Wikipedia

Talk:Alta Vista, San Diego

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Requested move

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago50 comments12 people in discussion
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: Move to Alta Vista, San Diego etc. Although there is no consensus to change to parentheses, the general agreement is that the California part in the title is unneeded. Jafeluv (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Alta Vista, San Diego, California → Alta Vista (San Diego) — This proposal applies to all 49 San Diego communities and neighborhoods that require disambiguation and the goals are to:

  1. remove unnecessary disambiguation (", California") per WP:PRECISION and
  2. avoid the comma notation in the title because it is an abnormal way to refer to San Diego neighborhoods in reliable sources.

    So, I propose we use Wikipedia standard disambiguation with the parenthetic remark " (San Diego)" to clearly convey (as recommended at WP:TITLE) that the name of the neighborhood is just its plain name (e.g., the name of the first neighborhood here is "Alta Vista", not "Alta Vista, San Diego"), and " (San Diego)" is there to indicate that this name is ambiguous and qualify which use of the ambiguous name is the topic of the article.

    NOTE: For technical reasons (to get all of them listed at WP:RM and to get automatic notification on each of the affected talk pages which fails if more than 10 are in the list) only the first 10 of 49 are listed here, but the discussion here is about moving all 49. For the lists of the other 39, see:


Conditional concur I agree with this change if, and ONLY if, the same is also done with San Diego neighborhoods that don't need disambiguation in Born2cycle's opinion. In other words if the change is made for the neighborhoods listed here, it should also be made for the San Diego neighborhoods Born2cycle did not choose to include, such as Point Loma (San Diego), Loma Portal (San Diego), etc. If the change to parenthetical style is not made for ALL San Diego neighborhoods, then I oppose making it for any of them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • Changing to Oppose. Based on the advice I found at WP:TITLE, quoted below, I am changing my opinion to oppose any change in the neighborhood names of San Diego or anyplace else. WP:TITLE plainly advises that stable titles should be left alone, and that there are more productive ways for us to spend our time on Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
The need for disambiguation is generally not a matter of anyone's opinion. Either a name is a homograph with respect to other topics in Wikipedia and requires disambiguation, or it is unique and does not. This is almost always trivial to determine objectively with Search. Only if a SD neighborhood name is a homograph and the SD neighborhood appears to be the primary topic is there room for opinion about whether that article's title needs to be disambiguated, and the only case where I think that might be applicable here is Mission Valley, which currently redirects to the article about the SD community presuming it's the primary topic despite the existence of a Mission Valley (disambiguation) with other uses - links I compiled last night.

I've asked you this important question about your position before [1] but you didn't answer. Would you be kind enough to explain your preference for Allied Gardens (San Diego), Point Loma (San Diego) and Loma Portal (San Diego) over Allied Gardens, Point Loma and Loma Portal respectively, ideally in terms of the naming criteria listed at WP:TITLE and disambiguating guidelines set forth at WP:D? What I'm trying to ascertain is whether your position is based on trying to improve the encyclopedia for reasons based in policy/guideline/conventions (and ultimately reader experience improvement), or whether it's just a matter of what you like, or perhaps editor experience improvement. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose I was of the impression that the comma convention was still the go-to standard for geographical locations in the Unites States (WP:PLACE). I agree that the state element is not required for disambiguation in a good number of names (Little Italy, San Diego seems precise enough) but I don't see disambiguation by qualifier as an appropriate across-the-board solution.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • That's only true for city names (not any other geographical location) (and even then not all cities), largely because cities are normally and naturally referred to using the comma convention in reliable sources. That is not the case for neighborhood names, and we should not be wrongly conveying with our titles that it is. Repeated attempts to identify a standard for neighborhood names at WP:PLACE have stalled, and the specific guidelines are now silent on the issue. However, the policies and guidelines at WP:TITLE and WP:D are quite clear, and this proposal is consistent with them. Do these considerations affect your impression? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • Not really. I had a look through Category: Lists of neighborhoods in U.S. cities and and Category:Neighborhoods in California for some direction regarding a trend. No California cities employ a neighbourhood (city) format. Los Angeles, San Francisco and every other California city employ comma disambiguation. As noted at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Neighborhoods_of_US_cities few cities employ the neighbourhood (city) format. I found Atlanta, Toledo, Ohio, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Greenville, South Carolina. There could be more (and likely are) but an overwhelming number employ commas disambiguation. But if the California community supports the naming idea I won't oppose it but I see the comma format as more established.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
        • Being more established for now does not mean it reflects how these topics are referred in reliable sources. Am I the only one who thinks it's a problem? Have you ever seen a 10 year old use Wikipedia to do their homework? More and more Wikipedia is seen as an accurate reflector of reliable sources, and rightfully so due to policies about no original research, using reliable sources, and, yes, following naming usage in reliable sources. But we're not doing that with neighborhoods, because reliable sources refer to neighborhoods by their plain names in city-specific contexts. An LA Times new article about something that happened in La Jolla won't say "in La Jolla, San Diego", it will first establish context ("In San Diego yesterday..."), and then just refer to La Jolla as La Jolla... ("a La Jolla business ...)". The way we establish context in WP titles is with parenthetic remarks. Yes, we do use the comma convention too, but that's normally only when that's a common way to specify context in reliable sources, as in Portland, Oregon. This needs to be fixed, and the sooner the better. Why not start with San Diego's neighborhoods? The others can follow. We don't have to be lemmings. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, Born2cycle, I figured this proposal was just another in your long line of attempts to get rid of the "San Diego" identification for neighborhoods of the city. Thanks for confirming it. I've got to hand it to you, you are persistent, and willing to do a LOT of work to try to carry your point. This must be your seventh or eighth attempt over a period of several years, and although you can never seem to find a consensus to agree with you, you are still trying. "Am I the only one who thinks it's a problem?" Apparently, the answer is yes. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Labatt, I'm glad to see you take a reality-based approach, by starting from what the current usage actually is. I took a similar approach in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Neighborhoods of U.S. cities. I analyzed a dozen major American cities and found that only one of the dozen, namely Honolulu, uses neighborhood names without adding the city name. One other, Atlanta, uses "Neighborhoodname (Atlanta)" as Born2cycle is proposing here. (You found a few others that also use the parentheses.) All the rest I studied use commas, either "Neighborhoodname, City" or "Neighborhoodname, City, State". (I think they all used "Neighborhoodname, City, State" originally, but there has been a movement to drop the state.) My conclusion was that the the "Neighborhoodname, City" format is so widespread and so entrenched that it can be assumed to be supported by a broad consensus of users. If we were starting from scratch I would prefer "Neighborhoodname (City)" as proposed here, but we are not starting from scratch, and we should not impose such a major change in the accepted practice without a broad consensus. If there is not a broad consensus to change the San Diego style to "Neighborhoodname (San Diego)" then I would support keeping the comma convention but changing to "Neighborhoodname, San Diego" instead of the current "Neighborhoodname, San Diego, California". I absolutely do not support Born2cycle's main goal here, of removing the "San Diego" entirely from most of the neighborhoods. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I thought it was most but it works out to slightly less than half that have unique names and so for them disambiguating is more precise than necessary. I consistently favor titles that are consistent with naming policy and guidelines, and US neighborhoods have been an unnecessary exception I've been try to fix for a long time. But that has nothing to do with this proposal which is about only those that require disambiguation.

Your ignoring of my question above, again, is noted, and so is your ignoring of my refutation of a point that Labatt made above, and you just reiterated it. What kind of discussion is that? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Whether you refuted his point or not is a matter of opinion. I agree that discussion with you tends to go around in circles, with the same arguments being made over and over, so I try not to repeat myself any more than necessary. Yes, it is true that I have ignored your attempts to make me accept WP:TITLE as some kind of be-all and end-all rule, capable of overturning the existing format for thousands of titles that have been stable for years. My reply, as before, is simply to point to WP:Five Pillars (specifically #5) and common sense. However, since you are so fond of WP:TITLE I will quote a couple of lines from that guideline: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Also, "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." Not my words - the words of WP:TITLE. --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
On thinking about this further, I am changing my opinion above from "conditional concur" to "oppose" any change in the neighborhood names, except possibly dropping the word "California". That seems to be what WP:TITLE is saying, and it agrees with my understanding of common sense. Let's move on to more productive activities. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I suggest we can agree to disagree on whether there is a "good reason to change". I believe better compliance with the general naming criteria according to which all articles in Wikipedia are titled is a "good reason to change", arguably the best reason to change. What do you believe would qualify as a "good reason" to change an article title that has been stable for a long time? In case it's not clear, I'm hypothesizing that your position is based on the perhaps unintended assumption that there is never, or almost never, a "good" reason to change a title that has been stable for a long time, which I'm testing by asking you what a "good" reason might be.

By the way, you still have not answered the question because I asked you to explain your preference in terms of the naming criteria (Recognizability, Naturalness, etc.) listed at WP:TITLE, and you have not done that. Ignoring pointed questions about one's position is not a characteristic of discussions going in circles, it's characteristic of avoiding discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have not "ignored" your questions about compliance with WP:TITLE - I have explained, several times, that I reject your attempt to force me to frame the debate in terms only of a given rule while ignoring established practice. (Similarly, you have repeatedly ignored my attempt to get you to address current practice instead of simply pointing to a rule, and you have ignored the paragraph I just quoted which suggests that there are far more productive ways for us to spend our time on Wikipedia rather than debating titles.) As to what is a "good reason" for changing a stable title, I would say a good reason would be when something about the subject changes. Examples: the subject's name changes (Jacqueline Kennedy moves to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis), the name of a building or other physical feature changes, a sports team moves to a new location (Baltimore Colts moves to Indianapolis Colts), the thing a person is best known for changes (John Doe (actor) changes to John Doe (politician)), etc. --MelanieN (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose; the comma convention is well-established. I am neutral on inclusion of the state name. Powers T 16:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep current city name which renders naming usually unambiguous. Anyway, solves a problem that no one is really having now, but might have if format were changed, so why change? Student7 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Support removing "California" from all titles; neutral on commas versus parentheses. I can see both Melanie and Born2cycle's points. I think the most important thing is that whatever is decided here meshes with the decision at Allied Gardens, San Diego, California. Born2cycle - would you be willing to accept the comma convention for the time being, so we can at least get rid of the "California" in the titles? If we don't reach consensus, then status quo prevails. The perfect being the enemy of the good sort of thing. Melanie, would you accept that? Dohn joe (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • If the proposal at Allied Gardens, San Diego, California succeeds, that outcome is irrelevant here, since it applies only to those neighborhoods that are not homographs, and would move each of them to the neighborhood name, as in Allied Gardens. Those plain name titles are compatible with either the comma convention or the parenthetic disambiguation formats being discussed here for the neighborhoods with names that are homographs and so do require disambiguation.

      I really think there is a big problem with using the comma convention to disambiguate in the context of neighborhood article titles because reliable sources don't refer to neighborhoods that way, and we should not be incorrectly conveying that they do, but if Melanie agrees to support the Talk:Allied Gardens, San Diego, California#Requested_move proposal and this proposal modified to use the comma convention instead of parentheses (e.g., Alta Vista, San Diego), then so will I. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

      • We pretty much know what everyone's favored positions are. What I'm trying to find out is what people's acceptable alternatives are. So let me ask two things: first, if the original Allied Gardens proposal fails, would everyone be content (if not thrilled necessarily) if all S.D. neighborhoods go to "Neighborhood, San Diego"? Second: if the original Allied Gardens proposal succeeds, would everyone be content if the Alta Vista-type neighborhoods did the same? In other words, no matter your preferred position, is "Neighborhood, San Diego" an acceptable back-up outcome for all of the articles? Dohn joe (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
        • You know, I should have objected to this approach from the outset. The personal preferences of the very small number of us who happen to be involved here in terms of which outcome makes us "content" or not should have no relevance on this discussion. The discussion should be centered on what policy and guidelines indicate we should be doing here, and why, per WP:JDLI#Title discussions:

"I like it" and "I don't like it" are arguments to avoid in discussions about article titles, be it a Requested Move discussion about a specific article or a discussion about wording in a naming convention guideline. To decide how articles are to be titled purely on the basis of what is merely popular or interesting to whatever small group of editors happens to be around at the time that a discussion is had, is to head down the road of balkanizing Wikipedia article titles. Wikipedia's editing community comprises a broad spectrum of people from around the world, and what is uninteresting and dislikable to some is of vital interest to others. It is neither productive nor desired to have multiple groups of editors trying to out-"vote" one another, treating editorial decisions on titles as popularity contests. We have had experience of this in years gone by, and it did not lead to the betterment of the encyclopaedia. Arguments about how articles should be named should reflect how subjects are called in sources and the other principal naming criteria specified at WP:TITLE and general naming guidelines like WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Consensus is determined not by the percentage of the participants in support or opposed to a given position, but by the quality of the arguments posted, evaluated in terms of how well they are based in policy, guidelines and conventions.

.
I would hope that the closing admin evaluates the arguments presented here accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Right - that was sloppy language on my part. So let me rephrase: given people's primary positions, who agrees that, based on WP's policies, guidelines, and conventions (as discussed above and at the Allied Gardens talkpage), "Neighborhood, San Diego" is preferable to "Neighborhood, San Diego, California", such that if consensus is not reached on other forms, "Neighborhood, San Diego" can be implemented? Dohn joe (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree with this - if any change at all is to be made. The guidelines at WP:TITLE seem to suggest that we should be hesitant to change any long-established stable titles without a very strong reason, but this same change (from "Neighborhood, Los Angeles, California" to "Neighborhood, Los Angeles") was recently implemented for the Los Angeles neighborhoods apparently without problems. --MelanieN (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I still think you're treating this like a popularity contest rather than focusing on the reasoning in support of, and in opposition to, each position. Look, we obviously all have our personal preferences, but, just as when we have to put that aside to adopt NPOV and look at what reliable sources say about it when editing content, we have to put our preferences aside when deciding how articles should be titled and adopt NPOV and look at what policy, guidelines, conventions and, yes, reliable sources say about it. That's all that should matter here. ---Born2cycle (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Born2cycle, aren't you a little late in deciding that you "should have objected to this approach from the outset"? This was your approach! Remember, we are here having this discussion only because you chose to make your proposal here. I agree that it would be best to keep all the discussion in one place, but you keep bringing it up as a "move request" for individual articles. Are you saying, then, that you are withdrawing your move requests for these articles until the issue is debated and decided at the policy level? --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Melanie, by "this approach" I was referring not to this proposal and discussion, but to Dohn joe's attempt to ascertain what everyone here is content about. You seem to be assuming that finding out people's personal preferences is all that such a proposal/discussion can accomplish, but that's not at all true. Please read the above quoted section from WP:JDLI about the difference between a discussion in which participants simply voice their personal preferences, and a discussion about what policy, guidelines, and reliable sources indicate what we should do with respect to a particular move proposal. I'd like to have the latter here; how about you? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
If you really want a policy guideline, why not discuss it at the policy page - instead of continuing to bring it up here and there in individual city neighborhoods? --MelanieN (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
No consensus for a specific guideline for neighborhoods exists. Discussions on that issue have repeatedly stalled.

So I want to discuss here what existing naming policy, guidelines, conventions, and usage in reliable sources indicate we should do with these titles. Don't you? Otherwise, we'd just be arguing personal preferences... what's the point in that? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I already told you what the existing policy indicates we should do with these titles: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Also, "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." As you say, those policy discussions have "repeatedly stalled"; despite repeated attempts you have never managed to get a consensus or even a majority to agree with you that all these names should be changed; why can't you drop it and get on with something more productive, as the guidelines at WP:TITLE suggest? --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Above you answered that you thought "a good reason to change" is when something about the subject changes. Is your argument then based on the premise that the only "good reason to change" is when something about the topic changes? What about when a title is out of compliance with naming, policy, guidelines or conventions, despite being at that title for considerable time, can that be a good reason to change? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
You know, I have said what I have to say on this topic. If you don't have more productive ways to spend your time on Wikipedia, I do. --MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
If you don't think how these articles are named is important, perhaps you should not be participating. If you do think it's important, how about participating by answering the questions about your position that you're asked? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I do think it's important. I have answered the questions. I have cited chapter and verse from WP:TITLE to support my position that the titles should be left as they are. I'm done. Oh, don't get your hopes up that I will abandon my opposition to your quest; I'm just done with the circular, repetitious arguments that you seem to enjoy. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
You have not answered the questions, not these questions. The purpose here is to elucidate your argument, so that it can be evaluated better in terms of whether is actually based on policy, or just a rationalize of I don't like it.
  • Is your argument based on the premise that the only "good reason to change" is when something about the topic changes?
  • What about when a title is out of compliance with naming, policy, guidelines or conventions (specifically the general naming criteria at WP:TITLE), despite being at that title for considerable time... can that be a good reason to change?
I have paid close attention to what you are saying, and I do not know the answers to these questions about your argument. Nothing circular about this... it's a follow-up to the point you have made repeatedly. If you just to make that point again, that might seem circular to you, but it does not answer these question which are going beyond that point. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Drop the Cali, keep the comma: That seems to be the convention for neighborhoods. That's the way LA and several other cities do it. See no reason why this should be any different Purplebackpack89 19:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • You see no reason why this should be any different? Really? Did you read and understand the reasons stated in the proposal? Why do you not see them? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • Because I feel that they are outweighed by what appears to be a general consensus among most neighborhoods. Look at LaBatt's comment above that begins "Not really. I had a look..." I agree fully with what LaBatt said. It looks to me like there isn't a single city with more neighborhoods than San Diego that employs the parenthetical format. Also note that I do not oppose your proposal outright; I am perfectly fine with dropping the ", California" from the end. Purplebackpack89 01:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
        • Not to be picky, but the reasons for a proposal being outweighed by the reasons against is a very different position from "see no reason". The distinction is important because now we can compare how we weigh the reasons on both sides.

          Because we're supposed to be arguing what policy, guidelines, conventions and sources indicate we should do rather than what we personally prefer, I suggest we start with the general naming criteria at WP:TITLE: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency (what is meant by each is defined there). I assume we can agree that Precision and Conciseness are a wash (neither Alta Vista, San Diego nor Alta Vista (San Diego) is significantly more precise or concise than the other).

          You might think they're a wash on Recognizable too, but consider this aspect of that criteria: "One important aspect of this is the use of common English names as used in reliable sources on the subject." Now, how do sources like the local newspaper refer to the neighborhoods? As "Alta Vista, San Diego"? No. As "Alta Vista". Because the parenthetic disambiguation part is not included as part of the name of the subject, we have to give parentheses the edge on Recognizable.

          Now, on the side of using the comma I'll give you Consistency, but Naturalness is on the side of parentheses due to the part that states, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English.. That is, Alta Vista (San Diego) correctly conveys that what that topic is called is "Alta Vista" (because, again, the parentheses clearly distinguish the disambiguation information, San Diego, from what the subject is called, Alta Vista), while Alta Vista, San Diego incorrectly conveys that the subject is called, "Alta Vista, San Diego".

          Before we weigh the two sides, let's look closer at what Consistency says: "titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred." Generally preferred... I'll go with that. What else? Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic guidelines box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above.. Uh oh. This pattern of "neighborhood, city" is not documented in any naming guidelines, and they are supposed to be "in accordance with the principal criteria above", which this pattern is not, because it's not accordance with Naturalness or Recognizability since it does not "convey that the subject is called" or "use what reliable sources use". In contrast, note, that the more we start following the pattern of "Neighborhood (city)", then we won't have these problems with Consistency. We have wash on Precision and Conciseness, but we have to give full credit (say a full point?) to parenthesis for Naturalness and Recognizability, and only give partial credit (say half a point) to the comma for Consistency.

          Perhaps I'm missing something, but that's why I find that the reasons to use the parentheses outweigh the reasons to use the comma -- by about 2 to 1/2.

          How do you weigh both sides? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

          • "titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred.": LaBatt clearly states above that most articles about neighborhoods follow the "city, neighborhood". I don't see each of the criteria as equal, and in general, I would take and give half a point across the board (I think consistency clearly has a full point for comma; per what LaBatt said). I see the evidence that neighborhoods in San Diego are naturally and recognizably referred to by parenthesis as very weak, certainly not deserving of a point, if any points at all. You should note that when searching for something in the search box, it will automatically fill in the comma. By the way, I'm not quite seeing why you've written so many kilobytes of text about something so minuscule. My vote/opinion is comma, it will always be comma Purplebackpack89 03:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
            • Thank you for stating your argument in terms of relevant policy, etc.

              So, despite the fact that Consistency is defined to depend on ideally being in accordance with the other criteria, your argument is based on the premise that Consistency is given more weight than the other criteria? I suggest weighing the criteria like that does not correspond to how the majority of titles in WP are formed.

              Your argument also seems to be based on the premise that the standard use of parenthesis in a WP title for the purpose of disambiguating an ambiguous name requires evidence of the resulting title, including parentheses, being used to refer to the topic in sources. I suggest that very few if any WP titles disambiguated like this meet this measure. Can you show me any that do?

              I see that as being the key difference between using parenthesis and commas. We use parenthesis when there is no natural/normal way to convey the natural/common name of the topic in question unambiguously. We use commas when that is a natural/normal way to refer to the subject unambiguously. That's why we use the "city, state" format for U.S. cities, because U.S. cities are commonly referred to per that format in reliable sources. But the "neighborhood, city" format is not like that. It is not a natural/normal way to refer to U.S city neighborhoods. That's the whole point of this proposal - to use the standard WP disambiguation method because there is no natural/normal way to title the articles of the neighborhoods in this proposal otherwise. To object to the standard disambiguation method (using parentheses) because the resulting title, including parentheses, is also not a natural/normal way to refer to the subject is missing the whole point of disambiguation and having a standard method to do it. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose Our convention is to use comma separation for geo-political entities (it was, after all, an American insistance on this that led to the convention!). Would support removing California from the titles though. It seems ridiculous to have the city at San Diego, but the suburbs at San Diego, California. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • The "American insistence" was specific to naming U.S. cities in the "city, state" format because that is consistent with how U.S. cities are disambiguated and referred to in sources -- for example, "Portland, Oregon". That is not the case for neighborhoods. Sources do not commonly (if ever) refer to Alta Vista as "Alta Vista, San Diego" or "Alta Vista, San Diego, California", and it's problematic for us to incorrectly convey that either is.

      In contrast, "Alta Vista (San Diego)" does not convey that sources refer to that subject with San Diego in parentheses like that, just like putting Madonna at Madonna (entertainer) does not imply that (with "entertainer" in parentheses) is how sources refer to that subject. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • Support moving to the comma convention only. Per rule #4 of WP:NCDAB, the comma instead of parentheses convention is the preferred method for place names. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Support removing ", California"; Oppose switching to parens Per WP:PRECISION and Wikipedia-wide neighborhood conventions. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Summary to date I also Support removing "California" and keeping the "comma" format, for all 49 of the articles included in this proposal as well as all the other San Diego neighborhoods, or else leaving all the titles alone. To summarize for the closing administrator, please note that the alternate proposal here (remove California, keep commas, in other words Alta Vista, San Diego) is also supported by these other users in addition to myself: Cybercobra, Zzyzx11, Skinsmoke, Purplebackpack89, and Labattblueboy. User DohnJoe supports removing "California" while being neutral between commas and parentheses. User Powers supports keeping the comma convention while being neutral about keeping or removing "California". Student7 opposes any change. Born2cycle argues strongly for his original proposal, namely eliminating the state and including "San Diego" in parentheses for these specific 49 articles, in other words Alta Vista (San Diego).
    Labattblueboy also suggests that the earlier discussion at Talk:Allied Gardens, San Diego, California was moving in the direction of Alta Vista, San Diego, but my recollection is that the discussion there was more split. I do recall that Will Beback thought that entire discussion should be archived until agreement on a convention is reached at WP:PLACE. This must be the third or fourth time that Born2cycle has proposed to change the current usage for San Diego neighborhoods. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Weakly support removing "California". Oppose parens, since I don't see any need for the clumsier form of disambiguation when there is a natural and obvious one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
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.
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alta Vista, San Diego. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alta_Vista,_San_Diego&oldid=1198497666"