Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:32, 12 September 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

The Bronx received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The Bronx received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

Archive 1 (March 2002–June 2009)

Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): ], ], ], ], ], ], ] For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem

August 16, 2009, copy-edits of the introduction

Let me give some brief explanations of the individual points in a batch reversion I made to a knowledgeable IP editor's batch copy-editing of the lede (introductory paragraph), so that they can be considered individually:

1. Longish tag (which I'll restore): I and most of the editors here agree, but see several previous discussions where we tried to figure out (inconclusively) how and where to cut. Neighborhoods is a particularly thorny section.
2. Five Boroughs was capitalized because the Five Boroughs is a specific informal title (sobriquet) like the Seven Seas or the Fifty States.
3. When writing this lead, I thought that saying that Bronx County was the newest of New York state's 62 counties was sufficient to indicate that New York City was in New York state.
4. Similarly, if it's the northernmost of the City's five boroughs, and it's northeast of Manhattan, it seemed unnecessary to say that Manhattan's a borough. In fact, since Manhattan is an island and a place anyway, its governmental status isn't a necessary part of the very first paragraph (it's explained thoroughly enough later in the article).
5. Although this is a weaker argument, Bronx County being in New York state implies that Westchester County (in the absence of another state's name) is also in New York state; but I'm open to argument on this (as on any other point).
6. I don't think that mainland and island need wikilinks. I link pretty liberally myself, but a sea of blue can be a huge distraction to the unwikified ordinary reader.
7. Less strongly, I believe the same applies to North America. I did wikilink North America once when working on the lead for New York City (which is in many ways almost a state in itself) but at this level it's probably unnecessary.
8. While I'm no believer in the "Wikilink only once per article" philosophy, I think that the first wikilink to each borough is close enough in this paragraph to its second and subsequent appearances that extra wikilinks aren't needed. The reader who wants to find a particular borough's wikilink can find and reach it quickly enough.
9. There was a long earlier discussion about whether to capitalize the article in The Bronx when it appears mid-sentence (as here). The consensus was (partly in conformity with practices for analogous places like The Hague) that "the Bronx" should as a general rule be the style inside a sentence (as opposed to, say, "an article in The New York Times"). No consensus is an iron-clad rule, but the issue should be revived separately so that the article as a whole follows the same style.
10. Wikilinking Alaska and Wyoming in the footnote for the benefit of those who might want to look them up is fine, but the other wikilinks seem unnecessary.

I'm certainly open to argument on any of these points, but I had to break them down first. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Shakes, I don'

Possible Changes by MisterPitt

A relatively new user MisterPitt has proposed many changes to the structure and substance of this article -- without discussing them on this Talk Page. Some have prima facie merit; others are more debatable (the wholesale deletions). I've rolled back, so that those interested in this article could have some prior discussion. YMMV Bellagio99 (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Streamlining article content

This main article about "The Bronx" would best serve as a concise introduction for the borough, with the appropriate links to the many sub-articles which cover the borough in detail. In my attempts to streamline the article I removed content covered in the boroughs sub-articles (history, demographics, education etc).--MisterPitt (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As one of the three editors (including Bellagio99 and Jd2718) who's done the most work on this page over the last year or so, I don't disagree with your aim, and I don't want to discourage fresh energy and thought, but I think, to keep things stable, this needs to be done slowly. As you can see from earlier discussions, this question has certainly been considered seriously in the past, but it's not easy to plan a good way to proceed.

There are sub-articles for some Bronx topics, but in some cases it's arguable if they're as good as the shorter, corresponding section here. And in some cases, e.g. history (cf. History of Brooklyn), it might be best to create the sub-page first. In the case of history, that requires someone to finish up what is at present a mediocre section with several good parts. In cases such as Labor and economics, or Health and medicine, not even a section has been created, let alone a page. Neighborhoods is a particularly tough nut to crack, but one that definitely needs some imaginative compression that makes it more accessible to non-New Yorkers. The two cultural sections could stand by themselves as sub-articles or a single merged article, but someone needs to write good summaries. On the other hand Bronx#Parks and open space, most of which I wrote, looks fine in its present place, though a bit over-long, but would look a bit stubby standing alone.

None of this is meant to discourage anyone, but just to explain why (although there has been much significant rationalization) more hasn't been done so far. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I think the population of the county for 2000 should be put in the infobox (not just a 2008 estimate). (I cannot edit the box correctly myself.) The 2000 population should be put in the first paragraph of the article, replacing the 2008 estimate. hello (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the first results of the (April 1) 2010 Census to come in, but in the meantime, I've put in the June 2010 estimates for July 1, 2009. There are certainly valid arguments to be made both ways in any given article item about whether to use 2000 Census data or later intercensal (post-Census) estimates, but since some preliminary 2010 Census results should be arriving soon, the point seems a little moot. (And I still need to update the estimates at some of the other boroughs, as well as at New York City, where a talk page contributor wanted the 2008 estimates to go forward to July 1, 2009, rather than back to April 1, 2000.) If you want to comment on (or, more problematically, edit) the "Five Boroughs at a Glance" box, see Template talk:NYC boroughs. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Partner City

The german wikipedia says that the bronx is a partner city of the viennese bezirk "Leopoldstadt". I guess this should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.137.37 (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Addition by User: Rjensen WP:OR ? WP:COPYVIO ?

I'm concerned about the long new addition to the article, for two reasons. One, it is unsourced. Two, it is so well written that I wonder if it came from an already-published source. User: Rjensen please reassure. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I added some cites--the info comes from two articles by Olmsted and also the Jackson '"Encyclopedia. "so well written" -- thanks, :) --I've written quite a bit of history for Misplaced Pages. I must say that there seems to be less scholarship on the Bronx than any place in the U.S. of one fourth its population. Rjensen (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd Ultan, the Bronx Borough Historian (who, I think, teaches at Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey) has written a five-volume History of the Bronx, and a dozen other works (which are hard for me to consult, let alone read, since I live in Rhode Island; however, I own the Encyclopedia of NYC, whose Bronx article Prof. Ultan co-authored, making him one of Rjensen's indirect sources as well as one of my own). I've often toyed idly with the idea of asking Prof. Ultan to suggest that some of his Bronx History students might want to fill in and clean up our history section.

A couple of years ago, I cleaned up and rearranged the history section about as best as it could be fixed given its very spotty elements. I'm not sure how the additional overlapping paragraphs of Rjensen (whose work I already know from hanging out on the fringes of War of 1812) can best fit in with the rest of the history. It's not really an overview or summary because it doesn't begin until well into (in fact the end of) the 19th century, so logically it should come after The Bronx#Origins and name of The Bronx but before The Bronx#Before 1914. But then, while much better-written than that section and The Bronx#Since 1914, it's rather duplicative.

To look at it from the other end, as an Overview it doesn't do anything to fill in the huge gap in the previously-written history sections (aside from their other flaws, such as OR), which is a giant empty leap from the end of the 17th century to the initial moves towards consolidation in the middle 19th century.

This is just to outline what I consider to be problems to be worked out, not an attack on a welcome effort to move this article forward.

P.S. Since a renaming wiped out its original creation and edit history, what is the inspiration, genesis and purpose of the new article on History of the Bronx? —— Shakescene (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Shakescene is right that Ultan's popular history books should be mentioned, so I added them. His article in Jackson Encyclopedia is much more helpful for this article. As for gaps in the history, people wil lstart filling them in.Rjensen (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Length

Too long? the solution is to let the History of the Bronx article cober the small details--which it does now, so there is no need to duplicatet hat here. This article needs to focus on the bigger historical themes. Rjensen (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict): I just saw an enhanced warning in the edit box that going over 120 kB would make this already-overlong article become hard to load even for fast connections, which might make it nearly-impossible for many small memories, slow processors or dial-up narrowband connections. There are several earlier (but generally inconclusive) discussions above about where we could cut or spin off most effectively (e.g. Politics, Education, Transportation and, especially, Neighborhoods). And there are still topics yet to be covered, such as Business, Labor and Health. Since the new history overview is mainly a better-written repeat of either the Lead or the following sections, it seemed hard to keep while the whole article was suffering overload, so I reluctantly deleted it. However, several sentences could supplement or replace other previously-existing language. And there's plenty of room at History of the Bronx. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

we've solved the length problem, and the article is now shorter than it's been in years. The solution is to use that auxiliary article where people who want the small historical details can find them. Rjensen (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Article

I'd like to know (and really think it would be interesting to include) the reason why the Bronx is always preceded by the definite article "the" as if it were a noun. Names and placenames normally don't take an article; eg "I visited the Manhattan" would be wrong. OTOH "I visited Bronx" (without "the") seems more natural to me but perhaps it would sound wrong to Americans. Certainly it would be appropriate to include an explanation on why (the) Bronx is an exception to this rule. pictureuploader (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because it is named after a river? pictureuploader (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's called "The Bronx" because it was named after one of the first settlers in the area, Jonas Bronck. The Bronx River was named after him, and then the area -- which makes sense when one thinks of "going to the Bronck's". Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Rename (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. The "common name" arguments against the move are misguided, since Misplaced Pages habitually omits definite articles in article titles (as noted by Good Olfactory and Jafeluv). Ucucha 19:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Bronx → Bronx — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:TITLE this needs to be moved back to Bronx. Mcorazao (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently there is some regional pride going into the efforts to keep "The" in the title. But for the same reason as we have United States, Northwest Territories, Mason–Dixon Line, etc., etc. this article must be named Bronx. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Question What about The Gambia? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Its common name is the Bronx. (I considered inserting the {{lowercase title}} template, because that is the proper capitalization.) Acps110 23:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The name of the place is "The Bronx". It's coextensive with "Bronx County", which is the correct name of that entity. Nothing to do with regional pride, and everything to do with calling a place what it is called, it's common name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

For instance, in the authoritative The Encyclopedia of New York City, edited by Kenneth T. Jackswon, and published by Yale University Press, in the article on the area, it is consistently referred to as "the Bronx" (no cap on the "T" of "the"). Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Although the name of the article in that encyclopedia is simply "Bronx". Station1 (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. There seems to be a basic misunderstanding about how WP treats leading "the"s in common names. Other users are correct that it's "the Bronx" in written text and phrases, but we simply don't include preceding "the"s in almost all cases for placenames: Netherlands, Northwest Territories, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, Bahamas, Cook Islands, Solomon Islands, etc. (The Gambia is an exception because when "Gambia" is used alone it refers to the river.) Unless the "the" is capitalized in all contexts, as it is with The Gambia, it should not be included in the WP name. We don't write, "I'm from The Bronx"—it's "I'm from the Bronx". Just like we write, "I'm from the Netherlands", not "I'm from The Netherlands". Thus, we need to omit the leading "the" in the article name. Good Ol’factory 23:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. A reasoning for "The" can be found here. The United States Board on Geographic Names calls the region Bronx.

• Support. Per Good Ol’factory, as he stole beat me to the argument. — ξ 03:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The 'the' is both part of the common name as well as part of the legal name of the borough. 'I'm from Bronx' (to use the example above) is neither used not correct while, I think anyway, it is not uncommon to hear someone say 'I'm from Netherlands'. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That kind of misses the point. The point is that the "the" in "the Bronx" is not habitually capitalized, and in such cases, we routinely omit leading "the"s. Good Ol’factory 21:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The point is that the Bronx doesn't go without the the. Therefore wikipedia shouldn't drop the the either. MOS or routine notwithstanding. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
      • But that would be quite a major departure from both the MOS and WP practice. Why should this one be different? It sounds to me like this may be a matter of a desire for some sort of exceptionalism, for whatever the reason. Good Ol’factory 04:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
        • It is useful to note that MOS is a guideline. Guidelines should not be followed blindly. In this case, there is the WP:UCN policy that says we should use the common name as the title (policies are stricter rules than guidelines) and, imao, there is the WP:UCS essay that is also applicable. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
          • And lest we forget, WP:There is no common sense. One man's common sense is another man's idiocy. And guidelines almost always result in the right move. A pretty strong case has to be made to depart from it, and all we really have here is "this is the common name", which completely misses the point regarding leading "the"s in article titles. Good Ol’factory 07:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Ah, but you need a much stronger case to depart from policy. And the common name is 'the Bronx'. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
              • Of course it is. But that doesn't mean the article is called "The Bronx". You are misinterpreting how the policy of "common name" interacts with the standard practice of leading "the"s. The common name is "the Cook Islands"—that doesn't mean we include the "the" in the article name. We can't isolate one policy and simultaneously ignore how that policy is almost always implemented in practice in other similar cases. Unless there's something special about the Bronx which would warrant special treatment—which there is not. Good Ol’factory 21:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
                • I think you're overstating the importance of 'practice'. Generally, an article title should be in consonance with its common reference and the Bronx is commonly known as the Bronx. Why would we want to drop a part of the common name of an entity just because that part happens to be 'the' merely to satisfy a guideline or to be overly hidebound over practice? --RegentsPark (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
                  • Because we always do it, as does almost every other major encyclopedic work. It's not being "hidebound" to practice, it's just being consistent within WP and within the general style of encyclopedic works in the English language. I have yet to see an explanation as to why the Bronx would be treated differently in this regard, apart from a general attack of the general practice. If we accept that it is the general practice, then let's hear some arguments about why the Bronx is special or should be treated differently. This is not really the forum to decide that the general practice is a bad idea in general. Good Ol’factory 22:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Common name contains "The". Húsönd 00:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support per WP:TITLE. Postal address is "Bronx, NY" (cf. The Dalles). Also refer to User:Good Olfactory's examples above. — AjaxSmack 01:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if 'postal address' is a good argument. Note that Manhattan postal addresses are 'New York, NY' but we haven't renamed the Manhattan article as 'New York'. Also, districts in Queens don't use 'Queens' in their postal addresses (Flushing, NY is in Queens, but you wouldn't know that by the postal address).

I wasn't arguing that postal names should establish titles. I was pointing out common usage without the article and comparing and contrasting it with other examples. Sorry I didn't make that clear. — AjaxSmack 16:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support I write this from Brooklyn and was born in the Bronx and will be there tomorrow. I am also from the United States but our article titles don't incorporate definite article phrasing usage. The Hawaiian Islands, the Philippines, the Middle East, the Czech Republic; Good Olfactory already went over this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, but... I'm inclined against this change, but I think a solution worth investigating might be to change The Bronx and Queens to Bronx, New York and Queens, New York, with all the suitable redirects (Manhattan, Brooklyn and Staten Island easily stand alone, unambiguouus and well-recognized, in just the forms that are used in everyday speech and writing). —— Shakescene (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose When I was a boy many years ago, Mr Panzick my 7th grade teacher beat into us that it was "The Bronx". Mr. Panzick was/is always right. Therefore, I honor his memory and wisdom by Opposing. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Of course it's always "the Bronx". You would never say "I'm from Bronx", just as you would never say "I'm from Netherlands". However, as documented at WP:THE, we only use the definite article in the beginning of an article title if the title is usually capitalized in running text. As has been shown above, the common name is not "The Bronx", but "the Bronx". For this reason, the correct article name is just Bronx. Jafeluv (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

legal name of the borough or county

By City law, the borough is "The Bronx", spelled with a capital "T". Administrative Code of the City of New York, § 2-202 & subdivision 2 (http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$ADC2-202$$@TXADC02-202+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=06297916+&TARGET=VIEW (as accessed Jul. 31, 2010)). Subd. 6 refers to "the Bronx" and so does § 2-104 (and probably other provisions) but § 2-202 is the defining provision and subd. 2 defines its boundaries. See also § 2-201 ("The Bronx"). In the City Charter, also titled New York City Charter, as amended through July 2004 (http://home2.nyc.gov/html/charter/downloads/pdf/citycharter2004.pdf (as accessed Jul. 31, 2010)), which is the City's equivalent of a Constitution, only § 2 is germane and it isn't specific enough.

I didn't find in the state Constitution or statutes a definition of the county. They refer to "Bronx", but that's not a definition.

Conclusion: The county is "Bronx" and the borough is "The Bronx".

This is germane to very recent edits to the article.

Nick Levinson (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's been my understanding, from the odd official documents or statements I've seen: "The Borough of the Bronx" and "The County of Bronx"; cf. "The Borough of Brooklyn" and "The County of Kings" . See the discussions at various sections of Talk:The Bronx/Archive 1 about this and about whether to capitalize "T" in the middle of sentences (the consensus was not to capitalize T mid-sentence).

The tricky point, on which I'm far from 100% certain myself, is how best to convey the differences to the first-time reader. Boldfacing "The" might help point out the distinction, but, as the editor who removed boldface might easily argue, it doesn't follow Misplaced Pages's practice in The United States of America and The Netherlands. However, The Gambia in both title and boldfacing, is a strong argument on the other side (i.e. the recent renaming was over-hastily executed where no consensus was visible.)

—— Shakescene (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I like what's in the lede of the Bronx article now, which gives both forms and then uses "the Bronx" in running text. In cases of nontrivial confusion, giving all the forms and their explanations or references in a sentence in the lede or first section is a good solution. For example, The Columbia Encyclopedia (Columbia Univ. Press, 5th ed. 1993 (ISBN 0-395-62438-X)) begins one entry thus: "China, Mandarin Zhonghua renmin gongheguo , country . . . ." (Boldface, italics, and brackets so in original.) I would include not only definitions from organic law but also definitions from outsiders likely to cause people, especially natives, to arrive at other formulations, such as those from history and those from external naming authorities (e.g., U.N. for nations and national naming authorities for localities) and postal authorities. For example, the U.S. Postal Service about a decade ago started insisting that every community in Queens be known simply as "Queens" and threatened to withdraw advertising from a local community newspaper that didn't go along with the renaming. A lot of Queens communities are married to their local names. On the other hand, I wouldn't consider how FedEx or UPS assign routes to their garages since no one outside of those companies is likely to be influenced by that.

As to the law defining Bronx, I'm still mystified that I didn't find better. It's hard to believe that the law is "we know what we mean". Whole states have sued each other in the U.S. Supreme Court over border disputes, nations have gone to war over them, and modern title deeds are much more specific these days (a rumor is one once said, "Start where old Jake shot the cow . . . ."). Three possibilities are that there's a state regulation, perhaps having to do with elections and legislative apportionment, filling in what the state Constitution and statutes omit, that there's case law from adjudication in a state court, perhaps depending on a document that predated the state's first constitution, and that the process of incorporating the county (whatever incorporating means and whenever that was) included writing up exactly what got incorporated. But I'll have to leave all that to other editors. Anyway, as noted, I like what's in the lede now. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving the page

If this page is going to be moved back to The Bronx, we definitely need a new formal discussion, since it was recently moved to its current page as a result of a discussion (see the section two above this one). Good Ol’factory 21:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this thankless work! Be bold, but check first, might be the new WPedia motto. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I see people referring to The Gambia, but could someone address why we're not spelling The Bronx like The Hague, as the editor who (prematurely) moved it said? --108.6.2.247 (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading your question more carefully, I see that you're asking why "the" in "the Bronx" isn't capitalized in the middle of a sentence, which is a slightly different issue. This was discussed (and documentation offered), with a consensus favoring lower-case in the middle of sentences, at Talk:Bronx/Archive 1#The Bronx or the Bronx and Talk:Bronx/Archive 1#"The Bronx" or the "Bronx" : Citation needed? Rename?. I think that many editors, including myself, waver between the two (at least in our minds), but, since there is an established consensus, stick to lower-case "the Bronx" in this article and related ones for the sake of consistency, when not directly quoting from an outside source that uses "The Bronx" (or, for that matter, "Bronx" without an article) mid-sentence. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

While of course always open to persuasion, I'm on the side of moving this back to The Bronx, but since significant numbers of editors can be found on either side of this issue, it should be discussed first. Discussions in earlier years, fairly firmly although not unanimously, established The Bronx as the consensus. I think that the more recent change back to Bronx was founded on a smaller sample of editors and comments, that looked more like "No Consensus" (which keeps the status quo), and was therefore much too hasty. So whenever the time is ripe for another discussion (we don't want to switch back and forth several times a year), I'd certainly support one. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear 108, It HAS been discussed several times before, and I agree with Shakes, The Bronx predominanted. But as life is short, I will just point you to read the archives, vote for The Bronx when asked, but otherwise try to butt out and focus on more important issues such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Yours in Misplaced Pages. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The Bronx is the better choice (per WP:UCN). Unfortunately, we have many editors who are ardent believers in MOS! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, screw what the majority says or !votes. The only thing that matters is what is the official name of the jurisdiction. Unfortunately, unless I am mistaken the county is Bronx, but the borough is The Bronx... am I correct in that? If so that leaves us at an impasse, if I am incorrect and both officially have the same name (and I know the county name does not have "the" in it) then it goes by the official name, end of discussion. Common person on the street can call it "shithole" for all Misplaced Pages cares, WP:UCN does not generally apply to something that is already in English and has an official name so readily available, I believe it should apply more to foreign-name places and in place of official bureaucratic names (eg- Kentucky instead of Commonwealth of Kentucky). As an aside- redirecting New York from the state is a BAD idea and would never get a consensus of those of us that work on the state article and other upstate-related articles regardless of what consensus could get reached on the city article talk page. It is unfortunate that the official name of both IS New York (there are no such entities as New York State or New York City), complain to the English. Maybe Parliment can retroactively do something...Camelbinky (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The website of the Bronx Borough President consistently uses "The Bronx", as seen here. The county is indeed "Bronx County", but the borough is "The Bronx". However in combining forms "Bronx" is often used even when referring to the borough. Thus Ruben Diaz is "Bronx Borough President" not "The Bronx Borough President". As to which should be used - well, like the combining form, it depends on the circumstances. The overriding political entity is New York City, the county is, for all intents and purposes, powerless. Within the city, the dominating local political entity is the borough, although since the reorganization of the city and the elimnination of the Board of Estimate the borough has much less power than it once did. Still, ask any long term resident, and they'll tell you that they live in "The Bronx" not "Bronx". My feeling is that the article should be moved to "The Bronx" as the normal and usual name of the area, the county being basically a jurisdictional non-entity, but care should be taken so that combining forms follow what's used in the real world, and we don't hew exclusively to "The Bronx". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, who cares what people on the street say? That argument, unless you have a reliable source stating some poll of the people on how they refer to the Bronx is not a valid argument and even with that poll it is only one piece of an argument. Yes, there is a problem between the county and the borough, the borough is older and one can argue that takes some precedence in this debate. The USPS however says that it is Bronx, not "the Bronx", and they are not refering to the county name. That's an argument in the other direction. The very title, whether Bronx or the Bronx is either way breaking convention as we do not put neighborhood or county or borough names as name only; only certain specific cities get that distinction (eg- Paris, New York City). Neighborhoods, counties, etc do not get a pass on this, NYC borough or not. The correct title should be one of the following- Bronx County, New York (based on this being a county article), The Bronx Borough, New York, New York (based on this being an article on the borough, The Bronx, New York (based on this being about the geographical entity commonly refered to as "The Bronx" even when part of Westchester County), or Bronx, New York (based on USPS ZIP code designation). Pick one. Ending this special treatment (and you see it with Hollywood as well) is a good way to end this perennial discussion.Camelbinky (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but fortunately it is also not a dictatorship where Camelbinky's word is law, so I'll pass on the choice you would like to shove down our throats, and instead I'll continue to express my opinion about what would be best for the encyclopedia.

The policy is for article names in general to favor common, everyday English-language usage, and for those of us from New York, who grew up in the area, who have some knowledge of the usage of the people who live here -- that would seem to leave you out, I believe -- "The Bronx" is the common name of the area, as well as the legal name of the borough, as pointed out above. As for a disambiguating word, we don't do it as a matter of form, we do it when it's necessary to, well, reduce ambiguity. There is no other "The Bronx", and in fact no other "Bronx", so there is no need for a disambiguating "New York".

Now, may I suggest that you take a moment to chill out, get off of your high horse, and stop attempting to dominate the discussion by brute force. If you wish to continue the discussion, do so civily and with respect for your fellow editors, and stop behaving as if you are some sort of authority od either the common name of the area -- which you clearly aren't -- or on Misplaced Pages policy, which you are misrepresenting. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I vote the name be "The Bronx". Otherwise we'd be going against the immortal words of Ogden Nash

The Bronx

No thonx

Anyway, I grew up and still do saying "The Bronx" altho I married a girl from "Queens" (and not The Queens). Bellagio99 (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this earlier. Of course it should be The Bronx, then, now and always. I too was born and raised there, and lived there for many years - yes, we do have some knowledge of the proper usage, USPS be damned. Tvoz/talk 05:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

May I point to The Hague. Nobody calls it "Hague". There are historical reasons behind these anomolous usages, which should be respected. We don't steamroll over reality in order to make it fit into pre-determined boxes; or, at least, we shouldn't.Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Beyond my Ken, you obviously don't know the policy on how to name articles. Talking to you not worth it. If anyone has crossed the line of civility it was you. I am a New Yorker, born and raised, dont insult my birthright of being a NYer and say I dont know anything about the region. Second of all- POLICY rules on Misplaced Pages NOT what the common man on the street says! This is not a "Camelbinky rule" it is a Misplaced Pages policy. Get it straight. You want to ignore policy fine, but you can't make a decision on Misplaced Pages yourself that contradicts it. If anyone is trying to be a dictator it is you. I'm following established convention. The Hague is a city, not comparable. You cant even come up with a legit reason for your points, back up your points with Misplaced Pages policy. You cant or dont know policy well enough. !votes and opinions that arent backed up with policy can and will be ignored when a decision based on consensus is reached. So I suggest you read policy and back up your points with them or you can and will be ignored in the decision reached. Thanks.Camelbinky (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and on the many noticeboards I do work on and the many policy talk pages I work on and the numerous policies I have helped change aspects of I don't recall your name Beyond my Ken... so of the two of us who is misrepresenting their knowledge of policy? Hmmm... I think I've done quite enough work on changing Misplaced Pages policy that I know what I am saying. Please dont assume I dont know anything.Camelbinky (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As for your comment about the disambiguation of city, state being not needed, that is FALSE. Again- you showed your ignorance of policy/guidelines. It is in fact the "rule" in Misplaced Pages, as encoded in Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names), a guideline in accordance with the policy WP:Article titles. Both of which I suggest you read, as you seem to have not done so. It in fact seems to your entire belief of what Misplaced Pages does is based on what you believe you have come across and what makes sense to you on how Misplaced Pages should be run. Well Misplaced Pages has actual written policy and guidelines that you may want to read. But of course you've turned this into a personal contest between you and me. You may want to read our policies about commenting on the content, not on the commentator; I admit to breaking that "rule" here to after being goaded by you, though that is no excuse so I will stop. But I warn you to stop as well, do not comment about me personally again as this can and will get you a sterner warning on your talk page and further action may be needed. Please stick to the content of points backed by policy.Camelbinky (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

← From the top of Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions: This guideline documents an English Misplaced Pages naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. The five boroughs of New York City are handled as exceptions: none have "county" or "borough" in the titles - they are Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, Brooklyn and (should again be) The Bronx. This is because (quoting from the same guideline): Our article title policy provides that article titles should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. Tvoz/talk 07:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Camel, You've done a huge amount of work in Misplaced Pages, and I respect you for that. But you've come late to this many-years discussion, and there IS a consensus, that it is The Bronx. Tvoz, BeyondMyKen, Shakescene, myself, and other users (when this was last debated) agree. What happened is that folks were on holiday, and the article got renamed/moved with minimal discussion or consensus. Noted WikiLawyer (and Bronxite) Tvoz has clearly demonstrated that The Bronx is within Wiki policy. Famous poet Ogden Nash has immortalized the The. (See my post earlier in this section.) Surely this is not an issue worth fulminating about, so let's cut back the invective, move/rename the article, and move on ourselves to doing the really useful WikiDeeds that we've all done. Cheers, Bellagio99 (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Query: when do we consider this?

The only immediate question, in my mind, and one that shouldn't take up too much time no matter which way it's decided, is whether we start the formal process of Requesting Comments on a move back to The Bronx now, or wait for a bit, since the recent move was so recent. Bellagio99 and I have been of the opinion, even though we favor moving back, that it might be a bit hasty to do so, so soon after the recent overhasty renaming. I don't know if Bellagio is still of this mind, or has decided that the best way to get past this is to hold a discussion and decision now.

¶ —— Shakescene (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Shakes, that I was unclear. Let's start the formal process of Requesting Comments on a move back Now! I just have forgotten the protocols involved.Bellagio99 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was busy preparing for my son's wedding in May and was not keeping up with my overly long watchlist, so I regret that I wasn't here to weigh in on this then because it's not clear to me that a consensus to move was really established then and other voices against it might have made a difference. The commenters were evenly split, and at least two more would have opposed (Tenebrae I would assume would have opposed the move, as he/she tried to move it back a few days ago). And this has been discussed before with other editors also weighing in for The Bronx as title. I've been editing this article since 2006, and would never have agreed to the move to "Bronx" - it is not the commonly used name and apparently not even the legal name as reported in this comment. The Hague is certainly relevant here too, although discarded above without any real explanation. So there is precedent, there is context for using the most common name (the other 4 boroughs), and there is no hard and fast policy being violated. I think the common name arguments should not have been discounted as the closer did, and we should go back to the way the article long has been titled and agreed upon. This to me is a separate issue from whether "the" should be capitalized in the middle if the sentence - that argument reached epic proportions with the/The Beatles - and my personal inclination would be for lower case mid-sentence - that's a matter of style. But the name of that article must be The Beatles not Beatles, just as the name of the newspaper article must be The New York Times not New York Times, and, I think, the name of this article The Bronx. redirect the dissonant names, but title the articles thusly. Tvoz/talk 21:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

¶ I don't know what the formal process is myself. My inclination is (since we think the earlier move was concluded too hastily) to send a message on the following lines to those who participated in the discussion of last spring's move but haven't yet participated in this one. (Unfortunately, User:Vegaswikian, at least under that name, says s/he's off-Wiki until the end of September.)

Hello, you participated in a discussion last spring that resulted in renaming The Bronx as Bronx. There is now a proposal to open a new Request for Comments on restoring the original name. If you have comments about the timing of such a proposal, please make them soon at Talk:Bronx#Query: when do we consider this? because, unless a there's a consensus against such a Request for Comments, it will begin early this week.—— Shakescene (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you think? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Start a Request for Comments on renaming now

1. Support as it has been thus for many years, and change happend quickly & without consensus. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Sure. I'm a strong supporter of WP:UCN and a firm believer that policies should trump guidelines. An RfC will help provide clarity on these issues. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait before reopening the renaming question (how long?)

Other comments on timing and procedure

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• Top-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class New York (state) articles
• High-importance New York (state) articles
• B-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages
• Old requests for peer review