Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/August

The names in Spain...

I thought it might be nice to have an explicit convention for titling Spanish municipalities. From what I can tell, most places that need disambiguation currently use the form "X, Province", as in Risco, Badajoz. Others use "X (Spain)", as in Medellín (Spain). Large cities seem to use either "X, Spain", as in Valencia, Spain, or "X, Autonomous community", as in Santander, Cantabria. There are likely other variations as well.

A good starting point for a convention might be Argentina, which states:

• "Where possible, articles on places in Argentina use Placename. Where disambiguation is required, City, Province is used, except for provincial capitals which use City, Argentina."

Another thought might be to disambiguate first by autonomous community, and then by province if necessary. What do you all think? Dohn joe (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe go directly for province level, so all entities have the same size. Note that all these - and maybe more - do not use country level: Argentina (except province capitals that are named like the province), Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, India (under dispute, but only few use "X, India"), Ireland, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. Here is a size comparison of the entities use as default dab, if dab is needed:

The table was created for discussion in the India Project, where I proposed to drop the state level and to use the district level.

Name	pop in mio	km2	primary dab area	#primary dab areas	pop/area	km2/area	Comment
India (current)	1,210	3287263	state	28	43,221,071	117,402	Territories not considered, are minor. With on avg. 43 mio inhabitants this is the largest dab term in the analysis with respect to population.
United States	310	9,826,675	state	50	6,200,000	196,534	Territories not considered, are minor. Counties are often ambiguous.
Canada	34	9,984,670	province+territory	13	2,655,769	768,052
Australia	23	7,617,930	state+territory	8	2,833,750	952,241	territories only NT, ACT
South Africa	50	1,221,037	province	9	5,555,556	135,671
France	66	674,843	department	100	658,200	6,748
UK/England	51	130,395	ceremonial county	48	1,062,500	2,717
UK/Scotland	5.2	78,772	council area	32	163,188	2,462	The area defined by the dab term is on avg. the smallest and least populated in this analysis.
Republic of Ireland	4.6	70,273	county	26	176,154	2,703
Philippines	94	299,764	municipality	1,496	62,834	200	partially ", Philippines" is used. Municipalities itself use ", <provincename>".
India (proposed)	1,210	3,287,263	district	640	1,890,922	5,136	630 district names are unique, only 5 names ambiguous representing 10 districts are ambiguous within India. With respect to population and km2 it would take a middle position.

But the provinces may of be not unique, while the district names in India mostly are. Maybe first analyze which provinces have a name that is shared with other provinces in the world or even with other possible geographic dab terms in general, in case the word "province" is not included. Russia does include the type of the dab entity, e.g. "X, Y Oblast". Others only write "X, Y".

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

My preference would be for just ", Spain", if that's sufficient. Disambiguation should primarily make things as clear as possible for (English-speaking) readers, not as thought-free as possible for editors. Everyone knows where Spain is; many of the Spanish provinces are going to be quite unfamiliar; so only use the latter if the former doesn't get the job done.--Kotniski (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you in part, in that many of the provinces will be unfamiliar. That's actually why I suggested a middle ground of considering "X, Autonomous community" as the default disambiguator. This recently came up in regards to Italian naming conventions, which currently default to the regional level. In looking at other countries' conventions, it seemed to me that it's actually more helpful for many larger countries with well-known subdivisions to use them rather than the country name to disambiguate. "X, Tuscany" should be just as clear, and more helpful as a disambiguator than "X, Italy". I think the same is true for "X, Aragon" vs. "X, Spain". The autonomous communities of Spain are well-known to many English speakers, so I think it is appropriate, and consistent with other large countries, to use them to disambiguate. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

@Kotniski - clear as possible for (English-speaking) readers - one could say Dohn Joe's proposal make things more clear, since a dab term using a smaller geographic unit is more specific and thus can make more things "clear". Do you think that the England county names mean more to the avg reader than the term "England"? I doubt that. Only few English speakers live in the UK and know the ceremonial counties of England. The French system uses departments and there are ca. 100, so using the province level for Spain would still be less specific than the French system. For the provinces I just checked : Provinces of Spain : A small town would normally be identified as being in, say, Valladolid province rather than the autonomous community of Castile and León. The provinces were the "building-blocks" from which the autonomous communities were created; consequently no province is divided between two or more of these communities.. Also Postal codes in Spain use the province level as do the French departments to derive the first two digits. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kotniski. The trend away from disambiguation by country, where that is sufficient, is unhelpful. Exceptions should be limited to cases where a country's subdivisions are well known outside the country, and I don't think that would apply to Spain. We do not want a situation where a user has to try more than one entry, or use an atlas, before landing on the right article.

The guideline for Scotland shows the problems. We end up with Banff, Aberdeenshire, Clackmannan, Clackmannanshire (!) and Annan, Dumfries and Galloway. But disambiguation by council area is avoided in some cases, presumably because the result would be too odd: Perth, Scotland (not Perth, Perth and Kinross), Fort William, Scotland (not Fort William, Highland), Calgary, Mull (not Calgary, Argyll and Bute). There is little logic in that, and it is just unhelpful to many users. --Mhockey (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

But my argument is precisely that Spain's autonomous communities - Catalonia, Andalusia, Aragon, etc. - are well known outside of Spain, much as Lombardy and Piedmont are known outside of Italy, much as Alberta and Ontario are known outside of Canada. I agree with your general statement - but I think is one of the exceptions. Dohn joe (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So Cartagena, Spain would be moved to Cartagena, Murcia Region??--Mhockey (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not quite that drastic - Cartagena, Murcia is already a redirect.... Dohn joe (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but "Cartagena, Murcia" actually gets more Google Books results than "Cartagena, Spain" - so it would seem a more natural disambiguator anyhow. Dohn joe (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So if you were in Colombia, and you wanted to refer to the other Cartagena, you would say "Cartagena in Murcia", and not "Cartagena in Spain"? Doesn't sound vey natural to me.--Mhockey (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know - I'm just saying that it looks like when people have a choice between adding "Spain" or "Murcia" to Cartagena, more people seem to choose "Murcia". Dohn joe (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Eeh, many of those hits include "Spain" immediately following, or are just postal addresses, or else appear in a context where it's already known that Spain is being discussed. But I'd agree that using these better-known regions (where sufficient) is at least preferable to using the less-known provinces. --Kotniski (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@Mhockey

• The trend away from disambiguation by country, where that is sufficient, is unhelpful. - The United States used this way of disambiguation right from the start. And to me if I see "X, Texas" it reveals more than if I see "X, United States". So I don't know what you mean by "unhelpful".
• We do not want a situation where a user has to try more than one entry, or use an atlas, before landing on the right article. - What do you mean by "have to try"? When would a user have to use an atlas to find the right article? And, what is he doing with those articles that have no dab at all? And one still can have Cartagena, Spain as a redirect, so on "trying" some string combinations the user still finds the article.

• What looks weird with the Scottish places to me is the usage of different levels.
• "The guideline for Scotland shows the problems." - I think the Scotland guideline is more complex than what Dohn Joe or I proposed. I don't know what is the reason for treating the islands, and Highland different. Then you bring some examples - What is wrong with Clackmannanshire? Is there more than one Clackmannanshire? You say "There is little logic in that" - But are the examples you brought up not following the logic of the guideline?

@Dohn Joe - using Murcia, which is also a province, seems to be Spanish custom, as it says on at Provinces of Spain : "A small town would normally be identified as being in, say, Valladolid province rather than the autonomous community of Castile and León." I think people reading about tiny villages in Spain are better served with the province name, than with the country name. But I would also agree with the middle ground, i.e. using the autonomous communities. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm following this discussion for a long time. I don't get it, why the simplest and most logical of all solutions isn't adopted for all countries: disambiguate at the level the ambiguity exists. If there's a Venice in Italy and another in the USA, we will write "Venice (Italy)" (and not "Venice (Veneto)"); if two Castro exist, one in Apulia and the other in Lombardy, we will write "Castro (Apulia)" and "Castro (Lombardy)". Same with Cartagena. I only have a doubt, if we should prefer "Venice, Italy" or "Venice (Italy)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajoch (talk • contribs) 07:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

By your logic, why not Venice, Europe or Venice, European Union, is there more than one in Europe? Or Venice, Eastern Hemisphere? For Venice, New York one could use Venice, Northeastern United States. So why do some people use other levels? Because the other levels reveal more details to them and it is following a customary system for that country. A country gives more details than the continent, and a province gives more than the country. Using the provinces for disambiguation in Spain is customary, as it says in the article Provinces of Spain. In Italy the postal addresses use the province-level. If I am at Category:Towns in Spain, then seeing "Alameda, Spain" is less informative than seeing Alameda, Malaga. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, you are trolling! The country-name as top-most level is enough. We can safely assume, the readers know where a country like Italy is.--Sajoch (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

He's not trolling, but otherwise, yes, the point is recognizability - there's no harm per se in using a more specific region than we need to, but there will be harm in using a less recognizable region, and it's usually the case that, below country level, in non-English-speaking countries (for English-speaking readers), the more specific you get the less recognizable you get.--Kotniski (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the point recognizability? What with all the one that have no dab at all - you recognize nothing. For India, I can also tell that using "X, India" will bring a lot of problems, since new locations are created, e.g. in the last decade 2279 new villages [1]. So even if all 630,000+ old villages had an entry and were properly dabbed, people can start move sessions again and again. I don't assume such massive village creation happens in Spain, but how complete are the articles? Do all villages, towns, cities have an article already? Do you know, that if you put something at ", Spain" it will not require a later change? How many wrong links exist due to ", Spain" disambiguation instead of using the local customary province level? I am an English-speaking reader, but if I read about something in Europe, I don't need ", Spain" for Spanish place names. It can be ", Spain", but it also can be anything else. Same goes for Poland. @Sajoch, we can even more safely assume that people know where Europe is. I am sure more people find Europe than Luxembourg or Slovenia on a world map without text labels. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I'm looking up a city in WP, I have at least a vague idea what I'm looking for, and where that city is. So a simple addendum "(Italy)" or "(USA)" to disambiguate cities with identical names, is all we need. We shouldn't make things more complicate than they are.--Sajoch (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

On a page like Category:Towns in Spain ", Spain" provides no additional info. And in general all the towns that are not disambiguated give no "Spain"-info either. It is not "needed". Or do you suggest to attach "Spain"-labels to every town? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Names in Spain (continued)

"Unhelpful" in this context means that it does not help users who do not recognise the disambiguator to find the right article. Most people recognise Texas and the other US states, but not so many people know where Murcia is.

One still can have Cartagena, Spain as a redirect. Bear in mind that Cartagena, Spain would not appear on the dab page (per WP:MOSDAB). Of course, you could add an explanation that Cartagena, Murcia is in Spain, but why not go for the more obvious (to users outside Spain) disambiguator and avoid the need for the explanation?

I don't need ", Spain" for Spanish place names. I don't think it's safe to assume that a Spanish language place-name is in Spain. There are at least 4 places called Murcia, only one of which is in Spain. There are many places called Valencia, only one of which is in Spain. Valencia, Córdoba is in Colombia - and here are at least 3 country subdivisions called Córdoba, only one of which is in Spain. Why add to the confusion if you can avoid it? --Mhockey (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know what WP:Spain has to say about this? Ben MacDui 19:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I asked them to chime in if they were interested. Dohn joe (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@Mhockey, I said if I read about something in Europe, I don't need ", Spain" - of course, in general there can be a lot of overlap with Latin America. Yes Cartagena, Spain would not appear in DAB, but Cartagena, Murcia, Spain does not consume that much space. It's what is done with U.S., UK, Australian or Canadian places too, on DAB pages it would be made clear that something is in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and that can be done outside the dab tag. But we would need more data, how many ambiguous names would exist if one uses the level of the autonomous communities. Would that reduce most of the problems. And if choosing the province-level, then except for Cordoba, are there other provinces that may cause ambiguities with Latin American entities. For districts in South Asia I made an analysis: List of ambiguous names of districts of South Asia. So, e.g. for India, the district level is quite unambiguous. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, Beside Córdoba other ambiguous province names are: Barcelona, Cuenca, Jaén, La Rioja, Santa Cruz. Seeing this I would prefer to use the proposal made by Dohn Joe and to use the autonomous communities. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-proposal on Spain

We seem to have lost some steam here. Can people live with the following:

• "Where possible, articles on places in Spain use [[Placename]]. Where disambiguation is required, [[Placename, Autonomous community]] is used, except where a city shares a name with its community, in which case [[City, Spain]] is used. Where two or more places within an autonomous community share a name, use [[Placename, Province]]."

While not perfect, it at least provides consistent guidance, and moves away from the less-known provinces to the better-known Autonomous communities of Spain for disambiguation. Dohn joe (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Sounds reasonable enough.--Kotniski (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• But what is wrong with using [[Placename, Spain]] if that is sufficient disambiguation?--Mhockey (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  Well, it's just that the majority of participants here seemed comfortable with this proposed language - if nothing else, it's an improvement over the current scheme, which is no explicit convention, and somewhat of a mishmash of article titles. Nothing in WP is ever written in stone, so this can be revisited at any time. What do you say? Dohn joe (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If a city is simply disambiguated with Spain, couldn't it be confused with its community? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, how about this proposal:

• "Where possible, articles on places in Spain use [[Placename]]. Where disambiguation is required, [[Placename, Spain]] is used. If further disambiguation is required, [[Placename, Autonomous community]] is used, except where a city shares a name with its community, in which case [[City, Spain]] is used. Where two or more places within an autonomous community share a name, use [[Placename, Province]]."

The advantages of this proposal:

1. It is consistent with the general guidance in WP:NCDAB: "If there are several possible choices for disambiguating with a class or context, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler."

2. It is consistent with the general guidance in WP:NCGN: "Places are often disambiguated by the country in which they lie, if this is sufficient. ..... If using the country name would still lead to ambiguity, use the name of a smaller administrative division (such as a state or province) instead." The examples of the US, Canada and possibly Australia are doubtful precedents: at least in the case of the US, the use of the state is not primarily a disambiguator - although there has been a lot of debate about that. In my view, the exceptions should be limited to very large countries where the subnational divisons are very widely known outside the country and widely used as disambiguators in general usage internationally. So I would also change the conventions for Colombia, England, Scotland and others.

3. It avoids the problem of ambiguous subnational divisions as far as possible - a particular problem in Spanish language countries. There is only one Spain.

In answer to Chipmunkdavis's point: I do not know which places this would apply to, but I would have thought that in every case the city woud be the primary topic for [[Placename, Spain]].--Mhockey (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue I have with your first two points is related. You say to use a disambiguating phrase "already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context" - but I would say that using a region or state to disambiguate is already common for large countries with well-known subdivisions. Which leads me to your second point: Spain is a large country with well-known subdivisions. If you don't like the U.S. or Canada as comparisons, look at Italy and Mexico - isn't Spain in their class?

As for the third point, as far as I can tell, of all the Spanish autonomous communities, only La Rioja is ambiguous with any other first-level subnational subdivision in the world (an Argentine province with which there are no common placenames). I still prefer using the autonomous communities, and I hope I've addressed some concerns with that method. Dohn joe (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Italy and Mexico could be compared with Spain, and I do not think that they should be exceptions from the general rule either. In the case of Italy there do not seem to be many examples. Fortunately Venice, Naples and Rome are primary topics, but if they were not, I think most users would prefer Venice, Italy, Naples, Italy and Rome, Italy to Venice, Veneto, Naples, Campana or Rome, Lazio - which are not even redirects. Mexico is a very large country, but its subdivisions are not well known in the English speaking world.

On the third point, it's not really about ambiguity with first-level subdivisions alone. It's about how unambiguous the disambiguator is. Galicia is not even the primary topic for Galicia.

As a general point, it would be unfortunate if disambiguation by subnational division (where there is no ambiguity within the country) were seen as a mark of how big or important a country is. We're looking for the simplest and most recognisable disambiguator, that's all.--Mhockey (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

So let me ask you then - if Italy, Mexico, Spain, and England are not large countries with well-known subdivisions, and if the U.S., Canada, and possibly Australia don't count, which countries would qualify under your exception criteria? Dohn joe (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually said very large countries. I never said the US, Canada and Australia did not "count". I said that they were doubtful precedents for the principle that disambiguation should be by subnational division rather than by country. They are the countries which would meet my exception criteria. There may be others, but I cannot think of any. --Mhockey (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Given, then, that you are clearly in favor of a wholesale revision of country-specific disambiguation conventions, would you at least agree that the proposal at the top of this section is consistent with current guidelines for similar countries? Dohn joe (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am in favour of limiting, and not extending without good reason, the exceptions to the general guidance at WP:NCCS: "Where there is no Wikipedia convention on a specific country and disambiguation is necessary, it is generally reasonable to use [[placename, nation]], as in Shire, Ethiopia." At the moment, most countries follow the general guidance. Apart from the general guidance, several of the countries with specific guidance also follow the convention [[placename, nation]], where that is sufficient disambiguation (Poland, Russia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Switzerland). England has recently changed its guidance to [[placename, England]] in some cases. You are happy with [[placename, Spain]] in some cases. I am in favour of consistency, and it is difficult to see much consistency in the rationales for departure from the general guidance. My proposal is consistent with the general guideline and also with the specific guidance for some comparable countries.

But the key issue is this. Which is simpler and more recognisable to more users of the English WP: Cartagena, Spain or Cartagena, Murcia? --Mhockey (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You say you don't see much consistency in the rationales given for departing from the general guideline. What would you say are those rationales - how would you articulate them? Dohn joe (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know what the rationales are - that's the problem. I can tell you what I think the rationales should be. They have already been expressed above. Disambiguate at the level the ambiguity exists (Sajoch). Disambiguate by country, if that is sufficient, with exceptions limited to very large countries where the subnational divisions are very widely known outside the country and widely used as disambiguators in general usage internationally (me). --Mhockey (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you've actually expressed one of the pro-proposal rationales quite nicely. We just disagree on its application. I (and the majority of participants in this discussion) happen to think that Spain is a large enough country, whose subnational divisions are very widely known outside of Spain. And moreover, the proposal represents an improvement over the status quo, wouldn't you say? Dohn joe (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Established name?

There is a discussion at Talk:Kolkata#Requesting_move.2C_again: whether the official name has established itself, even in Indian usage. More data would be helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

U.S. township articles and pre-emptive disambiguation versus consistent naming

A requested move at Talk:Horton Township, Elk County, Pennsylvania concerns application of the naming guideline to township articles in the U.S. Township articles were initially created using Census Bureau data such that only townships requiring disambiguation included the county name (i.e., if Foo Township, State was not unique, then articles were named Foo Township, County, State). Since then, some state wikiprojects have chosen to rename township articles to always include the county name, regardless of whether disambiguation was necessary. Other states have maintained the disambiguate only where necessary convention.

1. Should there be state-specific exemptions?
2. Should the current disambiguate only when necessary convention be applied uniformly?
3. Should all U.S. township articles be consistently named to always include the county name regardless of ambiguity?

older ≠ wiser 20:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the last choice is best, partly because United States townships are directly associated with county government (unless there are exceptions of which I'm unaware). That's not typically true of cities and towns and villages, so to name an article "Fort Wayne, Indiana" (for example) makes sense unless there's a need for disambiguation. But to say "Abington Township, Indiana" leaves out an important part of the township's identity; I believe names like "Abington Township, Wayne County, Indiana" make more sense for townships. It also makes for an easy, consistent, predictable naming convention. Omnedon (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, in varies somewhat by state, but in many states township governments operate independent of the county government. In Pennsylvania, townships are a class of municipality and township officials are elected independent of county offices just like in any other municipality. The situation is similar in Michigan, and I believe also in New York and New Jersey. What makes townships interesting is that they were (and still are in a sense) geographical subdivisions of a county. However, that geographic relationship does not mean there is a governmental or administrative relation between the township and county. But it is complicated. In a very general sense, county governments are responsible for providing services to residents that are not otherwise served by municipalities. So while it is possible for a township to assume some municipal responsibilities under home rule (or in PA with the distinction between first and second class townships), other townships might rely on the county to provide services. What you say about villages is also not entirely accurate. In some states, such as Michigan, and I believe New York, villages are to a degree subordinate to the township(s) in which they are located. It might be that they assume greater responsibility for municipal services -- or it may be that they rely on the township to provide certain services. However, in a broader sense, some townships are well known independent of the county in which they are located. For example Canton, Michigan, West Bloomfield, Michigan, Charter Township of Clinton, Michigan, Macomb, Michigan, Redford, Michigan, Waterford, Michigan are all among the most populous places in Michigan and are not necessarily any more clearly identified by having the county as part of their name. I'm sure there are similar such townships in other states. In states such as Indiana, where township government has minimal functions (and in fact township boundaries overlay cities in Indiana), it might make sense to always include the county name. But in states where townships are nearly equal with other types of municipalities, it makes less sense to do so as the townships have clearly established identities apart from the counties in which they are located. older ≠ wiser 21:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to make title decisions for township articles any differently than we do for any other articles... choose the title that best meets the principal naming criteria. Normally the best choice (natural, recognizable, concise, precise - but not overly precise) is to use the concise name of the topic (in this case, the name of the township) as the title, unless more precision is necessary for disambiguation. When disambiguation is needed, I would think adding ", state", is best for consistency, and inserting county only in those rare cases where there is more than one township by the same name in the same state.

As to the concern about demonstrating the association between the township and the county - that's trying to do something with titles that they are not supposed to do... leave that function to the article lead. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that choice number 3 is best, as it provides consistency across the names of similar topics.   Will Beback  talk  22:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

But there isn't consistency across states. There are 17 states that use the term "township" as an administrative unit. Of those, 13 (OH, IL, PA, MN, IA, SD, AR, IN, KS, MO, NE, NC, ND) include the county name in the WP article title, but 4 (NH, NJ, UT, MI) do not. There are 7 states that use the term "town". Of those, one (WI) includes the county in the article title, while the other 6 (NY, VT, CT, RI, ME, MA) do not. Delaware uses the term "hundred" for the same concept, and does not include the county name in the article title. So we don't have consistency as it stands.

And if nothing else, the current system in place for states like Pennsylvania leads to odd results, with townships found at "X Township, X County, Pennsylvania", but unincorporated communities within those townships going straight to "X, Pennsylvania". For example, Roslyn, Pennsylvania is an unincorporated community located within Abington Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. That seems odd to me. Where I differ with B2C (at least for now) is that I would mirror the existing convention for cities, and pre-disambiguate all townships with ", State", while dropping the county unless needed. Dohn joe (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that choice number three is the best. Not only is it the most used naming convention, it is the most precise. I know where a township is in the state when the name of the county is included in the name of the article. There are far more townships with the same name than boroughs, towns, villages, cities, etc. in a state. This is due to the post office changing names to avoid confusion. See Bloomfield, Pennsylvania and Goldsboro, Pennsylvania. I agree with other users that the name of the county is rarely included in discussions about the township, but this format is written and not spoken and lacks localized context. If I am speaking to someone in Lycoming County and I mention Washington Township they can be pretty sure I am talking about the township on the southern side of the county. If I am in another county with a Washington Township I am most likely talking about a completey other place. Gerry D (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What about my observation that unincorporated places within townships get less identifying information in the title than the townships themselves? Would you prefer Roslyn, Abington Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania as being more precise? (That's an honest question, not meant to be snarky.) If not, why not? Dohn joe (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there just one Roslyn, Pennsylvania? Probably. I will find out when I click the blue link. I understand your question. There is such a vast difference in Pennsylvania between the boroughs and the townships. Boroughs are generally much smaller. Townships can be vast and are full of unincorporated villages, communities, and crossroads. Neighborhoods like Allentown (Pittsburgh) and Lawrenceville (Pittsburgh) include the city name to avoid confusion with the city Allentown, Pennsylvania and the teeny tiny borough Lawrenceville, Pennsylvania. I the long run I can live with the article being named either way. I simply prefer X Township, Y County, State. Gerry D (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@Gerry D and Will Beback -- this runs completely contrary to the established convention for U.S. places -- especially for places that are have well-known and established identities independent of the county in which they are located. older ≠ wiser 23:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It was my experience, growing up in Pennsylvania, that very few people referred to the townships by their names. For example, Waterville, Pennsylvania is the primary community in Cummings Township, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. Most residents of the area refer to Waterville, or the Pine Creek area, but few say Cummings Township except when dealing with the township government which itself is very small. As I stated above, I can live with the townships names being named in either way, I prefer things the way they are. Gerry D (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand. In Michigan, for townships with a population in the hundreds, the township is a largely unknown entity and few people ever have any reason to refer to the township in any context. But there are also many very populous townships that have a strongly established identity apart from the county. People are much more likely to refer to Canton, or Redford, or West Bloomfield than those names with "Township". And Dohn joe raises excellent point about unincorporated communities -- if the idea is to provide readers with a cue to the location, then why not also require unincorporated communities also be pre-emptively disambiguated with the county or township and county? older ≠ wiser 00:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's very rare to refer to the municipalities with the county name; adding them to our titles when it's unnecessary produces titles that violate our basic article naming principles, in particular conciseness, naturalness, and recognizability. It does satisfy the "consistency" principle, but that alone is not enough to override the other concerns. Powers ^T 00:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If some states have townships which are not subdivisions of counties, then that would be different. But in many states, townships are subdivisions of counties; and in some states, township names are often re-used many times (such as Center Township, which was used 25 times in Indiana, and Harrison, 24 times, and others like Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, et cetera). Settlements (like cities and towns, whether or not they are unincorporated) don't typically exist below or within the county organizationally, but in many states, townships do -- and in those cases, leaving out the county makes the name too imprecise. I would suggest that for states where townships exist as county subdivisions, the naming convention should be "Township, County, State", the current practice here when it comes to many of those states. In Indiana, for example, township government is tied to the parent county's government. Since the nature of townships is not the same in all states (and of course not all states even have townships), then perhaps each state should be handled according to the circumstances in that state (which seems to be the case now). Omnedon (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, when they're reused, we have to disambiguate. But if the name is unique, the state name alone is plenty sufficient for precision, and omitting the county has the advantages of conciseness, naturalness, and recognizability. Powers ^T 15:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Conciseness I grant, but not naturalness. I can't speak for all affected states, but in the region I'm familiar with, the form "X Township, Y state" seems the less natural choice. Also note that minimum sufficient precision is clearly not WP's only standard (which again is why we use "Maricopa County, Arizona" and not just "Maricopa County"). This isn't to say that you have to express every level of a hierarchy in every title, but it does show a recognition that the parent level matters, even where one could argue that it's not strictly necessary for the purposes of disambiguation. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 16:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I favor choice 3.
It sounds like quite a bit of emphasis is being placed on areas where townships operate less as subentities of their counties and more like towns. In those few states where this is so, I'm not strongly opposed to omitting the county name; personally, though, my preference would still be to include the county name in the title for consistency. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 11:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

One other point: AFAIK, the demands of minimal disambiguation do not trump consistent naming conventions. After all, there's only one Maricopa County in the entire U.S., so should its article just be entitled "Maricopa County"? No, we use the title "Maricopa County, Arizona", despite the fact that the name is unique, because the county is a subdivision of the state and it's not common to refer to it without the association to its parent. The same is true in most cases for townships. One never hears "Madison Township, Indiana" -- it's always "Madison Township, Carroll County" (or one of the 13 other Indiana counties with a Madison township). Huwmanbeing ☀★ 11:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a little disingenuous to use as an example a township that has to be disambiguated anyway, don't you think? Powers ^T 15:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all: the fact that many townships have to be disambiguated anyway is exactly my point (or rather one of them), which is what the example demonstrates. If township names are unique within their counties but not necessarily unique within their states, then that's relevant to the consideration of an appropriate naming convention. However, I'm equally happy to pick a unique and unambiguous name as an example: Neponset Township, Bureau County, Illinois. To refer to it simply as "Neponset Township, Illinois" (even though that name is unique) begs the question of what county that township is a part of, just as saying "Moultrie County, USA" (also unique) would beg the question of what state that county belongs to. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 16:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not the role of the article title to provide context. None of our naming conventions require that, except where it's useful for disambiguation purposes. We use a "City, State" format because it is the most widespread and universal way of referring to cities in the U.S., not because we want to provide more context than is necessary. I'd like to see some evidence that "Township, County, State" is in any way a common way of referring to townships in the U.S., because I've never heard it. Powers ^T 17:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't it the role of an article to provide context? I don't understand what you mean. Gerry D (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Simply look at WP:Article titles. Nowhere in that document is "provide context to the reader" described as a purpose of the article title. The title need only uniquely identify the subject. We don't use article titles like "Bilbo Baggins, the character from The Hobbit" because "Bilbo Baggins" alone is sufficient to uniquely identify the subject. Powers ^T 00:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

WP uses article titles like that all the time. See Jack Smith (footballer born 1882), Jack Smith (footballer born 1898), and the numerous other Jack Smiths. Where there are many things of a kind (as there are many townships), its appropriate to distinguish among them in the title. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 01:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

But I think that is precisely the issue -- all of the Jack Smiths REQUIRE disambiguation. If a person's name is not ambiguous, then no additional information is included in the title. What is being suggested here by some is that unambiguous entities should include additional information in the title beyond any need for disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 01:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

But of course many townships do have ambiguous names, which is one of the good reasons that the articles use a consistent, disambiguous naming convention. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 10:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The same argument could be made about many other things such as television episodes; however, such pre-emptive disambiguation was ultimately rejected in an arbcom decision.

That's specific to an issue with the naming of television episodes. As I've already pointed out, Wikipedia's accepted geographic naming conventions frequently include disambiguation where not strictly necessary (as in the naming of counties, etc.), for the reasons already discussed elsewhere in this thread. If you're challenging this practice as a whole, that's fine, but it probably should be taken up as a separate discussion; otherwise, let's stick to townships. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 13:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained before, "City, State" (and, accordingly, "County, State") titles are used because that is an extremely common construction and a very common way of referring to cities (and, to a lesser extent, counties). "Township, County, State", on the other hand, is comparatively much less common, and thus is suitable only when disambiguation is needed. Powers ^T 14:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly right, LtPowers. The issue is that township articles that are unnecessarily disambiguated with the county name are a deviation from the guideline. If there is consensus that such a further deviation from the basic guideline is appropriate, the guideline should be updated accordingly. older ≠ wiser 17:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree -- Powers is expressing an opinion that the "Township, County, State" is much less common, but I see no actual indication of that. I don't think I've ever seen a township referred to as "X Township, Y State" (outside of Wikipedia). "Township, County, State" is not a deviation from a guideline, but rather provides the appropriate amount of precision. Omnedon (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the current guideline says NOTHING about using Township, County, State -- it says ONLY that U.S. places names use Placename, State -- and when disambiguation is necessary, then the county name (or some other disambiguator) is included. Anything beyond that is undocumented and a deviation from the present guideline. older ≠ wiser 19:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdenting...)
Powers: Upon what basis do you say it's less common? In response to your earlier request, I offered examples of county name pairing with township name in references to townships. Further, I (and others) have shown why doing otherwise in those cases would be impractical, in part because of ambiguous or repeated township names.

If you're saying it's less common to refer to townships than to cities or towns, yes, that's certainly true. "City, State" is a well-accepted convention for mailing addresses, and one doesn't normally mail things based on township, so the comparison of frequency of usage isn't a fair one.

On the other hand, if you're saying it's uncommon for people to routinely refer to their local township with the exact form "Washington Township, Tippecanoe County, Indiana", that may be so, but what of it? My city newspaper just says "Washington Township" (no county or state) because the assumed context is the county; the state township association says "Washington Township, Tippecanoe County" (no state) because the assumed context is the state. Wikipedia has no equivalent local context -- its conventions must be based on the need to consistently distinguish between all members of an entire set, something that one doesn't often need to do outside of an encyclopedia. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 19:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Bkonrad, to be clear, are you referring to the United States section of this project page? That refers to cities, towns and CDPs. In this context, a township (in the states with which I have experience) isn't really a "populated place" in the same sense as a city or a town. Rather, it's an administrative subdivision of a county. Thus, "Township, County, State" does indeed provide the appropriate amount of precision for the title -- not too much, but not too little. "Township, State" provides too little. Omnedon (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm referring to. If townships are not populated places, then what are they? If they are not populated places, then nearly ALL township articles are incorrectly categorized into categories for populated places. And even if they are something other than populated places, then the U.S. guideline is silent and the default guideline of ONLY disambiguate when necessary still applies -- there is no other special convention for townships -- I don't see how the unnecessary inclusion of the county name is anything other than disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 20:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Bkonrad, this is what the convention states: "The canonical form for cities, towns and census-designated places is Placename, State". It's overreaching to say that that applies to all U.S. place names, since clearly there are things in the U.S. (like townships) that are none of those. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? The convention was intended to provide broad coverage for populated places. And what is a township if it is not a populated place? And if you say it is not a populated place, then why are they all categorized as populated places? older ≠ wiser 22:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In the context of states like Indiana, Illinois, and others that use civil townships similarly... Townships are not towns. I didn't make the statement that "townships are not populated places" without a caveat; I said that they are not populated places in the same sense as cities and towns. People do live within townships, but that doesn't mean that a township is a variety of settlement like a town, any more than a county is like a city. A township may contain just one portion of a large city, or it may contain no settlements whatsoever; its functions don't relate to that. A county is an administrative subdivision of a state, and a township is an administrative subdivision of a county; so a township is similar to a county, but at a lower level. Just as we include the state when titling a county article, we should include the state and county when titling a township. This is not an exception or a special case or a deviation or a violation of guidelines. It fits the character of townships, just as "City, State" fits for cities and "County, State" fits for counties. Using "Township, State" is not sufficiently precise, natural, recognizable, or consistent. However, if a "township" in some states is truly a settlement like a city, town, or village, then that's an entirely different case. If it's a settlement and not a county subdivision, then perhaps the county need not be named unless it's necessary for disambiguation. Increasingly, I question if we can reasonably expect the same convention to work in every case, because the meaning and use of the term "township" varies. I certainly don't believe that option 2 can be universally applied, for all the reasons I've already identified; perhaps option 3 is impracticable too. Omnedon (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is this notion of "appropriate precision" articulated in a guideline? WP:PRECISION says When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise, but only as precise as necessary. What is the topic name that requires additional precision? Properly speaking, the name of a township is simply "Foo Township". If there were no U.S. convention on place names, that would be the title used except where disambiguation is needed. The U.S. convention appends the state name to place names (with a few exceptions). I don't understand what guideline Omnedon and Huwmanbeing think apply to townships. If the U.S. place name convention does not apply, then townships should be named as "Foo Township" and only disambiguated with state and county name when necessary. If the U.S. convention does apply, then the names should be "Foo Township, State" and only disambiguated with the county name when necessary. I don't see how WP:PRECISION can be interpreted to mean that all township articles should be named "Foo Township, Bar County, State". I think that is exactly analogous to the sort of systematic pre-emptive disambiguation that was rejected with the television episode naming decision. older ≠ wiser 11:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Bkonrad: I didn't say that a township is not a populated place; I said that it's not a city, town or CDP, which is simply a quote from the placenames convention. I do agree that its purpose is to provide a broad guideline for the naming of articles about places, and it's not my intention to split hairs. I simply pointed out that it wasn't accurate to appeal to the convention as something that says all places must conform to that standard when that convention explicitly limits itself to town-like things.

Also, I'm not appealing for hand-and-fast application of an explicit standard because the explicit one most relevant to the situation doesn't address townships; instead, I'm just asserting what I think is the most sensible approach. That being the case, I suppose the guideline I'd cite is WP:Common. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Omnedon: That is also my understanding of the nature of townships. I'm not familiar with the term township being synonymous with an actual town (in the generic sense), but I can't claim familiarity with every state, so if there are places where that is so then I'm not strongly opposed to handling those in a different way. However, in those cases where a township is more or less to a county what a county is to a state, I strongly support as appropriate the present system of including the county name. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems simple. Either the convention for U.S. placenames does apply to townships or it does not and there is not currently any defined guideline that is applicable other than the general naming convention, in which case the name of a township would be simply "Foo Township" and then only disambiguated as needed. older ≠ wiser 14:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually just clarifying a convention for township naming seems better, and is what this thread's about. There's no reason it has to be black and white, nor does our decision need to be dictated solely by asking, "What is the letter of the law?" Instead, what we decide should make sense for the case we're dealing with. Personally, I suspect that most users wouldn't find an article simply entitled "Foo Township" to be sufficiently clear (even if Foo is a unique township name), which is why appealing strictly to demands for minimum disambiguation IMHO isn't suitable. (See again the example of Maricopa County...) Huwmanbeing ☀★ 15:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But the question is why do we need clarification? While this discussion has made it clear that some townships are actually called 'foo township', it is as clear that this does not apply to every one. Many, if not most, actually use foo. What is even clearer is that with the possible exception of some states, none of these are commonly know by 'foo township, foo2 county'. So the current guideline should apply and no clarification is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I question that. In all the states I'm familiar with, townships are commonly called "Foo Township" (not just "Foo") in the same way that counties are called "Baz County" (not just "Baz"). You can see this usage in various places, including Midwestern township associations as previously cited (which also use "Township, County"). I wouldn't claim that this applies universally, but it's certainly wide enough that it can't be written off as a "possible" fringe exception. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 19:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Huwmanbeing, I agree. We do see that "X Township, Y County" is used; but though strong claims are being made that this is extremely uncommon, and that this is somehow very clear, I haven't actually seen anything to support that. "Possible exception" does seem to marginalize the states where townships are county subdivisions and seem to be referred to as such; whereas in fact we're talking about thousands of townships. Omnedon (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

---

[the following comments are in response to a comment much earlier on the page older ≠ wiser 20:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)]

Well, apparently this is catching on. I believe I'm now seeing the adding of the town to building articles in the UK and setting the default sort to be the town. On one hand it might help with context, if you know that the place is a city in the UK. I know this does not directly affect this, but knowing where else this type of thing is happening can provide an additional perspective. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Powers: Not so: I've already shown that related conventions do go beyond what's strictly required for disambiguation, as in the example of county articles. As for evidence of the usage of county along with township, try the Indiana Township Association -- when referring to a specific township (as in newsletters, for example[2][3]), it's always in the context of a county. This is also true elsewhere, as when specific townships are mentioned by the Ohio Township Association. It could hardly be otherwise given the ambiguous nature of township names. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think what Powers is looking for is proof that the precise form of "Township, County, State" is widely used. The reason that other conventions sometimes go beyond what's strictly required for disambiguation is because that's at least how people often refer to them in real life, like with "City, State" or "County, State". The question is whether the same is true for townships, and what the precise form of real-life disambiguation is. Dohn joe (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is a different question and that is the proof that the form used is "townshipname Township, County, State". There is an implied point in the opening example that 'Horton Township' is the common name over 'Horton'. While a discussion has been started on part of the Pennsylvania question, the broader implications need a US scope. If we elect to always use township in the name, then what about hamlet or town or village or city or any of the other types of populated place names? It seems to be illogical to discuss this state by state and for only one type of place. This needs a unified discussion. In most of the states I have been around, township is not used in the common name. The exception is when not using that makes the name ambiguous with a neighboring community. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree about a unified discussion. But circumstances for whether townships are referred to "NAME township" rather than simply "NAME" will vary considerably. Some variables include whether there is an actual settlement with the name as the township in the area (a common occurrence) or if the reference is to the actual governmental/administrative functions of the township or merely to a general locale. In Michigan the usage is mixed. There are some townships, such as Canton, Michigan or West Bloomfield, Michigan that are commonly known as such without appending "township". Other townships are almost always referred to as a township, such as Emmett Township, Michigan. older ≠ wiser 22:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME resolves those. Adding the state is natural and accepted. Adding the township is not where it is not part of the common name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would go for no. 3, on pragmatic grounds, for both the USA and China (not that anyone has asked about the latter on this forum). So many townships need to be disambiguated by county anyway, that it's easier to "proactively" disambiguate them all. In my experience, few people in the US seem to be aware what township they are in, until they look at their property tax bill and ask, "Jefferson Township - where's that?" "This is the part of Washington County you're in!". Of course, if there is only one Jefferson Township in the state of X, then "Jefferson Township, X" should be a redirect to "Jefferson Township, Washington County, X". -- Vmenkov (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking entirely in the context of states like Indiana (and Illinois, and others that use townships similarly)... Townships are county subdivisions and the parent county is an important aspect of the township's identity. Settlements (cities, towns, villages) are not county subdivisions and can extend across county lines, such as with a large city like Aurora, Illinois or a small town like Otterbein, Indiana. Townships don't and can't -- a township is a subdivision of a county and thus cannot extend into another county. Although townships often provide distinct services to their residents, they may not be as "visible" to people as settlements, as Vmenkov says; but Huwmanbeing has shown evidence of usage. Both the county and state names are important in the township article's name, just as the state name is important in the county article's name or the settlement article's name. Omnedon (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, but then is a one-size-fits-all approach appropriate? In states where townships have minimal governmental and administrative functions, it might make sense to deem these entities as subdivisions of a county. But in several states, townships have a strong administrative/governmental function independent of the county. They are "in" a county insofar as historically they were created by geographically carving up the counties. But townships can assume functions nearly identical to that of other municipalities in the state. That they are geographic subdivisions of a county is more a historical curiosity than a defining characteristic. There are numerous naming irregularities with regards to townships. For instance, there is McCandless, Pennsylvania which so far as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is concerned is a township of the first class, even though the township has adopted a home rule charter that styles it's name as the town of McCandless. That's because townships in Pennsylvania are simply one type of municipality with varying ranges of powers, but they are no more a part of a county than other municipalities that are in a county. older ≠ wiser 00:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I support number 2. We are talking about titles of articles about places, not entries in a manual of local government structure in a state, so articles should be named according to the usual Wikipedia rule that names should reflect usage. Although many township names do need to be disambiguated anyway, there are many more than do not, and that are generally known and unambiguously identifiable in forms like "Somedarn Township, New Jersey". The fact that New Jersey also has several townships named "Washington" should not mean that the article about "Somedarn Township" also needs to carry the name of the county. Additionally, I find it rather crazy that some U.S. unincorporated places lacking any legal existence have been given article names lacking any indication of the state, while legal townships would be saddled with county names whether or not they are needed for disambiguation. --Orlady (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Number 2 of course; we already have guidelines for this. Please do not make a special case out of townships! Why would we want to do that? Haven't we been through this before? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

I think we've seen from this discussion that the term "township" in the U.S. covers very different concepts, from administrative subdivisions of counties with little to no independent identity, to full-fledged municipalities. So it seems that a one-size-fits-all approach might not work. Another issue that has come up is the scope of the current convention, which is silent as to counties, and indeed to all places that are not "cities, towns and CDPs".

I think there could be a two-part solution to all this: 1) broaden the language dealing with populated places so as to encompass the kinds of townships (and other settlement types) that aren't currently addressed; and 2) add new language that addresses counties and their subdivisions (including the other kinds of townships). Something like the following:

• "The canonical form for municipalities and unincorporated communities in the United States is Placename, State..."
• "Counties and parishes are usually titled in the form X County, State. Administrative subdivisions of counties (such as townships in certain states) are usually titled Subdivision, X County. Those places that require further disambiguation include the state, as in Example Township, X County, State.

I think this helps to clarify what is covered by the convention. It also recognizes the common use of the form X Township, Y County, without mandating full pre-disambiguation, by including the state only when necessary - what do you all think? Dohn joe (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand, I think having titles as simply "Foo Township, Bar County" is worse than having them at "Foo Township, Bar County, State" -- though personally I think the convention of only disambiguating when necessary should apply instead. But on the other hand, the more substantial question is how to qualify which convention applies in what situation. The problem is that for historical reasons all townships are by definition geographical subdivisions of a county and the proposed range from administrative subdivisions of counties with little to no independent identity, to full-fledged municipalities doesn't provide much in the way of objective criteria. A practical question might help to illustrate this: Under Pennsylvania law, townships are one type of municipality. Some PA townships have very strongly defined identities (some, such as McCandless, Pennsylvania, to the point of re-styling their name to be the Town of McCandless, even though it is still a township of the first class so far as the commonwealth government is concerned). So what should be the outcome of the requested move than triggered this and the preceding sections of discussion? Should Horton Township, Elk County, Pennsylvania be moved to Horton Township, Pennsylvania since townships are a type of municipality in Pennsylvania? Or to Horton Township, Elk County, since it is for all practical purposes a relatively nondescript township with nothing to distinguish itself apart from being a geographic subdivision of Elk County. Or is this something that can only be decided on a case-by-case basis (which I think would be chaos)? older ≠ wiser 21:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say that, as a municipality, it should be Horton Township, Pennsylvania, after the fashion of New Jersey townships, which are functionally very similar to Pennsylvania townships. Dohn joe (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, here's an example of that usage in a media report: [4]. Dohn joe (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the example is that it is a local example. If it was written to a broader audience I would think that it would include the county name as well. For example, United Flight 93 is commonly referred to as having crashed in either Shanksville, Pennsylvania or Somerset County, Pennsylvania when in fact it crashed in Stonycreek Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania. I still believe that X township, state lacks the specifics needed for a national or global context. --Gerry D (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad point, so I looked up other examples, (of other PA townships) from CNN: [5]; [6]; CBS: [7]; [8]; and the NY Times: [9]. It seems to be pretty standard for national media to use "X Township, PA". Dohn joe (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Good finds. I opposed the Horton Township move because all the other PA townships are the way they are. This isn't that big of a deal to me one way or the other. I don't see us reaching any sort of consenus on this anytime soon. The question is: Who is going to move all of these articles if they do get moved? I know I moved a ton of them the first time. Are the moves, moves that can be made by a bot? What about the redirects? Gerry D (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

But the question, once you agree to not include the county, is what is the common name? From this discussion, this may well vary by state. For NJ and NY, it is clearly only used when needed for disambiguation. In NV, as best that we can find from previous discussions is that town and township are used interchangeably, but the legal entity appears to be township and it is not incorporated. So no need for inclusion of township in these cases. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gerry that "X Township, Y State" lack sufficient context. I also approve of Dohn's idea to refine the placenames convention to address county subdivisions, though I don't favor excluding the state. Where bullet point two addresses subdivision titles, "X Subdivision, Y County" is certainly common, but as a guideline for Wikipedia naming would prefer "X Subdivision, Y County, State".

Also, I see from a quick Googling of the first few PA counties that the usage of "X Township, Y County, State" is often applied to Pennsylvania townships too, ranging from the U.S. Census to the websites of the individual townships themselves (plus various other sites in between):[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Just as easy to quickly produce a large number of sites that refer to Pennsylvania townships as simply X Township, Pennsylvania (or simply X Township): [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] -- Usage in this case is not a definitive guide either way. I still see no reason to create yet another exception to the same convention as used for most other U.S. placenames. older ≠ wiser 13:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course both forms are used -- no one is saying otherwise. The examples simply illustrate that "X Township, Y County" or "X Township, Y County, State" are in fact widely used, and that "X Township, State" is not the only (or even necessarily predominant) form. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, and in the absence of any predominant usage there really is no compelling reason to introduce tortuous "If ... then ... except ... unless ... " qualifications to the general convention for naming U.S. places. older ≠ wiser 14:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hardly tortuous. It could be as simple as this:

• The canonical form for municipalities is Placename, State.
• The canonical form for counties and parishes is X County, State.
• The canonical form for subdivisions of counties (e.g., townships) is X Subdivision, Y County, State.

There's only a single qualification I'd anticipate needing based on this discussion, and that'd be for a township that operates as, and is commonly considered, a town (in the generic sense) -- and as I've said before, I'm open to a convention that recognizes regional variation. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What is this fascination with providing "context" in article titles? Where did this come from? What policy leads to providing more context than is needed for disambiguation? Powers ^T 14:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I like Dohn's idea of covering administrative subdivisions (like counties and townships) that are not currently described in the guideline; but like Huwmanbeing, I also feel the state name needs to be included. In some states there are apparently variations in usage and application of terms within the state; but in some other states, every county has townships and they're all set up the same way, so that "Township, County, State" would be consistently appropriate. We may need to examine this state-by-state, looking at every state that uses the term "township", so we will have a full picture of the situation. Omnedon (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Dohn's proposal would be unsuitable for New York towns, as formations like "Irondequoit, Monroe County" are unusual to the extreme -- it sounds weird to local ears. It's totally unacceptable as an article title. Powers ^T 14:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a very interesting counterpoint to the argument to treat counties and administrative subdivisions differently from other populated places. If we're going to use a different naming convention for townships because they are county subdivisions, that logic should also apply to those states where the subdivisions are known as towns instead of townships (I'm aware of New York and Wisconsin, although towns in New England states are a special case). older ≠ wiser 14:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that New York towns are municipalities, and so Irondequoit, New York would stay where it is. My proposal means to ignore the terminology given to an entity, and focus on its function. For townships, that means to separate municipalities from non-municipalities. So in a state where townships are municipalities (like in PA, NJ, NY, etc.), the first sentence would apply. For states where townships are not municipalities, but simply divisions of counties (like in IN or OH), the second provision would apply. That should be made clearer, apparently. Dohn joe (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a problem for a state like Michigan, in which Townships are technically not classified as a municipality like cities and village, but which can effectively operate with nearly the same powers as a municipality. Some sparsely populated townships remain a little more than administrative stubs and are only required to hold board meetings once every three months. More populous townships often operate similar to a municipality with a part-time elected board and a staff of full-time employees. Others may adopt a home rule charter in which they can assume a whole range of municipal-like powers -- although all townships have restrictions on taxing authority that cities and villages do not have. It is not easy to distinguish between them. older ≠ wiser 20:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all clear on the difference between subdivisions of a county that are and are not "municipalities". Powers ^T 13:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, which is why I'm more inclined towards uniform application of the general principle to disambiguate only when necessary and not introduce complicated "If ... then ... except ... unless ... " qualifications to the general convention for naming U.S. places. older ≠ wiser 14:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Try, try again

This is such a morass. Given the variations among states (check out this census description - especially starting on page 20), I'm starting to think that specific township language in the convention might not be workable after all. I'd thought that the municipality/non-municipality distinction might makes sense, but it seems perhaps not. There does still seem to be consensus to address more than just the "cities, towns and CDPs" in the current language, but rather than trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, maybe we should focus on the descriptive as opposed to the prescriptive aspect of the guideline. What do people think about this:

• "Articles on settlements in the United States are typically titled Placename, State..."
• "Articles on counties and parishes are typically titled X County, State. Titles of articles on minor civil divisions of counties vary from state to state. For example, townships in Indiana are generally titled X Township, Y County, Indiana regardless of the need for the county name to disambiguate; townships in New Jersey are generally titled X, New Jersey or X Township, New Jersey according to common usage. Any change in usage should be determined on a statewide basis." (Note: the bolded language was added after several of the below comments were made.)

For the first sentence, I'm hoping that "settlements" is an acceptable umbrella term for populated places that are normally found in the form "X, State". If not, feel free to suggest another term (or terms). As for the second part, it's merely designed to describe the status quo, while allowing for state-by-state discussions if people want to make changes (as with Pennsylvania, for example). Is this any better? Dohn joe (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read Township (New Jersey). They are not minor civil divisions; they are municipalities, like any other NJ municipality; some of them are older than the counties in which they sit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

But the problem is, they are both municipalities according to New Jersey, and minor civil divisions according to the Census Bureau. Take a look at this census description. This is part of the problem. We have nomenclature - "town" and "township" in particular - with different definitions in different states. Some use those words to describe municipalities, and some use them to describe administrative subdivisions - and in some states, the line between the two is blurred. The municipality/non-municipality distinction is one I attempted to draw with my previous attempt, but the example of Michigan (which has urban townships, charter townships, and others) was given as a non-municipality township state where "X, State" was nevertheless the convention. There is no consistency, and I see no practical way to impose any at the moment. Dohn joe (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. Census terminology and local usage are sometimes inconsistent. In addition to New Jersey townships, New England towns are classified as MCDs by the census but not by the states. And actually, in Michigan the convention is still X Township, State -- where applicable, X, State redirects to the corresponding township. And although the term "urban township" might exist in the state code of law, the term is not commonly used, though Charter Townships are common. older ≠ wiser 21:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

While the Census has a long tradition of confusion on this matter, including the census I worked for them, this text is simply vague, not wrong; Dohn joe misreads it. It says some minor civil divisions are towns and townships; that is not the same claim as that all townships are minor civil divisions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I ever claimed that all townships are minor civil divisions - there may be states that use that name not covered by the census definition. New Jersey townships, however, most definitely are considered minor civil divisions by the census bureau. Look again at the census document. Beginning on page 12 is a list of the 28 states with official minor civil divisions. New Jersey (and its townships) are on that list, are they not? Or for narrative form, see page 21: "The primary MCDs in New York are called towns; in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, they are called townships." Dohn joe (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And on looking again, this is a twenty year old document. Twenty years ago, the Census Bureau did not know its proverbial from its proverbial. I don't care how often they said so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The basic definition doesn't appear to have changed much with the 2010 census. older ≠ wiser 22:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Anywho.... While we wait for PMAnderson to produce evidence that the Census Bureau does not consider NJ townships "minor civil divisions", does anyone else have a reaction to this proposed language? Dohn joe (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not bad, but it is not quite right to say that townships in New Jersey are generally titled X, New Jersey. See Category:Townships in New Jersey -- "X Township, New Jersey" appears to be more common than "X, New Jersey" -- I think it is based on common usage, which varies by municipality. older ≠ wiser 22:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Dohn, I think it sounds pretty good. Omnedon (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And conversely, if you research those were there is no other use in the state, they can be renamed at [{WP:RM]] since township is rarely used in conversations. So the category list is just articles that need research to see which should be renamed to drop the township from the article name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite good. I might suggest breaking the settlements and counties pieces into two separate points for clarity. Also, I do like the term "settlement" -- I think it correctly conveys what the first point intends in a simpler fashion. I still lean a little toward keeping the existing terminology ("cities, towns and CDPs") though, merely in order to change the existing guideline as little as possible (and therefor hopefully have a better chance of success). Huwmanbeing ☀★ 01:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I strongly oppose letting the confusion and idiocy of past censuses override common usage. Even if we wanted an WP:Official name (and the point of that page is that we don't) the BGN designation of Middletown Township, New Jersey is its formal name: the Township of Middletown. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with calling a township a settlement is pretty simple. Most townships are simply too large to be considered a settlement. In fact many townships contain more than one "settlement", see List of villages in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. Townships are subdivisions of counties. That is indisputable. I believe that is it is true for all states. Townships in Pennsylvania have far more local significance that townships in North Carolina. You'd be hard pressed to find a resident of a township in NC that is able to name the township or even knows that they live in what is legally a township. I still believe that the township names should include the county name since the townships are part of the county. This of course would not work for boroughs, cities, and towns (not New York towns which are similar to PA townships.) Shippensburg, Pennsylvania is just one example of a borough that crosses county lines. Gerry D (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I also don't see the need to have a hard and fast rule for all townships in the U.S. since the notability of townships varies greatly throughout the states. Gerry D (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we're all about on the same page, actually. @Gerry D - the proposal separates "settlements" from counties and minor civil divisions (which include townships), and recognizes that many states use the county in the title. @PMAnderson - the proposal also recognizes common usage, or at least consensus, while allowing for state-by-state discussions. So the status quo on New Jersey titles remains. I've updated the example to make clear that both "X, New Jersey" and "X Township, New Jersey" are used. Dohn joe (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with the proposal. It makes sense to allow for variations between states. Gerry D (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Does this change guidance (aside from the doubtless unintentional implication that we should use Plaquemines County, Louisiana)? If so, how and why? if not, why change the wording to assert doubtful classifications?

As far as I can tell, townships are not "parts of counties" east of the Ohio line, in any sense other than that in which towns and boroughs are: few states have a municipality divided between two counties. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

While not the norm, it is not very unusual either: List of U.S. cities in multiple counties. I think the proposal makes explicit what is essentially current practice -- that titles for township articles vary by state. Some states predisambiguate all townships with the county; others do not. A second point is that some states common usage determines whether the article is titled "X Township, State" or simply "X, State". older ≠ wiser 23:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It changes guidance insofar as it extends the current guideline to include things which are not explicitly "cities, towns, or CDPs". There is currently no guidance for things like villages, hamlets, and town-like townships. Including those types of places was the impetus behind changing the first phrase to say "settlements". There also is currently no guidance for administrative subdivisions like counties and sub-county townships, which is why I proposed the new paragraph for them.

Looking at the proposal again, I can see how placing the guidance for minor civil divisions directly after that for counties leads to too strong of an implication that all townships are merely subdivisions of counties. Perhaps, as somewhat of a hybrid classification, it would be better to provide it its own paragraph. I still like using the minor civil division classification, though. Mainly, it allows us to leave problematic terms like "town", "township", and "municipality" out of the guideline, while still reflecting current usage and conventions. Dohn joe (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been over a week since the last comment, so I've made the edits to the guideline. Dohn joe (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Prior consensus

When I started the discussion at Talk:Horton Township, Elk County, Pennsylvania#Requested move, I had already (somehow) forgotten about the recent move discussion at Talk:Bensalem Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania#Requested move -- else I would have cited it as a precedent. The Bensalem move to remove "Bucks County" was very quietly and uncontroversially approved. User:Nyttend had reverted the consensus move, but I put it back because there was a move discussion whose judgement should be considered consensus until a new one reverses it. Powers ^T 13:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Literally thousands of township articles following the Township, County, State standard have been uncontroversially created in many states over the course of years. That seems a stronger precedent than a single move. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 16:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it demonstrates that some few people are following a standard they think they see in our articles. They don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean they don't think they see a standard, or they don't follow what they think they see? Huwmanbeing ☀★ 01:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It is easy for a pattern-seeking human to see the illusion of a standard which we do not actually follow. For example, the three Middletown Townships in Pennsylvania have counties in them, for disambiguation; it is understandable that someone might conclude that all townships are done this way; but they aren't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The subject of this section isn't the explicit standard (which doesn't address townships), but prior consensus. My point was that long and widely applied practice constitutes the prior consensus under the doctrine of silence. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 10:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The doctrine of silence holds only so long as the silence lasts; once the silence is broken (such as by an explicit move request), the explicit consensus must take priority of the implicit "silent" consensus. Powers ^T 13:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly consensus can change; however, it's such a move request that prompted the current discussion, which shows varied opinions. Note too that consensus among a limited group of editors on a particular instance cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 21:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess we disagree over whether your "silent" consensus constitutes a "wider scale" or not. Powers ^T 14:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thousands of articles in many states over multiple years seems a justifiably wider scale than a single article; however, as you say, we can disagree about that. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet another discussion pertaining to naming of Pennsylvania Townships

The move discussion at Talk:Horton Township, Elk County, Pennsylvania was closed with a decision to move the article to Horton Township, Pennsylvania. It was subsequently moved back with the comment moved Horton Township, Pennsylvania to Horton Township, Elk County, Pennsylvania over redirect: to match all other such names in Pennsylvania. Although the forum seems rather obscure, Gerry D has initiated a discussion about a convention for Pennsylvania townships at Category talk:Townships in Pennsylvania by county#Naming conventions. I have moved the Horton Township article back pending the outcome of the new discussion. older ≠ wiser 13:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)