Talk:Allied Gardens, San Diego

Requested move

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: pages moved to format: "NEIGHBORHOOD, San Diego", with the exception of La Jolla, which is at La Jolla. This is consistent with the moves already carried out that were discussed at Talk:Alta Vista, San Diego, and with a general agreement that the disambiguator "California" is unnecessary. - GTBacchus^(talk) 23:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Allied Gardens, San Diego, California → Allied Gardens — Fix unnecessary (and absurd looking) disambiguation in all San Diego neighborhood/community articles which have unique names to be in compliance with WP:TITLE ("only as precise as necessary) and Wikipedia:NC:CITY#United_States ("neighborhoods within cities do not [follow the comma-convention], unless disambiguation is needed"). San Diego is an oddball exception and these renames will fix that. All proposed new plain name titles either already redirect to the article, or don't exist.

NOTE: Due to technical limitations, this is 1 of 2 lists each containing names of 20 articles proposed to be moved. For list 2 of 2 see: Talk:Otay Mesa, San Diego, California#Requested Move. We are discussing moving all 40 here. Born2cycle (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Alvarado Estates, San Diego, California → Alvarado Estates
• Bankers Hill, San Diego, California → Bankers Hill
• Barrio Logan, San Diego, California → Barrio Logan
• Bay Ho, San Diego, California → Bay Ho
• Black Mountain Ranch, San Diego, California → Black Mountain Ranch
• Carmel Mountain Ranch, San Diego, California → Carmel Mountain Ranch
• City Heights, San Diego, California → City Heights
• Cortez Hill, San Diego, California → Cortez Hill
• Del Cerro, San Diego, California → Del Cerro
• Del Mar Mesa, San Diego, California → Del Mar Mesa
• Encanto, San Diego, California → Encanto
• Gaslamp Quarter, San Diego → Gaslamp Quarter
• Kearny Mesa, San Diego, California → Kearny Mesa
• La Jolla Village, San Diego, California → La Jolla Village
• La Jolla, San Diego, California → La Jolla
• Logan Heights, San Diego, California → Logan Heights
• Loma Portal, San Diego, California → Loma Portal
• Mira Mesa, San Diego, California → Mira Mesa
• Normal Heights, San Diego, California → Normal Heights

NOTE: This discussion is about both this proposal and the other 20 San Diego communities proposed to be moved, and individually listed, at: Talk:Otay Mesa, San Diego, California#Requested Move. Thanks. When this is resolved this discussion as well as the non-discussion at Otay Mesa needs to be closed. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Original discussion

Well, I agree in part and am ambivalent in part. I agree that the "California" at the end of all the titles is unneccessary, although San Diego's only been an "oddball" in that respect for a few months. (See discussion about L.A.'s neighborhoods from earlier this year.) The result of that discussion was to move from "NEIGHBORHOOD, Los Angeles, California" to "NEIGHBORHOOD, Los Angeles" as the convention. Exceptions are made for especially notable neighborhoods such as Hollywood.

• Alternate proposal. So, keeping in line with neighborhoods in other major cities (Noe Valley, San Francisco, Lowry Hill, Minneapolis, Montlake, Seattle, etc.), I'd propose doing the same for San Diego - lop off all the "California"s, and have "NEIGHBORHOOD, San Diego" as the convention, except for especially notable ones (perhaps La Jolla?). (Note that this proposal would include all S.D. neighborhoods - not just the 40 being currently discussed. Mission Hills, for example, would need to move from Mission Hills, San Diego, California to Mission Hills, San Diego.)

The ambivalence comes, by the way, from my general agreement with Born2cycle that less disambiguation is better. So I wouldn't be super sad if his proposal is adopted. Or if Born2cycle wants to use San Diego as a launching pad to change naming conventions in L.A., S.F., Seattle, etc., then that's fine, too. But for now, my vote is weak oppose, with my proposal as the alternative. Dohn joe (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I respond to this below at #Proposal comparison. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hold. This move request is based on changes to the naming convention that may not have been fully discussed. I suggest waiting until that issue is resovled before progressing with this or other similar move requests.   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Will that no speedy decision should be made. This has been discussed many times before and there have been opinions on both sides. We should not rush into anything until a broad consensus has been reached. --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? Check the times and wording used in the request; it was made before the clarifying changes made in the guideline today and refers to, and is based on, the previous wording that has been in there since March. Please unhold. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Let's get consensus on the naming convention first.   Will Beback  talk  03:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument for this move is based almost entirely on WP:TITLE, not WP:PLACE. Prior to March there was no mention of neighborhoods in the U.S. city guideline at WP:PLACE, so it was irrelevant here. Since then it has said that neighborhoods are disambiguated only when necessary. The only change of substance today was to clarify what to do when disambiguation is necessary, which is also not relevant to this proposal, since no neighborhoods requiring disambiguation are part of this proposal. We can see if there is consensus for that, but I don't understand what that has to do with this proposal. If anything, this proposal will help us determine whether the current wording in the guideline is consistent with what consensus actually is. Remember, consensus is determined "out in the fields" where the work is done (at article creations and moves), so to speak, not in the ivory towers of guideline wording. Guideline should reflect what consensus is, not determine what it is. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, that discussion decided nothing about U.S. neighborhoods. So the only applicable guidance here is WP:TITLE and WP:D. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Further Discussion

Proposal comparison

I don't want to distract the main part of the discussion with more detailed discussion, so I'm starting this separate section for that. Dohn Joe's alternative is to go with the title Allied Gardens, San Diego (to use this article as an example) rather than Allied Gardens (per my proposal). To what end? Let's compare the two proposals per the principle naming criteria at WP:TITLE: Recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency.

The two alternative are equally recognizable ("confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic.") That is, to anyone familiar with the neighborhood neither title confirms better that they are in the right place.

In terms of "naturalness" ("use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article"), plain Allied Gardens is a clear winner. In fact, Allied Gardens, San Diego is such an unlikely search target that we don't even have a redirect for it as I write this.

On precision the shorter title also has the advantage. Since there is no conflict, Allied Gardens is sufficiently "precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously", while the longer title is clearly more precise than is necessary.

Of course the shorter title wins on conciseness.

And the shorter title wins on consistency too, because, L.A. aside, it's consistent with how similar articles (other articles about U.S. city neighborhoods) are named - only disambiguate when necessary - according to: Wikipedia:NC:CITY#United_States.

So, it's a tie on one of the five principal naming criteria, but the proposal to use the shorter title (plain name) when possible wins on the other four.

That said, for the San Diego neighborhoods that do need disambiguation, I would be happy to support a move from [[name, San Diego, California]] to [[name, San Diego]] for all of them. In fact, I might make that proposal next.

In conclusion, WP:PLACE, the guideline on naming places, advises: "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.". I submit that Allied Gardens is called "Allied Gardens", not "Allied Gardens, San Diego", so it is preferred. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I am OK with the current usage (maybe because I am used to it), but I would certainly concur with dropping the state. But I prefer Dohn Joe's proposal because it anchors the neighborhood in space. Allied Gardens, San Diego makes it clear exactly where you are talking about, namely, a neighborhood of San Diego; it's a sure bet that the vast majority of Wikipedia readers have never heard of Allied Gardens and have no idea where it is. (That's the same reason why we automatically list cities as Julian, California even though there might not be any other cities out there named Julian.) Also, using Allied Gardens, San Diego eliminates the need to be constantly looking over your shoulder for some other neighborhood named Allied Gardens that has to be disambiguated. We know there are half a dozen places named Ocean Beach and another half dozen named Mission Hills, but how do we know if there might be some neighborhood in Pittsburgh or somewhere named Allied Gardens? Dohn Joe's proposal appears to be the current usage at San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc. and I think we should follow their consensus.

If consensus is reached to do San Diego differently from those other cities, please note that your list is very incomplete. (Is it a coincidence that the missing ones are mainly the ones that would require disambiguation?) Missing neighborhoods include Ocean Beach, San Diego, California; Mission Hills, San Diego, California; Mission Beach, San Diego, California; Pacific Beach, San Diego, California; University City, San Diego, California; Old Town, San Diego, California; Midway, San Diego, California; those are just the ones that occur to me offhand, I'm sure there are others.

I suspect where this suggestion comes from is the civic frustration of La Jolla residents, who just hate being listed as a part of San Diego. Maybe we could just make an exception for La Jolla and leave the rest of the neighborhoods alone? --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd endorse making an exception for La Jolla to forestall more disruptive proposals.   Will Beback  talk 

I agree, Will. Neighborhoods like La Jolla (or Haight-Ashbury mentioned below) could be regarded as analogous to Boston or Los Angeles - cities that are permitted by the style book to be named without their state. Those few neighborhoods that are well known nationally could be listed without the disambiguation, and all the others could have the city added for clarity. In the disambiguated category I would include my own particular focus, Point Loma - which should be changed from Point Loma, San Diego, California to Point Loma, San Diego - and basically every other neighborhood in San Diego except La Jolla. People across the country have heard of La Jolla; they have not heard of Kearny Mesa or Logan Heights. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Melanie, yes, it's not a coincidence that the ones that need to be disambiguated are missing from this proposal. Frankly, when I made this proposal it did not occur to me to suggest renaming all those to remove the state at the same time as we rename the ones that don't need disambiguation to be at the plain name. My focus was on those San Diego neighborhoods that don't need disambiguation. Did you notice I wrote, "all proposed new plain name titles either already redirect to the article, or don't exist." That couldn't be true for any neighborhoods whose name needs to be disambiguated. That's why they weren't included. There have been only three or four of us commenting so far, so I can add those to the list if that's what everyone wants, but I think at this point it would be best to deal with those separately. They will be easy to identify once these are moved.

  As far as leaving the city name in the title even for those in the proposal, all of which don't need disambiguating, I understand the sentiment to "anchor the neighborhood in space", however that is not a function or purpose of a Wikipedia article title. If it were, it would apply to almost every city name in the world, disambiguated by their country for example, yet most cities are at their plain name. The U.S. is one of the few countries in which all most city names are disambiguated whether they need disambiguation or not (as you note), but that's largely based on the argument that even if we disambiguated only those that needed it, that would be most of them anyway, so we might as well disambiguate (almost) all of them. The fact that there might be another "Allied Gardens" is no reason to disambiguate "just in case". That's the whole point of primary topic and affects any use of any name that is unique. We want subjects with unique names to be at their plain names. Even if another "Allied Gardens" somehow turns up, the best solution is probably a hatnote from this one anyway. That "just in case there is a conflict we don't know about" mentality is just not one of criteria we are supposed to consider when naming articles. But don't take my word for it; review the criteria at WP:TITLE. Also, note that at WP:PLACE for almost all other countries the convention is to use just the city name where possible. Really, check it out.

  Indeed, there is only one La Jolla, but there is also only one Haight-Ashbury, and its title reflects that. So should the titles of Allied Gardens, La Jolla and all the other neighborhoods on the proposed lists. Simply put: With few well-reasoned exceptions, every article in Wikipedia whose subject's plain, most common and natural name is unique among all subjects covered in Wikipedia should be at this plain name. Read that again and note that this fundamental naming principle follows directly from WP:TITLE and goes way beyond La Jolla and transcends not just neighborhoods and place names, but all articles in Wikipedia. That's what this is about; nothing else.

  I went to a lot of trouble creating this list, the original argument, the comparison to the counter-proposal, and now this response. I would appreciate it if those leaning against the proposal would at least carefully read and consider what I'm saying, and address the points I made. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Born, I realize that you have put a lot of work into this proposal - and into all the previous times people have tried to remove the excess information from San Diego neighborhoods. (I first realized this was a controversy when I requested a move of Harbor Island, San Diego to Harbor Island, San Diego, California, thinking that must be the style here since it is the way all the other neighborhoods are done. That's also when I became aware that La Jolla was leading the charge to get rid of the city and state.) To me it comes down to WP:common sense, rather than to a guideline that was developed by a few WP editors (primarily talking about the UK) and then applied to the entire world. To me, common sense says that only nationally famous neighborhoods (like La Jolla) should be listed without any further clarification. The rest of the neighborhoods should be stylistically uniform for a given city and should reflect consensus developed for that city. My discussion here applies only to the neighborhoods of San Diego. The neighborhoods of Seattle, Boston, Los Angeles etc. can have the city name appended or not, as developed by consensus discussion for that city. WP does not insist on universal guidelines - as witness the fact that most of the world lists the plain city name, but the US lists the city and state. That's an exception to the naming principles you are expounding, and it was the consensus as what works for us. Speaking for myself, I have worked on many, many different articles about neighborhoods in San Diego; I have created a dozen, expanded others, and intend to create more. I think they should follow a uniform pattern and that pattern should be Neighborhood, San Diego, with an exception allowed for La Jolla. This is perfectly analogous to the way city names are done in the United States: there is only one Imperial Beach, but its article title is Imperial Beach, California. And it is exactly the consensus that was recently reached for Los Angeles neighborhoods, which used to include "California" but dropped it and are now listed under the pattern Van Nuys, Los Angeles. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Melanie, I understand why it might seem to you that this all stems from La Jolla, but that's probably because you've apparently only been involved in one small corner of Wikipedia in which names are an issue... these neighborhood names. I urge you to expand your horizons starting by taking part in the current discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Neighborhoods_of_US_cities. The broader issues relevant here, like how much weight more specific guidelines and conventions are supposed to be given as compared to general policy and guidelines, affect naming of virtually all articles, not just U.S. city neighborhoods. To get a taste of what I'm talking about, you might want to go through the backlog at WP:RM, read the arguments, and participate in some of those discussions. The idea that the frequent editors of any particular group of articles should get to decide how to name the articles in that group without much if any regard to broader implications, such as has been demonstrated in many of the neighborhood naming decisions so far, leads to the Balkanization of Wikipedia article titles, the opposite of what naming guidelines and conventions are supposed to bring about: consistency. We can all work together to find a solution that not only make sense for each little group of articles being affected, but in terms of achieving consistency in naming throughout Wikipedia. That's WP:COMMONSENSE.

Also, I don't know what guideline can be fairly characterized as "was developed by a few WP editors (primarily talking about the UK) and then applied to the entire world". In fact, the only guideline that even springs to mind, because of the "few WP editors" aspect only, is the one mandating disambiguation of all U.S. city names, whether disambiguation is necessary or not (modified since then to exclude cities on the AP list). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

When you say I am only interested in one corner of the world - you are exactly right. I am talking about how we want to handle this in San Diego. I am not trying to make rules that would force my ideas onto people in Sweden, or Kenya, or even Boston. Wikipedia is not a rigid bureaucracy where everybody all over the world has to do things the same way. The only thing set in stone here is the WP:Five Pillars - the fifth of which is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." There is plenty of precedent that issues like this can be handled by local consensus and don't have to all be forced into a uniform mold. The folks in Los Angeles recently chose by consensus how they want to handle neighborhood names in Los Angeles; I think we should do the same for San Diego. --MelanieN (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Melanie, your argument amounts to little more than Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Again, I suggest you make an effort to broaden your perspective. I've provided specific recommendations on how and why to do that. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this is a nuisance only to editors since in referencing articles, neighborhoods are piped to whatever level is needed. The casual reader doesn't know the difference. So editors may feel good/bad depending on the position they took or the typing they will have to do/avoid, but no one else will be the wiser. Student7 (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary of people's positions

1. Proposal by Born2cycle would name most San Diego neighborhoods as Neighborhood name and nothing else unless disambiguation is needed. Example: Point Loma

• I support this proposal too, unles there is another article with the same name then we would need a disambiguation. Example: La Joya or La Joya, San Diego. --Vrysxy! (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support as nom. I specifically chose only those San Diego neighborhoods and communities with names that do not conflict with any other uses in Wikipedia. They should all be at their plain name because there is no need for disambiguating them and they convey the name of their respective subject most effectively by simply being at the plain name. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. See comments below. House1090 (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. WP:Precision is a good policy. It should be the text and not the title of an article which clarifies what the subject is. Disambiguating terms should only be used where disambiguation is actually needed.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, and the same for neighbourhoods of whatever city, anywhere. This (disambiguate in the most simple and natural way, and in any case only when necessary) is Wikipedia's general practice as regards article titles, and it will work very well here just as it does everywhere else.--Kotniski (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment A discussion at Talk:La Jolla, San Diego, California#Move request notice focussed particularly on La Jolla, San Diego, California → La Jolla should be given consideration as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Proposal by Dohn Joe would name most San Diego neighborhoods as Neighborhood name, San Diego. Example: Point Loma, San Diego

• I support this proposal. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Point Loma, San Diego, for example, wrongly conveys that the name of that community is "Point Loma, San Diego", or that it is normally called that. It's not. That's misleading and unnecessary precision. Titles are supposed to convey the name of the subject, not anything else. We can deal with how best to disambiguate those that require disambiguation separately. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Follows other neighborhood articles. [hello, does anyone want to sign this?]

This was also User:House1090 - with this edit. Dohn joe (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Disambiguated enough to ensure no confusion with similarly-named neighborhoods elsewhere and clarify that they are neighborhoods and not ; but short enough to still be navigable Purplebackpack89 04:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you identify a single example among the list of 40 proposed to be moved here that risk the chance of "confusion with similarly-named neighborhoods elsewhere"? Wikipedia article titles are not supposed to identify what type of topic (as in neighborhood) the article is about. Please see WP:TITLE for the purpose of titles. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • There are several neighborhoods left out of this discussion that are ambiguous, and we should have a uniform naming convention for all neighborhoods in San Diego, with the possible exception of La Jolla Purplebackpack89 17:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • So, you agree that none included in this proposal are ambiguous in the manner you described. Yes, the ambiguous were excluded, precisely because they are ambiguous.

        Most titles in Wikipedia are disambiguated only when necessary. So, a title that is disambiguated indicates the subject has a name that is not unique or primary, and thus needs disambiguation, while an undisambiguated title indicates either a unique name or a primary topic. Why should these 40 (or 39) San Diego neighborhoods be different in this regard, and disambiguated even though you admit it's unnecessary? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• I support this proposal. Please don't insert commentary on this comment; this page is too long already and it has all been said and u r not going to change my mind. --Doncram (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

3. Current usage Most San Diego neighborhoods are now named in the pattern Neighborhood name, San Diego, California. Example: Point Loma, San Diego, California

• Oppose. Same objection as above: unnecessary precision and wrongly conveying what the name of the subject is. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Also follows other neighborhood articles. House1090 (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Born2cycle, and my support of #2 Purplebackpack89 04:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary Summary

Move all 40 to NeighborhoodName: 4 support; 1 opposed
Move all 40 to NeighborhoodName, San Diego: 3 support; 1 opposed
Leave all 40 at NeighborhoodName, San Diego, California: 1 support; 2 opposed
--Born2cycle (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I support either leaving them where they are (first choice), or moving them to "NeighborhoodName, San Diego" (second choice).   Will Beback  talk  08:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

This section is disruptive. The proposal is not even 24 hours old yet, and already it's confusing where new arrivals should comment. Individual preferences should be indicated up at #Main discussion. Unless there is objection, I will incorporate these comments up there and delete this section. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I object. The discussion above is valuable, and it is the place for comments and arguments, but it gets hard to follow. This section is for a simple summary, so that it is clear who is in favor of what. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is highly unconventional but we can try it. By the way, voting is frowned upon, so I changed it to "positions". --Born2cycle (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I support "Neighborhood, City, State" format or the "Neighborhood, City" format. House1090 (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggested and Born2cycle agreed put a hold on this discussion until there's a consensus at WP:PLACE on the neighborhood naming convention. We should archive this entire proposal for the time being.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I will move my discussion there. By the way, here is a link directly to that discussion: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/November#Neighborhoods of US cities. --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see movement towards consensus at that discussion, so holding this one pending that one does not make sense. I suggest this discussion be encouraged to continue. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There was no movement toward consensus here either. The same arguments are being made both places and consensus is not in view. You are basing your argument here on your belief that Wikipedia naming conventions as you understand them require U.S. neighborhoods to use a stand-alone name. That belief is currently under discussion but has not gained consensus at this point. --MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The only way to determine if there is a consensus here, which is for the closing admin ultimately to decide, is to continue discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that we do have at least one bit of consensus, which is that the "California" part of San Diego neighborhood names isn't favored. Only one person has spoken in favor of the status quo, and that person also supported the second option.

We also have consensus, I think, that for the neighborhoods that require disambiguation, "Neighborhood, San Diego" is acceptable. So maybe we can move those now?

So if I'm reading the consensus right, we could choose one of two options:

1. Move all S.D. neighborhoods to "Neighborhood, San Diego" now, and continue the discussion whether to move the unambiguous ones to "Neighborhood" here.
2. Move just the neighborhoods that need disambiguation to "Neighborhood, San Diego", and leave the unambiguous ones at "Neighborhood, San Diego, California" pending the outcome of this discussion.

What do you all think? Dohn joe (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the second option would be best as it means less moving.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I too would favor the second option, however, I purposefully omitted the neighborhoods that require disambiguation from this proposal. If those are to be renamed, there needs to be a separate proposal (if nothing else, so that notice of the proposal is properly posted on the talk page of each affected article), and I suggest [[neighborhood (San Diego)]] should be considered in any such proposal because that form clearly conveys the name of the neighborhood, while [[neighborhood, San Diego]] wrongly implies that that is a normal or natural way to refer to these topics.

Consider someone in China, Spain or Brazil planning a move to San Diego and uses Wikipedia to research these neighborhoods. Do we want to leave them with the impression that the way we refer to Kensington is Kensington, San Diego? I think not. In contrast, note that Kensington (San Diego) clearly conveys the name is "Kensington" and does not suggest to anyone fluent in English that the parenthetic remark, "(San Diego)", is part of the name. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The advantage of disambiguating with parenthesis in general in Wikipedia titles is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Advantage_of_disambiguating_with_parenthesis. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In an ideal or starting-from-scratch situation I would also prefer the format Allied Gardens (San Diego) over Allied Gardens, San Diego. But the existing usage is with a comma and has been for years, implying some kind of unstated consensus in its favor. I am not in favor of throwing out the entire existing system of nomenclature without a strong reason and a broad consensus, which I have not seen so far. However, if a general move is agreed upon, I would definitely prefer Allied Gardens (San Diego) over Allied Gardens alone. And in any case I think we should eliminate the state from the neighborhood names, per Dohn Joe's suggestion, as has been done with other city neighborhoods like Los Angeles and San Francisco. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Melanie, would you be kind enough to explain your preference for Allied Gardens (San Diego) over Allied Gardens, ideally in terms of the naming criteria listed at WP:TITLE? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I support the NEIGHBORHOOD, San Diego convention Purplebackpack89 04:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• PROPOSAL: Since the other half of the San Diego neighborhoods (the ones listed at Talk:Alta Vista, San Diego) have now been moved to the format NeighborhoodName, San Diego instead of NeighborhoodName, San Diego, California, I propose that the neighborhoods listed here be moved to that format as well. That may leave unresolved the question originally raised here, namely eliminating the "San Diego" part from the title as well as the "California" part, but at least all the neighborhoods of San Diego will be consistent while any further disambiguation is discussed. It seemed to be pretty much unanimous that "California" is not needed as part of the titles. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That proposal is already in the second proposal above. I don't think anyone here is speaking for just keeping these articles where they are.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it is. I am restating it now as an actual action request, because of the recent action which removed "California" from half of the San Diego neighborhoods, but not these. I think the same move should now be done to the neighborhoods referenced here. Right now we have a half-and-half situation, where the neighborhoods included in this request are still at Neighborhoodname, San Diego, California while the recently moved neighborhoods are at Neighborhoodname, San Diego. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason the two proposals are distinct is because this one deals with those neighborhoods whose names are either unique or primary, while the other addresses those with names that required disambiguation per WP:TITLE and WP:D. Moving these from one form of unnecessary disambiguation to another (albeit slightly less oderous) form of unnecessary disambiguation misses the main point of this proposal: those neighborhoods with names that are unique or primary should not be disambiguated at all. Though there is no consensus for any particular solution, there is more support for don't unnecessarily disambiguate than for the others. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Even by your own tally above, the discussion about disambiguation is at "no consensus". However, there is a clear consensus to get rid of "California". I am suggesting we go ahead and do that now, while the disambiguation question waits for consensus - or for clear guidance at WP:PLACE. --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

For these particular articles, just getting rid of "California" is effectively choosing an approach that has less support than getting rid of "San Diego, California". Every time neighborhoods are discussed at WP:PLACE, no consensus is reached, and there is no active discussion about neighborhoods there now. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

So since there is no consensus here either (approximately half wanted Neighborhoodname and half wanted Neighborhoodname, San Diego), you are arguing that these placenames should be left as they are, namely Neighborhoodname, San Diego, California - a convention that only one person supported? --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're communicating. In order to get back on track, I need to understand why you're getting such a completely different meaning from my words than I intend. Please identify the specific words I wrote that cause you to think I even might be "arguing that these placenames should be left as they are", and explain way they mean that to you. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of putting words in MelanieN's mouth, I think what she's saying is that under the move request procedure, if there is no consensus for any particular move proposal, then the article stays where it is. In this case, if there's no consensus between "Neighborhood" and "Neighborhood, San Diego", then by default these articles will remain where they are, at "Neighborhood, S.D., CA". She's asking the same question I did earlier: since nearly everyone agrees that "California" is unnecessary for these articles, should we go ahead and remove that part of the titles now, while continuing the debate whether or not also to remove the "San Diego" from the titles? Dohn joe (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Typically, in RM discussions there are only two choices (status quo vs. proposed name), and normally consensus in support of the proposed name is required in order for the move to take place. So, usually, though not always, "no consensus" means leave it at the status quo.

But here we are considering two alternatives to the status quo, and consensus is clearly against the status quo, so, reasonably, status quo is not even an option. Isn't that obvious?

But while the discussion remains open I do think we should leave everything at the status quo, in order to avoid possibly having to move each one of these twice. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. That's what I thought you said. Dohn joe explained it exactly. Since this discussion seems likely to go on inconclusively forever, you are suggesting that the "California" remain on this half of the San Diego neighborhoods, even though it has been removed from the other half.
BTW in that discussion, which began as a request to move from status quo to parenthetical disambiguation, the closing administrator chose a third alternative which had come up during the discussion, namely comma disambiguation without the state. As the closing administrator said, "Although there is no consensus to change to parentheses, the general agreement is that the California part in the title is unneeded." So it simply isn't true that there are only two choices, status quo vs. proposed name; it is clearly possible for a third alternative to be implemented. --MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

No, this discussion will not go on "inconclusively forever". It will be closed by an admin who will have to use his or her own judgment if there is no consensus among those participating in this discussion. I'm merely suggesting we wait until that decision is made, one way or the other. This discussion is sitting at the top (physically the bottom) of the WP:RM backlog, screaming for attention, so it should happen pretty soon, actually.

With respect to the number of choices here, we're saying the same thing. There are a total of three choices, the status quo, plus two alternatives (1 + 2 = 3).

By the way, speaking of that other discussion, at least one state disambiguates all their neighborhoods - but only those that require disambiguation - with parentheses: See Category:Neighborhoods in Connecticut. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully expected you to do this, and in fact predicted it: that you would cite "Neighborhoods in Connecticut" here as a precedent - without mentioning that you, yourself, are leading the charge to style those neighborhoods that way! See Talk:Marion, Connecticut#Requested move. --MelanieN (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, today is the first day I ever edited a CT article, and now I'm "leading the charge" because I submitted one CT move proposal to WP:RM. Interesting perspective, Melanie. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• IMO, at least the city name needs to be included in the neighborhood article. The inclusion of the state name can be optional as San Diego itself is not disambiguated. Dough4872 02:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion? That's not very helpful. Why? Why must the city name be included in titles of articles about topics with unique names? --Born2cycle (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

To readers not familiar with San Diego, just including the neighborhood name may be confusing. Indicating what city the neighborhood is in will make it clear to the reader that these neighborhoods are located in San Diego. Most other city neighborhoods include disambiguators such as Somerton, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Marble Hill, Manhattan. Dough4872 17:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you believe adding precision to a title to indicate what an article is about to someone not familiar with the article's topic is

(a) one of the functions of article titles in general in Wikipedia? Or is it

(b) a function only of titles of articles about U.S. place names?

If (a), do you know of any examples of any articles in WP about anything other than U.S. place names that serve that function? If (b), why should U.S. place names be an exception? Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, you engage everyone who disagrees with you, pestering them with counterpoints. You've made as many edits to this page as all of the other editors combined.[1] Why not just let the discussion take its course?   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 29 December 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.