Wikipedia

Talk:Colorado Springs, Colorado/Archive 2

< Talk:Colorado Springs, Colorado
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Dekimasu in topic Requested move 18 August 2018
Learn more about this page


edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Colorado Springs, Colorado. 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.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 13:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Colorado Springs, Colorado. 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.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 22:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Requested move

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Colorado Springs, Colorado" is arbitrary. Simply "Colorado Springs" is a cleaner choice for the article's name. Yes, I am aware that only major cities in America should have a page name without a state name, but note that Colorado Springs is more populous than Minneapolis, whose page is titled "Minneapolis" and not "Minneapolis, Minnesota". PerhapsXarb (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 18 August 2018

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago54 comments14 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Colorado Springs, Colorado → Colorado Springs – Move over redirect. There are no other Colorado Springs articles, so it seems the state name in the article title is unnecessary Amsgearing (talk) :This is a contested technical request 16:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC) (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • The state name is typically included per WP:USPLACE. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Please read WP:USPLACE. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose move. Though it certainly appears that "Colorado Springs, Colorado" is redundant, current policy makes it clear that the state name should remain. ONR (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support for multiple reasons. This doesn't past the common sense test - Atlanta is not titled "Atlanta, Georgia", and there are 21 other places in the US named Atlanta. Meanwhile, Colorado Springs has a larger population than Atlanta and there are zero other places in the world named Colorado Springs. WP:USPLACE is a guideline, not hard policy, and it does say "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I think this is a clear exception, for these reasons:
  1. There are no other places in the world named Colorado Springs.
  2. "Colorado Springs, Colorado" is redundant on its face, and WP:CONCISE recommends brevity in this case.
  3. It's now a larger city than several cities we don't include state names for. Amsgearing (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Exceptions are per AP style: "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named City unless they are not the primary topic for that name. In other cases, this guideline recommends following the "comma convention" as described above." ╠╣uw [talk] 09:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
And Phoenix, New York and Washington aren't at the base name even though they are on the AP list. I don't see why we can't extend this to Colorado Springs and Virginia Beach per the fact that WP:UKPLACE uses the country, not the "state" for places that have a variation of the "state" such as Lincoln, England and Perth, Scotland. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
The cities of Phoenix, New York, and Washington aren't the primary topics for those base terms; see the guideline above. It's also good to remember that even if we did away with the guideline entirely, the majority of articles on US places would still have to be disambiguated anyway (due in part to the American phenomenon of place names often being repeated across multiple states), so for that reason and others, consistent application makes sense.

As for the specific places you mentioned — Colorado Springs and Virginia Beach — what about them in particular do you think makes the state unnecessary or redundant? ╠╣uw [talk] 13:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

My point was that the AP style doesn't work for those due to ambiguity, thus we aren't following that entirely anyway.
Both unnecessary and redundant because CS is completely unique and VB is primary (as the only topics we currently cover a sub topics) and is primary over the other small places that don't yet have articles. Yes there is Nebraska City, Nebraska but that's smaller. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
If Nebraska City, Nebraska would persist because it's smaller, then you're suggesting using a fluctuating metric like population to determine title form? That seems... unwieldly, and far more complicated than just using a single, consistent, name+state form (which, again, is what the majority of US place articles would have to do anyway).
Also, I forgot to ask: could you elaborate on what you mean by describing the current title as "tautological"? ╠╣uw [talk] 14:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I was using that to indicate that this is a more extreme case, as it is 1 unambiguous 2 tautological and 3 large. Nebraska City is only the first 2. This is somewhat a compromise between users who think all US cities should include the state and those that think it should only be done when needed. And more descriptive titles are more complicated, why not move this to Coloardo Springs (city), Colorado, United States, World, Universe etc?
Tautological in that the name of the city-Coloardo Springs contains the state already. Though not as tautological as Durham, Durham or New York, New York. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
That it contains the name of the state does not make it a tautology; Colorado Springs could be anywhere. In this case it happens to be in Colorado, but so is Idaho Springs, Colorado. (Would that have been clear without the state?) We absolutely cannot assume that the presence of a state in a US place's name indicates the state that it's actually in.

On that subject, note too that Minnesota Junction is in Wisconsin, Wisconsin Township is in Minnesota, Virginia City is in Nevada, Nevada City is in California, Arizona Township is in Nebraska, Missouri City is in Texas, Texas is in New York, New York is in Texas, etc. There are enough such examples to fill a page; US placenames are quite the geographical grab-bag. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

York is in Lancashire see this as is Cambridge in Gloucestershire, along with Oxford, Lincoln, Warwick, Derby and Perth. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. There is no reason to create weird individual exceptions to WP:USPLACE because then there'd be no reason not to move every single other page. I don't even support WP:USPLACE really, but it needs an overhaul instead of picking and choosing to drop state names. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per Amsgearing. WP:USPLACE is a guideline, not a policy as thought by Old Naval Rooftops, and guideline language specifically says that they are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Not maybe treated, or treated once-in-a-blue-moon, but "best treated" with common sense. Colorado Springs, Colorado does seem unnecessarily redundant. And it's more populated than Atlanta and Minneapolis? I didn't know that and it seems counter-intuitive - probably because it doesn't have a major league baseball or football team which ups the mind-map visibility of city names - but if true then that's even more reason for the "occasional exception" to apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Per Randy Kryn, WP:PRECISION is policy and the current title is tautological and looks silly. Why have Boston at the unqualified name that isn't the original but this one with the state? If disambiguation was needed it should be to Colorado Springs, United States per Lincoln, England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose WP:USPLACE In ictu oculi (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. "City, State" is the standard formatting in the U.S. for cities. That's the reason why U.S. city articles are generally titled in this formamt. WP:USPLACE is currently applied universally across Wikipedia article titles, and if we make this one exception here, then there will be a flood of new move requests that will cite it as a precedent. It's just not worth it. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Good point Rreagan007, a flood may occur, but few would make sense and almost all would fall under the WP:USPLACE guideline, and then the flood would become a small stream and then diminish further. "It's just not worth it" as the oppose summary seems a WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning. In any case, this move does fall into the realm of "exception", even some of the oppose statements come close to saying that, and if guidelines specifically call for "occasional exceptions" which may apply, what better example is there to fulfill that slot than Colorado Springs. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Good point. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • The cities template is named {{Colorado Springs}}, without the qualifier. Probably most people in the US would recognize it as the name of the city in Colorado, similar to our article Oklahoma City, without the redundancy. Colorado Springs isn't as well known as other cities, at least in my perception, but it is probably recognizable as the common name of the city. That's just a guess though. Except for the U.S. Olympic Headquarters, and things like Pikes Peak and the yearly tracking of Santa Claus by NORAD, it doesn't cause much of a media ripple. But still the cities name, alone, seems like it would be the common recognizable descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • I certainly would not make the assumption that Colorado Springs was located in the state of Colorado. Honestly it sounds like the name of a place that could be located anywhere along the Colorado River, which runs through a number of different states, and I could imagine a place called "Colorado Springs" being located in any of them. And there are multiple examples of cities with a state name other than the one it is located in, Kansas City, Missouri being the most famous. And there are a number of cities named after their state, should we move all of them? Rreagan007 (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • It could also be the name of a mattress company. No, all of the cities on the list should not be moved, although Virginia Beach may be a good candidate. The main reason I'm supporting this move is the prominence of Colorado Springs, both for its large population and in what it contains (for city highlights see the template {{Colorado Springs}}, which uses the city name without the state descriptor). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Why, because it supports the view that we should drop "Colorado" from this article title? You can't just yell "irrelevant" whenever someone raises a valid point that makes your argument weaker. Just yell "fake news" next time; it seems to be the thing to do these days. Amsgearing (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Why not? This is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is constantly changing. We could easily decide to do that; "that's a lot of work" is not an excuse to not do something that makes sense. Amsgearing (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ambiguity alone isn't why we have the convention; see WP:PERENNIAL. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
That's exactly right. Disambiguation is a nice feature of using the "City, State" format for U.S. cities, but it's not the only reason we use it. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
What? Seems like that's the only reason. Citing WP:PERENNIAL is a red herring; that's not even a Wikipedia guideline, much less a policy, and it hasn't been vetted by the community. It reads like a laundry list of the arguments being made here by people that are against the common sense renaming of this article, with no reasons based in actual policy or common sense. Amsgearing (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
What? The "only reason"? You must have missed these: "Reliable sources commonly append the state to placenames. Appending the state is common usage and sufficiently natural that it may be considered part of American English." Rreagan007 (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
And I explained to you why citing WP:PERENNIAL (which is where you got that quote) is worthless, but in case you missed it: "not a Wikipedia guideline, much less a policy, and it hasn't been vetted by the community." Amsgearing (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I understand it's not an official policy, but it's still contains very good arguments against this move which you have been unwilling to directly refute, instead choosing to dismiss the arguments without directly addressing them. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Amsgearing: I referred you to PERENNIAL because it helpfully summarizes some of the reasons that Wikipedia has long retained the USPLACE guideline. (Neither I nor anyone else ever claimed that PERENNIAL itself is why we follow the comma convention.) ╠╣uw [talk] 08:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
There is no question that Colorado Springs, Colorado is a legitimate commonly used name for that city. But so is Colorado Springs. In fact, they are arguably equal per all WP:CRITERIA, but one. Colorado Springs clearly is favored by WP:CONCISE. It's no contest. --В²C ☎ 20:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME (1964 NY Times article, 2015 NY Times article), WP:CONCISE and WP:D - there is no disambiguation required here. Ignore WP:USPLACE per WP:IAR; as the nom Amsgearing notes, the current title is redundant on its face; getting rid of the redundancy improves WP. More generally, USPLACE creates a terribly disruptive precedent for WP title decision-making in that it effectively sanctions unnecessary disambiguation like this (adding description to unique and primary topic names in titles solely for the sake of making them more descriptive/recognizable), which underlies endless pointless bickering over titles all over the English WP, of which this is but one example. See WP:RM over the last ten years for myriads more. Ever since someone deployed a bot to disambiguate all US City articles - whether they needed it or not - we've been in this mess. Rolling back unnecessary disambiguation for primary topic cities on the AP list was a good start. Doing it for blatantly redundant ones like this one would be another positive step in the right direction. And no, we don't have to change the guideline first; to the contrary. See Shouldn't you get the policy/guideline changed, rather than try to subvert it one article at a time? --В²C ☎ 20:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
A few points, if I may:
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado is not redundant — see Idaho Springs, Colorado. A state name featuring in the base name does not reliably indicate the place's state.
  • As reflected by many reliable sources, notably including the Associated Press[1][2][3][4][5] whose pattern we follow, appending the state is common.
  • Our criteria encourage naturalness and consistency, not just conciseness. The name+state form reflects natural use and is consistent with >99% of US place titles, and so best meets those criteria for a good title.
  • Out of something like 40k US place articles, there are perhaps two or three a year where someone suggests removing the state, and often that's just due to unfamiliarity with the guideline or mistakenly thinking the state is appended solely for disambiguation. (This nomination, originating as it does from a contested technical request, is seemingly one.) IMHO that's remarkably stable.
  • It hasn't been shown how the proposed change would better serve the interests of the reader, which per policy should be our greater concern.
Thanks, ╠╣uw [talk] 14:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Huwmanbeing (talk · contribs), thanks for your thoughts. A few counter-points, if I may.
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado IS redundant — Idaho Springs, Colorado is not. Is that not obvious? When a state name is in the name of the city if the city is in that state then adding the state is redundant, if not, then not.
  • Referencing this city both with and without the state is common; on COMMONNAME it's a wash.
  • Yes, naturalness and consistency are also emphasized, and they're both a wash too. Both are natural (i.e, both are common names) and one is consistent with how most other US cities are named and the other is consistent with how most other articles including most cities outside the US are named (disambiguate only when necessary). CONCISENESS is the only WP:CRITERIA with which we have a clear undisputed "winner".
  • The US city title guideline is inconsistent with how other articles are titled and will remain a source for conflicts until this inconsistency is resolved. But the bigger problem is not the conflicts it creates within the sphere of US city names, but the effect it has outside of this sphere in appearing to sanction unnecessary disambiguation, a sanction that leads to a number of unnecessary week+ long conflicts documented at RM every single day, a problem to which my user page is dedicated.
Thanks, --В²C ☎ 18:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
What makes a piece of information redundant is whether it's already been conveyed. The base name "Colorado Springs" by itself does not convey the state that the city is in — just as "Idaho Springs" does not, or as "Virginia City" does not, or as other base place names do not.
If you disagree, we can easily test it: take the unique name "Tennessee Township". Without looking it up, can you reliably determine simply from the base name the state that it's in? If you cannot, then appending the state is not conveying redundant information, regardless of whether it turns out to be in Tennessee or not. Again: one cannot assume the state from the base name.
As for consistency, titles are not consistent simply because they're generated by a singular rule (like exceptionless minimum disambiguation); they're also consistent if they exhibit a singular pattern. Currently >99% of US place articles, including this one, share a single pattern. A policy of minimum disambiguation would leave the state on most but remove it from a large but scattered minority for reasons that likely would not be apparent to (or appreciated by) the reader — and per policy it's the reader's interests we put first. IMHO one cannot dismiss such criteria as "a wash". ╠╣uw [talk] 09:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per USPLACE. The AP Style provides for a stable, quality-source-consistent dividing line between universally recognised US cities and the majority really only known non-internationally. "City, State" has considerable advantages of consistency and recognisability, with more than sufficient COMMONNAME support. No other line would be less disruptive. These regular article title battles are a complete distraction and have zero regard for reader issues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support, re user В²C, particularly WP:CONCISE. WP:USPLACE seems silly if we are disambiguating completely unambiguous titles. I'd vote for a full reform of that guideline if possible. Common sense should always prevail. Loeba (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Threaded discussion regarding the AP Style Guide

edit

I wish to point out that since there are numerous cities (Atlanta, Boston, etc,) that don't have the state name attached, and some of these cities are actually smaller in population than Colorado Springs, the Oppose votes keep pointing to the AP Style Guide as the dividing line. To me, this is a completely arbitrary choice, as Wikipedia is supposed to be written for a global audience (or at least, the English Wikipedia for the global English-speaking audience) and the AP Guide is a strictly American source. The guideline even explicitly states that the guidance within is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. The city of Phoenix is even treated as an exception in the OTHER direction (and I agree with that choice). It's a good example of treating this on a case-by-case basis. In this case, there's absolutely no reason to include the state name other than saying "But the AP Guide says!" - even though there are exceptions to that guideline. So that argument, to me, holds no water. Amsgearing (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Amsgearing: Please see the various reasons to retain the state that have already been raised in the discussion immediately above, as well as those noted in the FAQ, summarized in PERENNIAL, and explored in other similar discussions. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I think the best reason to oppose this RM is one I raised myself, that Colorado Springs might be confused for a mattress company. Besides that I can see no actual reason to keep the redundant descriptor other than a force of habit guideline suggestion which, as Amsgearing points out, is geared towards (and only towards) an American format while serving on an international platform. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Explicitly U.S.-related articles should use a U.S. format. This is similar to how we use American English for U.S.-related articles, British English for British-related articles, Australian English for Australian-related articles, etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oh really? where's it say that? I'm aware that British English is used in British-centric articles, etc, but extrapolating that to the AP style guide for how to refer to city names in Wikipedia articles came straight out of thin air. Amsgearing (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Rreagan007: Exactly so. Insofar as name, state is the widely-used natural form favored by US speakers, that's the form we follow, per WP:TITLEVAR. (It's also why we simultaneously have a US Department of Defense and a UK Ministry of Defence.) ╠╣uw [talk] 21:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Randy Kryn so could Colorado Springs, Colorado be a mattress company, the state only tells you where, not what it is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Kind of like Hope Springs, Eternal. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colorado_Springs,_Colorado/Archive_2&oldid=1146597269"