Misplaced Pages

talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) at 21:56, 22 December 2010 (→Survey: status quo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:56, 22 December 2010 by SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) (→Survey: status quo)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.
Archive
Archive

Archive to 1 Dec 2006 • Archive to Nov 2008 • Naming conventions (settlements) • Naming conventions (places)

Shortcut

England again - suburbs

There is a move discussion at Beeston, Leeds where the topic of this guideline (the section on England) has been raised. I seem to remember that the general view was that places should be disambiguated using city/town rather than county if those places are thought of as "part of the city/town" rather than adjacent localities, and in order to achieve this, the phrasing was introduced into the guideline saying that the borough should be used rather than the county if the borough consists of a single city/town. It would seem, though, that this rule doesn't always achieve its desired objective, since it is claimed that the City of Leeds consists of more than just Leeds, and so the guideline would imply that even places that are unquestionably integral parts of Leeds ought to be disambiguated by county (I don't know whether that applies to Beeston, but there are undoubtedly some such cases - every large city has its districts). Could we perhaps consider a more flexible guideline?--Kotniski (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This was only discussed back in August, but the gist was that for a lot of places there is no suitable definition for whether somewhere is a suburb of a town or a separate settlement. In the case of Beeston, I don't think there would be much argument that it is a part of the settlement of Leeds (having been incorporated into the borough in 1626), so I don't see that there is a problem with it being disambiguated by 'Leeds' other than it not complying with the guideline. (One other thing to note of course is that 'Leeds' would be the next step down in disambiguation if there were two settlements of the same name in West Yorkshire).
I tend to think that these sort of guidelines should be used in a relaxed way anyway, and only called upon when there is disagreement. Quantpole (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion in August arose from the objection that "town" and "city" (as used in the previous guidance) did not have easily defined meanings in England. Attempts to define "town" and "city" were dismissed as not straightforward. The compromise we ended up seems to have given rise to a new set of anomalies - I fear the Beeston case will not be the last. I would favour a return to something like the previous words: "for districts and suburbs within towns and cities, ] should be used". In theory, that could result in occasional debates about whether or not a place is in a town/city, although there do not seem to have been any such debates when the previous guidance was in force. But that would be better than a guideline which, interpreted literally, gives counter-intuitive results, and thus generates many exceptions.--Mhockey (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly my view. Unfortunately some people do take guidelines literally, to the point of trying to change things for no other reason than to bring them into conformance with the wording of the guidelines, so they ought to be worded in such a way that implies flexibility and common sense.--Kotniski (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

In the light of this discussion, I suggest rewording the guidance to the following:

In England, place names requiring disambiguation

  • for places in Greater London use ]
  • for districts and suburbs within towns and cities, use ]
  • elsewhere in England use ].

Wherever further disambiguation is required...(as before)

Thus the guideline would not attempt to define "town" or "city". Previous experience suggests that that should not cause problems (if it does, we may have to consider a more complicated guideline, but let's not go there unless and until it is necessary).

Any views, for or against?--Mhockey (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that seems good. (Though we might have to clarify that by "within towns and cities" we mean the customary towns/cities themselves, not necessarily the local government districts that may be named after them.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
There needs to be some clarification of what city/town means - which is the whole problem with using this approach. Keith D (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. It is wrong to remove the criteria from the guideline. MRSC (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I wish I hadn't found this discussion. All I say is that the August compromise is wrong, and the proposed solution will not work either. Kent is always a hard case due to its peculiar eighth and ninth century settlement patterns. Frindsbury gives an notion of some of the problems, where the village was split for local government purposes between Frindsbury (within the City of Rochester) - and Frindsbury Extra which was outside the city. Both however were with in the later City of Rochester-upon-Medway. Both are within Medway- but both regard themselves as part of Kent. The Unitary authority name is artificial. Maybe the under thirties living locally will have a concept of Medway- but ask anyone living more than 50 miles away where the authority is- and you will get some very colourful answers. Simply, Ceremonial county is the way to refer places within this unitary. Can I pose the High Halstow, Lower Halstow question? Whether in Sydney, Cape Town or Ontario- or anywhere where they have heard of the Battle of Trafalgar- they will speak of the dockyard in Chatham in Medway- I think not. It is Chatham, Kent. In Ontario, they borrowed both the name of Chatham and Kent County, so they refer to their Chatham as Chatham–Kent, Ontario. I also have problems with the London, Greater London debate. On either side of the Thames, we have Rainham (Essex), and Rainham, Kent- it makes senses to (just) to say Rainham, Greater London but London no. Then we have the whole swathe of Kentish places that have been subsumed into the London Boroughs of Bromley, Bexley and even Greenwich. Take the Kentish locations of Chislehurst, St Maryś Cray, Orpinton, Farnborough and Biggin Hill none of which are London, but could be said to be in Greater London. However, most of the articles I have created are in Greater Manchester. Try telling the good souls of Hyde or Ashton that they are in Manchester! Leave it be- these last two compromises just obfuscate. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Two systems exist in the real world that we could copy:

  • Data from Royal Mail, using post town and postal county for disambiguation. This is used by directories such as Yellow Pages
  • Data from Ordnance Survey, using upper tier local authorities for disambiguation. This is used on maps and some web services.

Both these systems produce some results that people will not expect - as does our system, and it will continue to do so if it were amended as suggested, as ClemRutter has detailed. The benefit of either of these systems is that we have an external source and they can be copied systematically. Rather than muddle through with incremental changes, perhaps we should imagine what kind of system would be devised if we were starting from scratch. MRSC (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel like a guest at a strangers funeral here- having not followed the earlier debate. It would seem sensible to adopt one or the other existing system- and as the PAF Royal Mail system in the main follows the pre 1974 geographic counties this seems closest to our needs. But reading our own articles Postal counties of the United Kingdom exposes two problems. Support is to be phased out in 2013- and to get a license will cost £75 a month- it is copyrighted. The OS system, is designed to tie locations to current local government boundaries which doesn't match our aims. Also I haven't found a reference to that dataset, or how it may be obtained. Do we have a reference for a CC dataset that we can examine? --ClemRutter (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I fear that any automatic system will produce the wrong results in some cases. But luckily, Misplaced Pages editors (some of them) are endowed with a modicum of common sense and real-world knowledge, and can make good judgements as long as they are not constrained by inflexible rules.--Kotniski (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's just explore how ClemRutter's examples would work under the proposal:

  • Frindsbury is not disambiguated, but if it needed to be, it would not go under Frindsbury, Medway, because Medway is not a town or city (at least the article on Medway does not describe it as such). It may be one of the few examples of places which straddle boundaries, but if it is not wholly within Rochester, it would go under Frindsbury, Kent.
  • Chatham, Kent would stay - Chatham is not a district within a town, it is a town
  • Hyde, Greater Manchester would stay - if it is not a district of Manchester

The examples in Greater London I have no strong view on, although I note from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject London/Naming conventions that it is a long-standing convention that London is used to disambiguate.

Concrete examples are very useful. There will be some difficult cases in any system, but I fear the Beeston, Leeds debate shows more potential for controversy in the current guidelines. --Mhockey (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how Beeston demonstrates that. Can it be argued that Beeston is not in West Yorkshire? Either suffix adequately and precisely explains its location relative to any other Beeston. MRSC (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is that Beeston is being debated, because some editors are not satisfied with a literal interpretation of the present guideline. A guideline which creates a lot of debate is not a very satisfactory guideline. What would be interesting is an example which would create controversy under the proposed guideline - e.g. an example of a place where there is doubt as to whether or not it is in a town/city. --Mhockey (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

But the alternative suggested encourages debate on whether a locality is in a town or not. It will not stop these kinds of discussions. The opposite in fact. MRSC (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of such a debate (or even a potential debate), please? --Mhockey (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Any place on the fringes of a town. Here are some currently disambiguated examples that would become ambiguous under the proposal:
Of course it is hard to predict which places are likely require disambiguation at a future date. MRSC (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That's more useful, thanks. Going through them:

This exercise demonstrates that in most cases we already decide (in the content of articles) whether a place is a suburb/district/area of a town or city, without getting bogged down in exactly what we mean by Luton or Slough. There may be the occasional difficult one like Quarrendon, but nothing like the problems that are going to arise under the current policy in suburbs of Leeds, Preston or other places.--Mhockey (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, with the difficult ones, by definition, it doesn't matter that much if we get the result "wrong". But the rule should not be phrased in a way that forbids us from getting the easier ones "right". The Beeston case shows that the rule as presently phrased (or probably any rule which tried to exclude local knowledge nad judgement) will sometimes give answers that people who know the places in question reject as clearly inferior.--Kotniski (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
In other words widespread renamings or at least uncertainty, should we use your opinion in each of those cases. The proposed change in wording does not make things clearer, it creates more ambiguity and need for debate (the opposite of its stated intention). MRSC (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we just use the facts stated in the articles. I don't see why that creates ambiguity or uncertainty, or increases the need for debate. I cannot find one example of a naming debate during the period when we had something like the proposed guideline (except when some editors did not realise that the guideline had changed). But the change in guideline in August has created uncertainty and debate (and potentially widespread renaming), because editors are not comfortable with the anomalies it throws up (why should a suburb of Leeds be treated differently from a suburb of Birmingham?) and it requires quite a detailed knowledge of English local government arrangements to apply literally. Can we just apply some common sense? --Mhockey (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I just throw in this spanner. If the Post Office are dropping their definitive list does that behove us to develop and publish our own. Please say no!--ClemRutter (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The "spanner" is the proposal that Medway becomes a City, but that would not make it a city. We already have examples of towns within a City (e.g. Wetherby in the City of Leeds but not in Leeds, Herne Bay in the City of Canterbury but not in Canterbury), but not, I think, towns within a city. And I don't think WP should be in the business of prescribing its own rules for matters outside WP - WP is about the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. --Mhockey (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Two tests that may help determine what to do with places on the edges of towns/cities:

  • Is the location in the same civil parish as the town/city? For this purpose, treat unparished areas within a district as a single parish.
  • Is the location in the urban area (as defined by the ONS)? If the location is in a different ceremonial county ignore this.

In the cases of the examples given by MSRC: Farley Hill: Within both the unparished area of Luton and Luton urban area Langley: Within both the unparished area of Slough and the Slough urban area. Quarrendon: The modern estate of Quarrendon is within both the unparished area of Aylesbury and Aylesbury urban area. However Quarrendon CP is an adjoining rural parish which contains the medieval village and church. The CP is also entirely outside the urban area (the article is factually incorrect there). Barnwell: Within both the unparished area of Cambridge and Cambridge urban area. Bardsley: Within the unparished area of Oldham. Within the Greater Manchester Urban Area.

These two tests both agree with Mhockey's analysis of 3 of them. Langley is different, the distinction being the result of the history of the village I suppose. As for Bardsley, the quick test breaks down because of the larger urban area.

This seems to suggest the tests are reasonably sane and if they both agree we should use that result. If they disagree it will be harder but they still provides guidance. An example of a place where they may be less useful is Roborough (in Plymouth Urban area but in Bickleigh, South Hams CP): is Roborough, Plymouth or Roborough, South Hams better?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, Dobbin whoa! I really do want to achieve consensus but I can't get my head round the last few statements. I understand that one regional definition of a city is a seriously big village with a population exceeding xx thousand, but the wording of guidelines has to satisfy all 'normal intelligent readers' so all this malarky about big c cities and little c cities just doesn't hold water. Ripon and Ely are cities, as is St David's (population 1,797 ). And whats more they all have been cities for at least 850 years. Other places have achieved city status through the divine right of the monarch based on the rights of a lineage that goes back to 443 BC- and in 2012 we will have more cities to consider. Googling around shows that definitive article on the subject City status in the United Kingdom is one of ours!
Now the suggestion that that we should regard the civil parish, just doesn't help as that will always skew the debate towards the current Unitary etc and away from the ceremonial county- just by the definition that the civil parish must be a subdivision of a larger current authority.
Now how does a Part of a Urban Area simplify the issue. "Bardsley: Within the unparished area of Oldham. Within the Greater Manchester Urban Area". Well looking at the map shows it is in the countryside twixt Ashton-under-Lyne in Tameside and Oldham, on the north bank of the River Medlock, and the Hollinwood Branch Canal. Luckily, it doesn't need to a dab. If anything, Bardsley, near Oldham would do
But whatever, clever arguments, though fun are irrelevant if the general reader can't follow the guidelines and generate a dab that all other general readers understand. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The OS defines Bardsley as part of the Manchester Urban Area, whilst your interpretation of the map is not a reliable source of course. Admittedly in that case its kind of pointless - the point is that the metric fails there so its possibly better to use the county. And when I was referring to civil parishes I was envisaging the case of ones like Aylesbury, not where the urban sprawl crosses a county border. In these cases, the CP is typically the current administrative border of the town (a common sense line on the map a normal reader would typically accept as the town border), it would not favour the unitary over the ceremonial, rather the town over both.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The "part of an urban area" helps with the parishes that contain large towns and a large swathe of countryside - Tiverton, Devon is an example there (would anyone say Cove, Devon is part of the town?).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is why the guideline of using ceremonial counties as disambiguators was decided in the first place. It is because everywhere in England is unambiguously located in one and it is never wrong to describe any place in England as being within a cerermonial county. The same can't be said for towns. The guideline corresponds to the way the majority of places that require disambiguation have been disambiguated since at least 2003, that is by ceremonial county. MRSC (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The use of ceremonial county makes it easy to determine what should be the dab for most places, leaving the few where there are multiple places of the same name in a ceremonial county and using district clears up most of these. Trying to apply city/town/civil parish is just complicating things and giving only those with local knowledge a chance of getting what is deemed to be the correct dab. Keith D (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
But it does give them the chance, that's the point. Oversimplifying these things has been found to give unsatisfactory answers.--Kotniski (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And it depends what you mean by "wrong". It is right to say that Lincoln is in Lincolnshire, but that does not make it right to describe the city as Lincoln, Lincolnshire - it is unnatural, it was never a "correct" postal address (and would have been a solecism once).

And what is complicated in describing a place as x, Town when the article itself describes the place as being in Town - and in some cases (e.g. Barnwell, Cambridgeshire) does not say which county it is in? It is more complicated to have to consider which county a suburb is in when the natural way of describing a suburb is to say which town or city it is a suburb of.--Mhockey (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The suburb and county town discussions have got mixed up again. Incidentally its incorrect to say all English localities can be tied to a single ceremonial county - Stockton-on-Tees and Tosside are examples of settlements (and if you look at geographic features you'll find a ton more). If there were Tossides in the USA - how on earth would we disambiguate the English one? On the suburbs issue: In general, CP boundaries are relevant (you don't need local knowledge to read an OS map) as if its a town, with a town council, then the CP boundary is the administrative boundary of the town. There are cases where the CP is clearly a much larger area than the town proper - for instance Cove, Devon. But that information provides guidance. I would say, if you can easily associate a place X with a town, great put it at X, town. If clearly not part of the town put it at X, county. If there's any doubt put it at X, county. In all cases, set up the appropriate redirects! Sure there's a grey area, but if we err on the side of caution where's the problem?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Complicated" because, what today may appear to be a suburb of a larger settlement, in the past may have been a settlement in its own right – and may still be thought of as such by some, despite the coalescence.
Regarding parishes, I think there are many places where the official parish name (if the place is parished) would not be readily recognised as the name of the settlement or with reflecting the boundaries of a place in the way that many people with a knowledge of the area would conceive them. Similarly for wards and any other administrative or electoral areas. But could we not assume a degree of common sense for edge cases, rather than imposing a structure that will in many circumstances lead to obscure results?
I am concerned that, whatever our guideline happens to be, it keeps getting changed (rather than refined). Any guideline will, to some extent, make arbitrary choices between conflicting approaches – which is exactly why we have guidelines in the first place. If we keep oscillating between conflicting arbitrary policies, we reduce Misplaced Pages from an encyclopedia to a debating society for have-a-go taxonomists. Or was it ever thus?
— Richardguk (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I would think mass moves or re-moves would be disruptive and should be discouraged. The problem is that there are different guidelines and policies in conflict. On the one hand we should try to be consistent, but on the other we should use the common name for places. In the case of Beeston it is almost always referred to as being part of Leeds, so in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME it should probably be at Beeston, Leeds, but that may not be consistent with how places are generally named. My personal opinion is that we should set more store by what a place is commonly known as than consistency. This is because consistency is more generally an issue for editors than readers, and I like to think that readers are more important.
However, I do think it is important that we have some sort of guideline where things are disputed. For example, if someone was to say that Yeadon, West Yorkshire should be dabbed as Yeadon, Leeds I'm sure there would be reasonable objections (got its own town hall, only part of the municipal borough since 1974 etc). In summary I think the guideline should be altered to say that the common name should be used when disambiguating, and if it is unclear or disputed what the common name is then the guideline should kick into action. Quantpole (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Common name and common sense - sounds good to me :) I think all this fretting about places on the margins of cities is causing problems for places that are integral parts of the place. Two examples would be Rose Hill, Derbyshire (an "inner city suburb") and Pennsylvania, Devon (built as a "suburb"). Both were moved from the city to the county in 2007. What to do about places on the edges, or villages that have got absorbed into the city need discussion and the guidelines should clarify this. But why should places that are clearly part of the city be disambiguated to the county, when it would be much more helpful to say its part of the city?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
We are moving into towards a recipe for disaster here, and have been doing since we agreed to allow Southampton suburbs to opt out of the Placename, Ceremonial county format. The problem is already begining to manifest itself (and I can't remember the two examples I came across!) with articles co-existing for Placename, City and Placename, Ceremonial county (for the same suburb, for example Woolston, Southampton and Woolston, Hampshire)—it wasn't Woolston I came across—and this is going to become more prevalent as time goes by. When we had the simple rule that we disambiguate by ceremonial county (unless there are two of the same name in the county) everyone knew where we stood, and such duplications were unlikely to occur. Can we please go back to an easily understood system that leaves no room for confusion. It really doesn't matter whether Beeston, Leeds is more common than Beeston, West Yorkshire as all we are talking about is a disambiguator in an article title, not renaming the settlement. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Irrespective of which location we put the article at, we really should set up redirects (whether the article dab is county or town isn't the point). If this is done properly we won't get double articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
It keeps naming places simple if we disambiguate by county, not by city/town. Also Beeston, Leeds is separated by the M621 motorway so it isn't really a suburb of Leeds, West Yorkshire Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs favourite 17:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands again

Comments are needed at Talk:Senkaku Islands#What should the title of this article be?. The point is what is the most common name in English. Please participate in the discussion. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Requesting clarification on dual names

The section on "Multiple Local Names" states: "Experience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first." At Talk:Senkaku Islands, the point has been raised that while this guideline strongly frowns on multiple names, it does not forbid it. I don't know how well watched this talk page is, but I have a few questions on this part of the guideline:

1) Are there currently any Misplaced Pages articles that have "multiple names"? As an example, there is a proposal that the name of the above mentioned article be changed either to Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands or Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. If such a proposal were to be seriously considered, would it be the only example of its type, or are there other dual-named articles?

2) Since the line quoted above implies that dual names have been tried in the past but failed, does anyone know of an example of this? That is, anyone know of any article histories where we could look to see the attempt at dual names causing equally bad edit warring to just choosing one name?

3) Assuming that, nonetheless, the "local" editors at that talk page really felt that there was no better solution, that there was no distinction between the two names, and that the dual name is actually one of the more common names used in English sources, where then would they need to go to determine if this breach, or at least, "bending", of the guidelines should be allowed? That is, assuming somehow the dual name got talk page consensus, could we then just move it to do the dual name? Or would we need to raise the issue somewhere "higher", like the Pump, or some other noticeboard?

Thanks for any input. Just to clarify, I'm not looking for any input here about what the name of that particular article actually should be. I'm just trying to figure out if there is any point in discussing a dual name at that article's talk page. In full disclosure, I have thus far argued that there is not). My worry is that even if we were to agree to the dual name, as soon as we moved it, someone else would move it back as a violation of the guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. The only place I know of which has a multiple name as an article title is Biel/Bienne, although there was some discussion about doing it for New Zealand places (did that come to anything?).
    • Biel/Bienne is quite different from the Pinnacle Islands (to choose the least partisan of the single names): Its naming and nationality are uncontroversial (on Misplaced Pages and I think in Switzerland); and the double name including the order is both official and customary.
  2. For the background of that provision, see WP:LAME on Bolzano; IIRC that entry is quite correct, including the two move requests from Bolzano/Bozen to Bozen/Bolzano; almost all of the mess should have been archived by now.
  3. This is a guideline; genuine consensus may ignore it. But if you are worried about someone moving it back after a thorough discussion, preferably aired at WP:RM, you probably don't have consensus.
    • On the other hand, this is a warning, not a prohibition. If you think you can get genuine consensus on a dual name, without perpetual move requests, and with a clear answer to newbies who want the name they were taught in middle school, there's nothing here to make it pointles to suggest it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I think there are a couple issues I would like your consideration and input. (1) As I understand (from what the guideline says and what is discussed above), the main reason for avoiding A_B or A/B is the ordering problem. But if everyone who opposes A would rather have A_B than simply A, i.e. taking one name means much less compromise that dual name, isn't this a more acceptable solution to all? and that would mean less likely moving/controversy in future? (2) if in almost all literary in English, be in academic or media, if A_B is becoming more and more prevalent, and from the simple syntax/serach perspective, A_B or A/B appears much more often than simply "A", isn't this a good reason to pose A_B as a candidate? i.e. one could view A_B is THE NAME adopted by academic and media, instead of a dual name. It is not "an artificial invention" by the wiki community just for this pupose. Thanks for your input.San9663 (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
For me it's not so much the possibility of arguments over the order that's the problem; it's the possibility that once we start, people will start proposing this "solution" for all sorts of cases where there isn't really a problem to solve (Gdańsk/Danzig, Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna, Londonderry/Derry, Burma/Myanmar, Oder/Odra and so on - thousands of other places have alternative names) - I suppose we could name articles like this, it wouldn't be an entirely bad style, but we must be aware that once we start it will be hard to stop.--Kotniski (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Kotniski, but the likelihood of order arguments is the final straw: if we are going to use long, clunky, unidiomatic forms, and not even get peace out of it, what's the point? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
For me, part of the worry on order of names is that, even if got agreement now, that won't stop others from changing it in the future. That is, once the partial step is taken (say to move it from A to A/B), then in a month or so someone might say, "Yeah, but now that a dual name is okay, it's obvious B should be first, so I' moving it to B/A." But that's not really a reason to stand in the way, as any consensus can change, so it's not right to object just because it makes things more volatile. So I suppose that one step would be, if the local editors on that article do want the change, to get a solid agreement that at least no one editing right now would propose a move to B/A. I also see the logic in Kotniski's concern that this could be bad for other articles. If in fact such a solution is chosen at Senkaku Islands, it might almost be worth adding a line to this guideline specifically to point out that the use of dual names is only acceptable when a large portion of reliable sources themselves use dual names (which may be the case here). That is, that S/D wasn't chosen as a compromise name, but because that's actually the name used in reliable sources (assuming it is). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
A reasonable exception; let us know if compromise is attainable on those grounds. In fact, I have included a very limited statement on the acceptability of Biel/Bienne, since nobody seems to be disputing it on any grounds outside this guideline. If anybody can think of more restrictions, feel free to pile on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The Norwegian example of Gáivuotna – Kåfjord seems to conflict with your wording. For a limited period it was the official name, but it is not now - and on the evidence of the article itself, the place seems to be most commonly referred to as Kåfjord in English. Arguably it should be moved, although Kåfjord is ambiguous, which might be the reason it has not been moved. Mhockey (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The talk page strongly suggests that this is another ethnic naming dispute. I don't think this falsifies what I wrote; it may imply that the article ought to be moved - but to which? There is the difficulty that if Kåfjord is ambiguous, it may be hard to find out what English usage on this arctic hamlet is.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems like I am late to the game. I agree that the name ordering of S/D and D/S can still be disputed, but that significantly lessens the degree of controversy even though that in itself is not a perfect solution.

Also, I personally doubt a consensus will be reached because numerous editors involved in the issue (mostly from Project Japan) seem to like nothing more than complete favour of "Senkaku Island" names. So, I'd be surprised if we don't send this issue right off to mediation. For more background, here's the thread and here's my summary of the issue. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Philippines

The city naming conventions for Philippines have been evolving, as per this recent successful move proposal. I've updated the guideline to reflect what is happening as best as I can understand it. At least it no longer states the preference is to add the suffix "City", which is clearly out of favor. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion notification

There is a move request to move Green Bay, Wisconsin to Green Bay at Talk:Green Bay, Wisconsin#Requested move. Because the outcome of this discussion would affect our article naming conventions, you may want to participate in that discussion. Please discuss at the linked section. Powers 13:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC: United States cities - time to comply with Misplaced Pages naming?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Throughout Misplaced Pages, with fewer and fewer exceptions, when the most common name for an article's subject is unique or primarily used to refer to that topic, that name is used as that article's title, in accordance with the general naming criteria specified at WP:TITLE. While WP:TITLE says "titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred", it also says these titles should ideally be in compliance with the other criteria, including, "only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic unambiguously". The current guideline for naming U.S. cities is a glaring exception to this convention which is followed almost universally throughout Misplaced Pages. Why should the titles of articles about U.S. cities be treated differently? I suggest there is no good reason, and so propose that the guideline be changed accordingly.

If you peruse WP:PLACES (and please do), you will see that the United States is rapidly becoming the only country for which we disambiguate city names even when they are unique or primary. The vast majority follow the same convention used for almost all articles in Misplaced Pages: "when possible, use ]" (or words to that effect).

The U.S. guideline allows exceptions, but currently only for cities on the AP list. When that change was introduced a couple of years ago the hand-wringing that ensued about what problems will result has been shown to be without basis. In fact, the only effect of that change has been that people stopped proposing that those articles be moved, as had been quite common for those names prior to that change, and continues with those cities that remain inexplicably disambiguated . Yet I won't be surprised if similar hand-wringing ensues for this proposal.

I propose that U.S. city naming be brought into compliance with the naming conventions used throughout Misplaced Pages, or at least brought into great compliance. I thereby offer two options in this proposal, as well as the choice to keep things as they are.

  • A - Full Compliance. Change this part of the first paragraph of the current guideline:
The canonical form for cities, towns and census-designated places in the United States is ] (the "comma convention"). Those places that need additional disambiguation...
To read:
When possible, use ] for places in the United States. For cities that require disambiguation, use ]. Those places that need additional disambiguation...
Also, delete the entire second paragraph about cities in the AP book since this new wording would encompass them anyway.
  • B - Improved Compliance. Expand "exceptions" to include state capitals and NFL/MLB franchise cities as well as cities on the AP list. Change this current wording in the 2nd paragraph:
Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may or may not have their articles named ] provided they are the primary topic for that name..
To read:
Cities that are state capitals, have NFL or MLB sport franchises, or are listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may or may not have their articles named ] provided they are the primary topic for that name..
  • C - Status Quo

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Please indicate your 1st and second preferences, A, B or C, and a short reason/explanation.

  • 1st:A; 2nd:B - There is no reason for U.S. cities to be treated differently from other topics in Misplaced Pages. Any city, like any other topic in Misplaced Pages, whose name is unique or primary should be at the name without any disambiguation or additional unnecessary precision (A). But if there is still strong objection to that, at least bringing capitals and major cities with NFL/MLB franchises into compliance will be a big improvement (B). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • C. What is broken is the rest of the convention. Many editors have requested clarity in the titles. Some even requesting something other then the place name to get some idea when the place is. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A. There's no reason for U.S. cities to have a naming convention that differs from all other cities in the world, and the AP stylebook is not Misplaced Pages policy, much less holy writ. Jayjg 02:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • C; in national and international contexts, such as news article datelines, these cities are referred to with the state identifier. It is a very common way to refer to most U.S. cities even with in the U.S. and provides clarity to both readers and editors. Powers 03:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A There is no rational justification for this idiosyncratic exception to the general manner in which disambiguation is handled across every other topic in the encyclopedia. The title is merely a unique descriptor for the topic, it is not the job of the title to provide encyclopedic information. Mattinbgn (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Are you calling my justification irrational? Powers 03:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
      • It doesn't appear to be to me. Take offence if you wish, but that is my opinion. It is at its root special pleading. It suggests that the United States is qualitatively different than every other nation on earth and that place names are qualitatively different than every other topic in the encyclopedia. Neither of those two claims stand up to any serious scrutiny. There is no rational reason why the same disambiguation practices that work adequately across the entire encyclopedia become somehow inadequate when dealing with US places. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah sorry, but why is something in common use lacking a rational justification? Many terms and phrases are rather clear when you can place them in context. The problem here is that many uses lack the critical component of context. So you need another way to deal with the problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Something in "common use" is lacking a rational justification because being in "common use" in itself is not a rational justification. If it were, then Paris and London (for example) would be at Paris, France and London, England respectively. After all, those ways of referring to those cities are in "common use". But that's not how we name articles in Misplaced Pages. We try to use the most common name for the article's topic, and with only as much precision as is needed to avoid ambiguity (including considering primary topic criteria). Descriptive information beyond the name is typically only included in the title when required for disambiguation, and in those titles of topics that lack names ("List of ..." articles come to mind). For most topics, including most cities, worldwide, including those in the U.S., that means using just the base name of the topic for the article title, period. To make an exception for U.S. cities for no reason (or only for reasons that apply to other topics that are not also made exceptions) is unreasonable as well as irrational, by definition. I mean, look at the C votes so far... the guideline is cited repeatedly, yet no one has given any justification for it, except for this very weak "common use" point, and the admission that the real motivation is adding descriptive information to the titles even when it's not required for disambiguation, which is (for very good reason) contrary to the general naming criteria policy. That too is irrational in a proposal where the guideline wording -- and the basis/justification for it -- is what is at issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A, in principle, and definitely for any new articles (although I'd be surprised if there were many substantial settlements in the USA which have yet to gain a wikipedia article). However, I would oppose mass renaming as it's likely to be very disruptive - there would still be quite a few people who (not unreasonably) feel attached to the status quo. I particularly dislike B - why should a particular sports franchise affect naming conventions for cities? bobrayner (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • C keep as is. There is no good reason to change. The current system is working, as it is. The US is a big country with many thousands of cities. Too many US cities have names that are duplicated in other US states; too many US cities have names are copied from Europe. Endless confusion from such a change. As things are right now, readers have a running chance to know the correct city being discussed by looking at the 'name, state', without having to go look up the article (a waste of reader time). If anything is to change, it is the names of the some other countries' cities--these are usually useless as written forcing readers to go hunt. Mention of NFL/MLB franchises makes the nomination laughable. This subject is about geography, not corporate/sports advertising. Hmains (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A - having random variation in the way we name articles, based on the differing personal preferences of editors from different countries, doesn't make the encyclopedia any better. --Kotniski (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • C The current practice is not "random variation" from worldwide naming conventions. It accords with WP:COMMONNAME, as evidenced by the AP Stylebook. The Oxford Guide to Style also has this to say (para 4.2.10): "Newspapers ...make allowances for the 'local knowledge' expected of their readers..the New York Times does not require clarification for White Plains or Yonkers, whereas the Wall Street Journal - ... aimed at a wider readership - does. When in doubt it is best to err on the side of caution." That seems to be good advice for WP. It is also consistent with the practice in other countries where a Placename, Subnational unit name for unambiguous places would be regarded as unnatural (or even an American import) and therefore inconsistent with WP:COMMONNAME. --Mhockey (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • E - None of the above. Don't make rules that force conformity for conformity's sake... let editors have some degree of flexibility to title their articles as they think is best. Obviously we need to disambiguate many city and town names... but as long as we do so, does it really matter how we do so? to me, it does not really matter whether the article title is: Boston, Texas or Boston (Texas).
  • C. I don't see the current situation as a problem. City, State is a very common way to refer to places in the United States even when disambiguation is not strictly necessary Eluchil404 (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • C. Agree completely with Eluchil404. Also, Born2cycle is mistaken about London and Paris. In the U.S. the "city, state" pattern is so common that this pattern is even extended to European cities, and one hears "Rome, Italy". In Europe this usage does not exist. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, maybe not internationally prominent cities like Rome, Paris and London, but how about Modena, Italy which is at Modena? Brossard, Quebec which is at Brossard? Or Plymouth, Devon (a.k.a Plymouth, England) which, despite repeated attempts to move it, remains at Plymouth? There are hundreds of thousands of ghits for each of these disambiguated forms indicating how common this usage is, yet at WP that is not reason to move them from their base names when they are the unique or primary use of that name. Why should it be any different for U.S. cities? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
      • You are mistaken. This is a US custom that nobody uses in Europe. Nobody says Modena, Italy. This comma convention is an American convention. Sometimes the name of a city is ambiguous, and other means are used to disambiguate. If Frankfurt doesn't suffice, one says Frankfurt am Main. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A. Per WP:precision. Disambiguation terms should only be used when needed.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • C. There is no need to change. City, state is the common form of the name for the majority of U.S. cities. It is not unnecessary disambiguation. There are far too many non-unique city names in the United States, and if we change the current method the next battle will be "my city deserves to be the primary, not yours" popularity contests among editors.DCmacnut<> 17:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • In other words, U.S. cities will be treated no differently than any other topic in Misplaced Pages, including cities of most other countries. Is that really so terrible so as to warrant this exceptional treatment? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with you that there is a problem with multiple standards for multiple countries, but Misplaced Pages has long operated on concensus, and concensus has been that editors in each country can come up with standards that fit their situation. Concensus has long held that for the United States, city, state is the appropriate. People are free to debate and try to change concensus on this matter, but so far, none of the statements I have seen make a compelling in favor of such a major change. It is more natural to use city, state in the vast majority of cases. You asked for opinions, and there is mine.DCmacnut<> 19:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I understand that there was such consensus in the past, but this discussion indicates that consensus has significantly weakened, if not evaporated. If so, this would not be surprising, as predisambiguation in general seems to be falling out of favor lately not only for place names, but for many other topic areas as well.

          Anyway, what's relevant here are arguments in favor or against each of the proposals. So, you favor C because you believe, for example, that it is "more natural" to use Baton Rouge, Louisiana than Baton Rouge?

          I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "more natural", but WP:TITLE clarifies what is meant by "naturalness" in two ways:

          1. "use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article"
          2. "convey what the subject is actually called in English"
        Now, are readers most likely to use "Baton Rouge" or "Baton Rouge, Louisiana" to search for that city? Remember, we're discussing only those cities, like Baton Rouge, with either unique names or names for which they are the primary use. I suggest the former is much more likely to be used, if nothing else because it's less to type!

        As far as what the subject is "actually called in English", if you ask someone the name of their hometown (go ahead, try: "What is the name of the hometown in which you were born?"... not "Where were you born?", which is a different question), I suggest the answer most likely to be given is just the name, without the state, of the city, if the name is unique or the primary use of that name (e.g., someone from "Portland" is likely to answer either Portland, Oregon orPortland, Maine, but someone from "Baton Rouge" is probably going to say just "Baton Rouge"... because that's what that city "is actually called in English".

        So, to refer to cities with either unique names or for which they are the primary use of their names, don't you agree it is "more natural" to use just the name, without the state? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

        • In a word, no. I have my opinion and you have yours.DCmacnut<> 20:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, neither of our opinions are relevant here, per WP:JDLI. What matters are the quality of the arguments that underlie our positions. If you want to define "natural" in your own mysterious way and then declare that "city, state" is more "natural", that's fine, but it's not pertinent to a discussion about WP guidelines. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm not defining anything in a "mysterious way." City, State is the common name used in the majority of "English-language reliable sources", and is not overly precise per WP:PRECISION. It's not that I "don't like" the change. The fact remains that the guideline is what is is, and I have yet to see a compelling argument that making the change you recommend will improve the use of Misplaced Pages and its readers.DCmacnut<> 21:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
              • Please explain how, Baton Rouge, Louisiana is not overly precise per WP:PRECISION. In the mean time, I will explain how it is. WP:PRECISION states: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. ".

                Now, does Baton Rouge indicate the name of the topic? Yep. Is additional precision necessary to distinguish Baton Rouge from other uses of "Baton Rouge"? Nope. Is Baton Rouge, Louisiana avoiding over-precision? Nope. Is Baton Rouge, Louisiana precise? Yep. Is it only as precise as is needed? Nope. There is no need to be so precise as to specify the state; Baton Rouge is sufficiently precise.

                Bam, on every WP:PRECISION point, Cityname beats Cityname, State when disambiguation is not required. It's no contest. I'm looking forward to learning how you see it otherwise. In addition to precision, Baton Rouge also clearly beats Baton Rouge, Louisiana on the WP:AT criteria of "Conciseness" ("shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones.").

                As far as improving the encyclopedia for users, any benefit with respect to naming change will never be huge. However, to the extent that we disambiguate only when necessary, our titles more reliably convey whether the use of the name is unique or primary, or whether there are other uses. That is, if all U.S. cities were disambiguated only when necessary, then the title Portland, Oregon would clearly mean there is another relatively significant use of "Portland" (because if there wasn't, then that article would be at Portland). As a WP user I find this feature useful with book names, people names, film names, TV series and episode names, educational topic names, and names of cities in most other countries. For example, you can look at Category:Novels_by_Stephen_King and immediately see which of his novels have unique/primary names, and which of his novels have names that have other relatively significant uses. Or, take a look at Category:Port cities and towns in the United Kingdom to see which are unique/primary, like Bristol or have names with other relatively significant uses, like Sunderland. Why shouldn't we provide this feature for our readers with respect to U.S. city names too? What do they get in return for losing this feature by our putting all U.S. cities at city, state whether they require disambiguation or not?

                So, I've explained how this convention is not in conformance with WP:AT and WP:PRECISION as much as it would be if we put those cities that don't require disambiguation at Cityname as I propose with A, and I've explained how readers will benefit if we disambiguate only when necessary. Are you persuaded, or do you still just don't like it? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  • A If a name is unambiguous, there is no reason to disambiguate. --Polaron | Talk 20:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • C. This guideline complies entirely with WP:TITLE#Explicit conventions, which was written to accommodate it. Misplaced Pages has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). Sometimes these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for flora and medicine). This is another naming convention; and I'm bored with this cyclic effort to assert falsehood. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Accusing others with whom you disagree of asserting falsehood is not exactly assuming good faith, is it? I respectfully request that you strike that comment. - Nick Thorne 23:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
No, it is a statement of fact; the assertion is false. In this case, the policy - with B2C dissenting - has included the text quoted for a long time; it has always included some equivalent support for specific conventions. What B2C says is false; he should know it is false; and he has made the claim that the guidelines must be adjusted to comply with what he would like policy to say on multiple pages, in pursuit of an agenda he has been a (minority) advocate of since before he changed user name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course, you have only stated why the US convention and WP:TITLE may not be in conflict, not that mandatory disambiguation is actually necessary. (If you look hard enough then there are loopholes in most policies for everyone's favourite idiosyncrasies). Despite the cherry-picking citing of the exemption, you cannot deny that the general principle of WP:TITLE is to use the common name, taking into account both preciseness and conciseness. You haven't addressed why US place names need to deviate from this general principle, and that is because there is no need for this deviation. Where is the evidence that the general naming principle across the vast majority of the encyclopedia is inadequate for US places? ILIKEIT is not an argument. Asserting that something is allowed does not mean that is worth doing. Accusing people with differing opinions of "falsehood" is not helpful either. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I haven't explained why we disambiguate; others have. But rather than making you read them: Most American placenames are ambiguous, creating a de facto convention; in this the United States differs from other countries. It is difficult for a reader to tell, other than for the most famous places, whether a place-name is unambiguous or primary usage. Therefore, rather than providing an unexplained patchwork in which some of the articles are disambiguated and others in the same county are not, we choose to disambiguate all but the most obvious cases. Consistency with similar articles is a principle of WP:TITLE, after all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
But aren't most Canadian, English, Australian, and other English-speaking countries' placenames ambiguous? Dohn joe (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
No, apparently not. The United States has more names just because of its size and populousness, and tends to have produced uniqueness within each State, not within the United States (so for example, the US has 21 Springfields, each in a different state, and innumerable Washingtons and Madisons).
For comparison, the use of aboriginal names in Australia seems to have provided a larger name-stock; they're used more often than Indian names are in the United States (for example, Indian names - except for the States themselves - are quite rare in New England) and the Australian names are not as often borrowed within the country (see Wyoming and Miami, on the other hand) and are more diverse because of the diversity of the aboriginal culture (the same Algonquian name is all too often used several places in the Northeast; the same Lakota names in the Far Midwest; and so on.)
And much of the English namestock was left behind; nobody ever bothered naming a settlement anywhere after Brill, say. So England has, again, a larger stock of names for a smaller area. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone has done any analysis of this. Anectdotally, what you say makes sense, but I'd love to see some numerical evidence of percentage of placenames in (say) Massachusetts, Ontario, New South Wales, Jamaica, and England are either unique or their WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Dohn joe (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Feel free. A sample of American placenames - and I believe other countries' - was examined in the archives of WT:NC (settlements) before the page was merged here. 77 out of 100 American names were ambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A Only disambiguate when necessary. - Nick Thorne 00:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A So far, I have heard people assert that it is most common for sources to use City, State. I have not yet seen anyone produce evidence of that, outside of the AP Handbook. Absent extremely strong evidence, it seems to me that these articles should conform to our normal naming principles, rather than specialized ones based on hypotheticals and unsourced claims. If someone were somehow able to demonstrate that, however, then I would be inclined to change my opinion. Three possible places to look: other encyclopedias, since we are specifically directed to look at them when considering other "ambiguous/multiple local names"; scholarly articles; and newspapers with a primarily national or international circulation. I hold that, even though the current procedure is to use City, State, the burden is on those who wish to maintain this counter-to-standard format to verify that their preferred titles meet the necessarily high bar required for an exception to standard conventions.98.176.17.189 (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • C. Status quo works well for the USA and there is a good argument for extending it to other countries. Deb (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • C Status quo is fine -- put the articles at the commonname and use redirects for the rest. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Point is that the base assumption of these naming conventions has problems. A while ago, it was decided that Las Vegas should not be the place for one of the cities with this name or a redirect. It currently is a dab page. In processing the new incoming links which run about 5 a day or approaching 2,000 in a year, at least 90% are not for the city. While I agree that this is not the normal case, it does show that the normal can be problematic. Add to that the problems with category names where there is no way to see what has been added to any category and you have a recipe for disaster. The better solution is to have all places in the form of place_name, some_country_dependent_higher_level_division. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Trying to fix issues with category names by changing article titles is a case of the tail wagging the dog. If category naming is an issue, then fix the way categories are named. I am starting to come to the conclusion that the concept of categorisation is not worth the problems it creates for the rest of the encyclopedia. The idea that the article title should provide context to a name is a strange one too. Why should this principle only apply to place names? Should we also haveCalcium (element) and Heroin (drug)? It seems far more practical to treat disambiguation as a necessary evil and to rely on the article to provide the context needed, across the entire project. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
What clarity! WP needs more of this kind of thoughtfulness. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The error is in thinking the state name serves only to disambiguate. Powers 14:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I have never understood the insistence on forcing conformity of style when it comes to article titles... no matter what the topic area. Of all the criteria at WP:Article titles, I think conformity is the least important. Conformity is nice, but it is not necessary... and should always take second place to other criteria and needs (recognizably, brevity, the need for disambiguation, etc.). I see nothing wrong with different articles having different title styles, as long as the reader can easily find the article on the city they are searching for. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Conformity assists that, as well as assisting editors (which, while a secondary goal, is still important). Powers 16:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Conformity establishes part of the look and uniformity of the encyclopedia. If 98% of the articles have state, city, then the other 2% look out of place. If we go to 50%, then it looks random, like there is no style sheet. If we go down to 10%, then they look out of place. Better to have a uniform look and feel for the readers' benefit. The fact that article name are predictable is a good thing. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Vegaswikian, "The other 2% look out of place" was essentially one of the main arguments made against even moving the U.S. cities on the AP list to their base names. Yet here we are... do Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, or Seattle "look out of place"? You get used to it, don't you? Does Carmel-by-the-Sea (which I just noticed is at its base name, not disambiguated) "look out of place"? Oh, my let's call the naming police! What a travesty! Seriously, what is the problem?

If the Green Bay, Wisconsin → Green Bay proposal succeeds, will Green Bay "look out of place"? Really? Why? How will that be a problem? By the "looks out of place" reasoning Cher should be moved to Cher (entertainer) because Cher "looks out of place" compared to Madonna (entertainer), Usher (entertainer), and Common (entertainer), and South Australian cities Adelaide, Port Lincoln, Port Pirie and Whyalla should be moved to Adelaide, South Australia, Port Lincoln, South Australia, Port Pirie, South Australia and Whyalla, South Australia respectively because they "look out of place" at their base names compared to Victor Harbor, South Australia and Murray Bridge, South Australia. The "looks out of place" argument completely ignores the reality of how mostother Misplaced Pages articles are named (precision is usually added to the name of the subject in the title only when necessary for disambiguation, thus making some more precise than other the norm, not something unusual).

Besides, I think your 2% estimate is grossly underestimated. I would expect around a third, maybe close to half, of all U.S. cities have names that are either unique or or the city is the primary use of that name. Besides, the unique or primary use ones are trivial to identify since for most of them the base name, like Sacramento, Spokane, Boise, Nashville, Nantucket, Tallahassee, etc., already redirects to the article about the city. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not make an estimate. I just used some numbers. I don't know how many place names are of the compound form. But pushing for dropping the second level will not remove all of these. There will still be many conflicts in the name space. Keeping and expanding the US convention will actually produce fewer exceptions and improved clarity and readability. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Powers, you say the error is in thinking that the state name serves only to disambiguate. Who thinks that? Clearly, including the state name serves a descriptive purpose, by adding precision to the title in addition to conveying the most common name of the topic. So the mistake is not in thinking that the state names serves only to disambiguate, but in thinking the title should do anything other than convey what the topic is usually called, and be the unique or primary use of the name in the title. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Born2cycle, you say the error is in thinking that the title should do more than just convey what the topic is usually called. Who thinks that? Powers 21:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought you were thinking that the title should do more than just convey what the topic is usually called, unless you're also thinking that U.S. cities are called with the state qualifier more often than without it. Are you? If so, I suggest google search counts indicate otherwise, at least for cities whose names are either unique or are the primary use of the name, which is all that is relevant here. Here are two examples:
Anyway, you say the error is in thinking that the state name serves only to disambiguate. So, what purpose do you believe the state name serves, and is that a purpose information other than state added to Misplaced Pages titles serves? If so, what is that information in which titles? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
It's hardly surprising that "Cityname" gets more hits than "cityname, state", since one is a subset of the other! Even if you were to adjust the search terms to account for that, however, it's a crude tool at best; it fails to take into account the differing contexts in which city names are used. For example, many hits for the name without the state will be local sources where the context (meaning the state) is already established and specifying it would be redundant. That's not the case in a generalist encyclopedia. It also fails to take into account that the state name is not repeated if it's been specified once already. As for other purposes, there are several: clarity, consistency, simplicity, and recognizability. There may be more, but that list should suffice for my purposes. Powers 00:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting establishing context is a purpose WP article titles are supposed to serve? If so, what is the basis for that? If not, why are you talking about context? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
No, and it's getting difficult to believe you're not intentionally missing my point. What I'm saying is that the name that we consider "most common" per WP:COMMONNAME changes depending on context. On Misplaced Pages, our context is world-wide, and in world-wide contexts, most U.S. cities are referred to with the state name appended on first reference. Cities are mentioned without the state name only when a more limited context has been established, either by a previous reference to the state, or by the reader's knowledge of the local area to which a source pertains. Powers 11:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm with you. Thank you for having the patience and taking the time to explain what you mean, and that is a very good point. However, to use your words, it's also true that in this world-wide context, most cities in other countries are referred to with the country name or a state-like administrative unit appended on first reference... for example: Nice, France, Cork, Ireland, Salzburg, Austria, Brossard, Quebec, Whyalla, South Australia. These cities are mentioned without the disambiguator only when a more limited context has been established, either by a previous reference to the context, or by the reader's knowledge of the context to which a source pertains.

Yet the titles we use in Misplaced Pages for these cities is just the name of the city, without the context, unless additional context (as in Cork (city)) is required for disambiguation. For example, the cities just mentioned are at: Nice, Cork (city), Salzburg, Brossard and Whyalla, respectively.

So, I ask again, why should cities in the U.S. be treated by Misplaced Pages differently, inconsistently, from other topics in general, and in particular from other cities in the world? Why does the common name in a world-wide context reasoning you just gave not apply to non-U.S. cities in the way I demonstrated? And since it does not apply to them, why should it apply to U.S. cities? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(sorry for outdenting) No, Born2cycle, as I also said earlier on this page, one does not say "Nice, France". Maybe you are used to hearing such things, it may be natural in your local context, but it is very uncommon in Europe. Since Misplaced Pages is not a US-only enterprise, it refers to places as one commonly does. It is Amsterdam, and Washington, D.C., and Frankfurt (am Main). 213.84.53.62 (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit of a compromise, I suppose. That is, a compromise between a truly global view and a local view. Perhaps earlier I should have said "national" or "regional" context rather than global. My sense is that the states of the U.S. are so well known and differ enough from each other that they are more frequently used with U.S. city names than country names are on other cities around the globe. On the other hand, I can't say I'd object strenuously if editors wished to add country names to most cities -- although I might caution against it because of certain awkward constructions that might result such as "Brighton, Monroe County, New York, United States of America". The other factor is that so many United States communities are named after other communities in other states (due to migration patterns and a lack of creativity on the part of the pioneers) that most communities would require disambiguation anyway, and it just feels right to go ahead and do them all that way. Powers 14:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your honesty. Yes, I'm afraid the objection to putting U.S. cities that don't need disambiguation at their base name ultimately comes down to "it just feels right". I really think that if you go to Carmel-by-the-Sea and give it a sec, it will feel right too. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the exception that proves the rule. Anyway, "it just feels right" is not the same as "I like it". Just because the reasoning is ineffable doesn't mean it's invalid. And, it's only a small part of my reasoning anyway. Powers 19:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Powers, I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing between "it just feels right" and "I like it" that is significant here (I concede that they're not the same in ways that are not relevant to this discussion). WP:JDLI states, "Emotion does not trump logic at Misplaced Pages." clearly indicating it's referring to "feels right" as much as to "like it".

As to the rest of the reasoning, it seems to be a rationalization of what "feels right". The aesthetic attraction of everything named consistently according to the same pattern is undeniable, but it's not the only consideration to be weighed.

Part of your reasoning is based on a sense of how often U.S. cities are called by city vs. city, state as compared to how often international cities are called by city vs. city, country, let's look:

Granted that's a small sample and has various problems associated with google tests, but it's still better than by going by a totally subjective personal sense, and indicates the difference is not that significant.

Finally, I don't understand why it matters whether 90%, 9% or .9% of topics in a given group have either unique or primary use names to decide whether they should be at the base name. This was an argument made against moving the cities on the AP list, which of course amount to only a tiny percentage of all U.S. cities. That was no problem. Other than as a rationalization for what "feel rights", I don't understand why anyone would object to moving the remaining unique or primary use U.S. cities to their base names because they amount to some small percentage. No matter how small that percentage is, it's much larger percentage of all U.S. cities than the two dozen or so AP cities currently comprise. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's quite obvious by now that you don't understand why anyone objects. I'm about ready to give up trying to explain it, honestly. Powers 20:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Another option

Hey folks - not being entirely satisfied with any of the above options, I propose an Option D. This option keeps the first paragraph as is, while making the following change to the second paragraph of the guideline: "Provided it is the primary topic for that name, any United States city may or may not have its article named ]..."

This option preserves the "canonical form" language of the first paragraph, letting people know that "City, State" is a generally accepted way to refer to U.S. cities, while allowing more flexibility on an individual article basis - but emphasizing the importance of renaming only where it is truly appropriate. The practical effect should be that only articles where ] currently redirects to ] will be candidates for renaming. And since the language remains permissive and not obligatory, changes will only happen where there is consensus. Feel free to support, oppose, or comment. (Or ignore, for that matter....) Dohn joe (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this Option D will just lead to editors, such as those favoring Option A above, requesting moves of a large number of towns and communities. --Bejnar (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The reason we don't do that is straightforward, and should be included in this page: How is a reader to tell whether Matawan, New Jersey is the primary topic for Matawan or not - without consulting an encyclopedia first? Most US communities aren't either unique or primary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The challenges of topics with names with similar spellings are not unique to U.S. cities. Sometimes determining whether a given name has a primary topic is also challenging. Neither issue is unique to U.S. cities nor is a reason to treat U.S. cities differently.

    If requests to move large numbers of towns and cities did occur, so what? It happened with the cities on the AP list, and was hardly an issue at all. It happened with Carmel-by-the-Sea, and nobody noticed. What's the problem? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

  • We have to decide that even if we use "Matawan, New Jersey" as the name of the article, when deciding whether Matawan should redirect to the article about the town (if it's the primary topic) or to a disambiguation page (if there's no primary topic) or something else (if there's a primary topic other than the town). A. di M. (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. And this highlights one of the problems with predisambiguation - apparently, it causes editors like PMA to believe or assume that putting an article at a unique predisambiguated title obviates them from their responsibility to consider treatment of the base name of that topic as it applies to that topic.

As a result, it is very common for the base name of topics with predisambiguated titles to be neglected with respect to how that name is treated relative to that topic. The problems are manifested as:

  1. missing redirects (the predisambiguated topic's base name is a red link),
  2. missing links (the predisambiguated topic is not listed on the dab page for the predisambiguated topic's base name, nor in a hat note of the primary topic article when there is no dab page), and
  3. the predisambiguated topic is not considered a "significant competing use" in primary topic determinations for that base name (e.g., Plymouth).
--Born2cycle (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

But this proposal won't do do any of those things.

The solution to missing redirects or dab entries is to create them. Moving the articles around will not help; indeed it is more likely to result double entries or none.

As for Plymouth: it is not the responsibility of this page to counter British or American nationalism; if consensus can be formed that Drake's home town is not primary usage for Plymouth - and that there is none - so much the better. But this proposal will do little or nothing for that; Plymouth, California will still need disambiguation (so will Plymouth, Massachusetts; it's not primary, it's merely the second most common reference of a name with many); the difficulty is to persuade people that Plymouth, Devon is desirable. Arguing loudly that Carmel-by-the-Sea, California is not desirable is unlikely to help in that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course the solution to creating missing redirects is to create them, but editors have to care in order to do that, and "predisambiguation mentality" quite apparently inhibits that kind of care. The fact that a significant inappropriate consideration in city naming might be nationalism is beside the more general point that applies to all kinds of topics that are predisambiguated, not just U.S. cities. When the default is the base name rather than a predisambiguated name then consideration for how the topic is represented by the base name is naturally improved, and that's why proposal A would help with all of the issues listed. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Evidence-free conjectures of your own. The work of adding redirects and dab entries is widely ducked; most people add them when they have trouble finding articles (if then). This occurs with all articles, whatever their titles or topics; none of this declamation gives any reason why option A should make any difference.
For the rest, I agree with Lt. Powers above (and the archives of WP:NC (settlement) offer plenty of confirming evidence, under the user-name B2C wore out boring people on this subject). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Category: