be more logical to use Hill Street (Boston, New York) since this is a dab rather then a style issue. I think this was what schools decided a while ago. Vegaswikian 23:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Some good points there. Especially in the "streetname" technicalities. I see also that adding "city" after an "in-city locale" with a comma ("streetname, city") can create confusion when used with the "city, state" convention - and imagine if some cities are only "city" and other "city, state" - the two and three-level variations will be confusing to the reader. All the more to say that everything outside of the subject of the article should be treated as DAB and presented as such: between brackets (or whatever DAB method decided upon). It would work, anyways. THEPROMENADER 00:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• It seems to me that you have confused disambiguation with qualification, rather than with convention. That being said, Los Angeles, California, is the fully qualified name, with Los Angeles as a nickname. (I don't know how to spell MA, and my spell-checker is on the blink because of a possible spyware infection.) Also, your logic requrires the disambiguation to be Springfield (Dane County), Wisconsin rather than Springfield, Wisconsin (Dane County). (Actually, I think that's an improvement over the current convention and tariq's proposal, but I don't know whether the pipe trick works for qualification + disambiguation.)
• In other words, your point I doesn't reflect the current status or tariq's proposal; the state name is a qualification rather than a disambiguation or convention and should be treated as a separate category. I then agree with point III except to note that qualifications should not be removed except in exceptional circumstances, although diambiguations should only be included when necessary (or likely to become necessary in the near future). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• As for the street article name problem, I tend to agree with Vegaswikian. This convention only deals with settlements, not streets or (necessarily) subsets of communities. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what you mean by "qualification" - by what standards, US local? Then this is another word for "accepted convention" - and no, nothing of any discussion has entered this one. This is an attempt at an objective look at Wiki media vs. its readership comprehenstion. THEPROMENADER 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Los Angeles" is not a "nickname." It is the completely correct short form name of the city formally known as the "City of Los Angeles". "California" is not part of the name at all. See, for instance, the official website. john k 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't on the merits at all, but is rather procedural, but, as I said before, I think we should go back to talking about Tariq's proposal, which seemed closest to potentially achieving some kind of consensus for a change. Perhaps it isn't perfect, and perhaps it's too obviously and awkwardly a "compromise" between what are actually irreconcilable positions, but we need to pick some proposal to try to go beyond getting the opinions of the 20 of us who read this talk page, and that looks like the best bet. Are we actually trying to accomplish something, or just doing this to hear ourselves talk? john k 20:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  I think it's reasonable to assume there are some sandbagging delay tactics at play here. I support Tariq's proposal as a step in the right direction, but, fundamentally, it is just as flawed as are the current U.S. city naming guidelines (in violation of WP:NAME and WP:D). Either qualification of the most simple/common name is allowed for some reason other than disambiguation, or it is not. If it is, you're opening the door for qualifying for just about any reason. Allowing qualification for reasons other than disambiguation has been found to be a Pandora's Box in all kinds of categories. For example, see Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television). --Serge 21:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  No sandbagging tactics at all here - but I must say that I don't consider introducing two conventions where one will serve a good idea. Anyhow, even this wouldn't matter if we could define and use a clear-cut and identifiable method of disambiguation different from convention. THEPROMENADER 22:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  Promenader, your proposal does not actually address the issue that we have heretofore been discussing, in that it's unclear whether the "City, State" version would accommodate having the Boston, Massachusetts article at Boston, which question has been the whole thing we've been discussing. john k 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  John, this discussion is a complete other, and is not even a proposition per se. If you would like to continue with your vote please do, but if anything here is worth considering, please feel free to consider it as well. I'm not asking anyone to stop anything, nor am I attempting to. THEPROMENADER 22:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation vs. qualification

With regard to the disambiguation/qualification confusion...they are almost the same thing. In particular, qualifying a name in order to disambiguate from other uses of that name is disambiguation. Qualifying a name that does not need to be disambiguated is "predisambiguation". So disambiguation is a form of qualification: it is qualification done for the specific reason of disambiguating. Qualification done for any reason other than disambiguation is, well, unconventional, confusing and inconsistent with widely observed Misplaced Pages naming conventions and guidelines. --Serge 18:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The "qualification" definition seems to be a "local" (Wiki contributor) creation whose definition is most probably indetectible (thus indefinable) to the reader - so for the sake of discussion just consider it to be another "convention". All I ask is that you make disambiguation clear for what it is to the reader - this will waylay all "name" confusion and even make possible new conventions. THEPROMENADER 22:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Another reason to provide name qualification for placenames is to provide a broader context. Telling the reader that something happened in Spangle probably gives most of them no clue at all without clicking on the link, and losing the context of the article they were reading. Telling them it happened in Spangle allows them to wave the mouse over the link, and reading the tooltip may well give the required context to keep reading without following the link. --Scott Davis 22:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, qualification is whatever comes before a pipe, and is different from what's displayed? I wonder what happens with parenthesis and nothing after the pipe Spangle... hey, the same! No matter, as the roads to both uses are open. If "qualification" is a link to an article (thus to its name), than it can include anything (convention or disambiguation) - let's not confuse things! I think it would be simpler to keep the question to the article title. THEPROMENADER 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, qualification has nothing to do with piping. Qualification is anything in an article name (the actual title) that is beyond the simple/common name of the subject. The only uncontroversial reason to further qualify an article name in Misplaced Pages is to disambiguate it from other uses of that name. But some argue Pandora's Box should be opened to allow qualification for other reasons too, like to provide "broader context". --Serge 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The occasional need for "broader context" is not unique to U.S. city article names or city article names in general. For example, telling the reader that something happened in Blue Balls Lagoon probably gives most them no clue at all without clicking on the link, and losing the context of the article they were reading. Telling them it happened in Blue Balls Lagoon allows them to wave the mouse over the link, and reading the tooltip may well give the required context to keep reading without following the link.

Of course, what really matters is the context in which the reference is being made. For example, if the article is about someone born in Spangle, Washington, or Chicago, Illinois, that's how it is typically referenced. And, of course, there is nothing preventing an editor from linking to Spangle, or Chicago, should the context be appropriate for that, even though the article is actually at Chicago, since Chicago, Illinois redirects to Chicago (as Spangle, Washington would redirect to Spangle if the article was ever moved to Spangle).

So I don't see how the "to provide broader context" argument justifies violating WP:NAME and WP:DAB to put the article about Spangle, Washington at Spangle, Washington any more than it justifies putting the article about the episode of Entourage entitled "Blue Balls Lagoon" at Blue Balls Lagoon (Entourage). --Serge 22:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Any presumed "violating" of any present convention is out of context in this discussion, so stay on topic please. This discussion has nothing to do with anything existing nor, does it take any point from the same. It is (an attempt at) an objective (and constructive) look at creating a consistant method with an identifiable purpose, and is based on nothing existing. THEPROMENADER 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We need to have some basis on which to decide what is better or worse. If you're throwing out the Misplaced Pages convention to use the simplest/most-common name of the subject to name an article on that subject, then I don't know what basis to use to decide whether a given name is a "good" or "better" one or not. If we're not using general Misplaced Pages conventions as the basis for making objective evaluations, then what are we using? --Serge 00:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So if "qualification" is something added to its name outside of the name itself (for whatever reason), then it is a form of disambiguation. It should be identified clearly as such. Can we consider it as such for the sake of this discussion? THEPROMENADER 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, just because it is "something added to its name outside of the name itself" does not mean it is necessarily a form of disambiguation. In particular, if the qualificatin is not done to disambiguate, then it's not a form of disambiguation. --Serge 00:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, replying to Serge) And I don't see why this convention/qualification cannot specify that qualification by state is a valid reason to override WP:NAME. WP:DAB doesn't enter into it at all. For specifics: WP:NAME#City names states: