Latest comment: 13 years ago353 comments72 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Wow. The first observation I will make is that this discussion is incredibly long. It has taken me a considerable amount of time to read all the discussions, arguments and side discussions. It seems that this format is not useful in this case for producing a consensus because you can bet that only a few of the participants and the closing admin will have read the whole discussion. The formal result of the RfC is that the consensus is in favour of maintaining the status quo. Many editors have suggested modifications to the guideline which could, in the longer term, gain consensus, however, no single proposal has attracted enough attention or support for it to replace the status quo. My suggestion would be to break this discussion down into a series of smaller discussions to establish which, if any, of the alternative naming conventions suggested in this RfC could be a suitable replacement for the current one. I would also suggest another separate discussion to determine which cities are well-enough known internationally for the City, State convention to be dropped but which may not be on the AP's list. As these separate discussions gain traction and consensus begins to emerge, smaller and narrower RfCs can be started with a view to altering the guideline.HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Throughout Wikipedia, with fewer and fewer exceptions, when the most common name for an article's subject is unique or primarily used to refer to that topic, that name is used as that article's title, in accordance with the general naming criteria specified at WP:TITLE. While WP:TITLE says "titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles [as documented naming guidelines such as this one] are generally preferred", it also says these titles should ideally be in compliance with the other criteria, including, "only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic unambiguously". The current guideline for naming U.S. cities is a glaring exception to this convention which is followed almost universally throughout Wikipedia. Why should the titles of articles about U.S. cities be treated differently? I suggest there is no good reason, and so propose that the guideline be changed accordingly.
If you peruse WP:PLACES (and please do), you will see that the United States is rapidly becoming the only country for which we disambiguate city names even when they are unique or primary. The vast majority follow the same convention used for almost all articles in Wikipedia: "when possible, use [[MostCommonName]]" (or words to that effect).
The U.S. guideline allows exceptions, but currently only for cities on the AP list. When that change was introduced a couple of years ago the hand-wringing that ensued about what problems will result has been shown to be without basis. In fact, the only effect of that change has been that people stopped proposing that those articles be moved, as had been quite common for those names prior to that change, and continues with those cities that remain inexplicably disambiguated [*]. Yet I won't be surprised if similar hand-wringing ensues for this proposal.
I propose that U.S. city naming be brought into compliance with the naming conventions used throughout Wikipedia, or at least brought into great compliance. I thereby offer two options in this proposal, as well as the choice to keep things as they are.
A - Full Compliance. Change this part of the first paragraph of the current guideline:
The canonical form for cities, towns and census-designated places in the United States is [[Placename, State]] (the "comma convention"). Those places that need additional disambiguation...
To read:
When possible, use [[Placename]] for places in the United States. For cities that require disambiguation, use [[Placename, State]]. Those places that need additional disambiguation...
Also, delete the entire second paragraph about cities in the AP book since this new wording would encompass them anyway.
B - Improved Compliance. Expand "exceptions" to include state capitals and NFL/MLB franchise cities as well as cities on the AP list. Change this current wording in the 2nd paragraph:
Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may or may not have their articles named [[City]] provided they are the primary topic for that name..
To read:
Cities that are state capitals, have NFL or MLB sport franchises, or are listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may or may not have their articles named [[City]] provided they are the primary topic for that name..
Please indicate your 1st and second preferences, A, B or C, and a short reason/explanation.
1st:A; 2nd:B - There is no reason for U.S. cities to be treated differently from other topics in Wikipedia. Any city, like any other topic in Wikipedia, whose name is unique or primary should be at the name without any disambiguation or additional unnecessary precision (A). But if there is still strong objection to that, at least bringing capitals and major cities with NFL/MLB franchises into compliance will be a big improvement (B). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
C. What is broken is the rest of the convention. Many editors have requested clarity in the titles. Some even requesting something other then the place name to get some idea when the place is. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
A. There's no reason for U.S. cities to have a naming convention that differs from all other cities in the world, and the AP stylebook is not Wikipedia policy, much less holy writ. Jayjg (talk)02:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
C; in national and international contexts, such as news article datelines, these cities are referred to with the state identifier. It is a very common way to refer to most U.S. cities even with in the U.S. and provides clarity to both readers and editors. PowersT03:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
A There is no rational justification for this idiosyncratic exception to the general manner in which disambiguation is handled across every other topic in the encyclopedia. The title is merely a unique descriptor for the topic, it is not the job of the title to provide encyclopedic information. Mattinbgn (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be to me. Take offence if you wish, but that is my opinion. It is at its root special pleading. It suggests that the United States is qualitatively different than every other nation on earth and that place names are qualitatively different than every other topic in the encyclopedia. Neither of those two claims stand up to any serious scrutiny. There is no rational reason why the same disambiguation practices that work adequately across the entire encyclopedia become somehow inadequate when dealing with US places. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah sorry, but why is something in common use lacking a rational justification? Many terms and phrases are rather clear when you can place them in context. The problem here is that many uses lack the critical component of context. So you need another way to deal with the problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Something in "common use" is lacking a rational justification because being in "common use" in itself is not a rational justification. If it were, then Paris and London (for example) would be at Paris, France and London, England respectively. After all, those ways of referring to those cities are in "common use". But that's not how we name articles in Wikipedia. We try to use the most common name for the article's topic, and with only as much precision as is needed to avoid ambiguity (including considering primary topic criteria). Descriptive information beyond the name is typically only included in the title when required for disambiguation, and in those titles of topics that lack names ("List of ..." articles come to mind). For most topics, including most cities, worldwide, including those in the U.S., that means using just the base name of the topic for the article title, period. To make an exception for U.S. cities for no reason (or only for reasons that apply to other topics that are not also made exceptions) is unreasonable as well as irrational, by definition. I mean, look at the C votes so far... the guideline is cited repeatedly, yet no one has given any justification for it, except for this very weak "common use" point, and the admission that the real motivation is adding descriptive information to the titles even when it's not required for disambiguation, which is (for very good reason) contrary to the general naming criteria policy. That too is irrational in a proposal where the guideline wording -- and the basis/justification for it -- is what is at issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
A, in principle, and definitely for any new articles (although I'd be surprised if there were many substantial settlements in the USA which have yet to gain a wikipedia article). However, I would oppose mass renaming as it's likely to be very disruptive - there would still be quite a few people who (not unreasonably) feel attached to the status quo. I particularly dislike B - why should a particular sports franchise affect naming conventions for cities? bobrayner (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
C keep as is. There is no good reason to change. The current system is working, as it is. The US is a big country with many thousands of cities. Too many US cities have names that are duplicated in other US states; too many US cities have names are copied from Europe. Endless confusion from such a change. As things are right now, readers have a running chance to know the correct city being discussed by looking at the 'name, state', without having to go look up the article (a waste of reader time). If anything is to change, it is the names of the some other countries' cities--these are usually useless as written forcing readers to go hunt. Mention of NFL/MLB franchises makes the nomination laughable. This subject is about geography, not corporate/sports advertising. Hmains (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
A - having random variation in the way we name articles, based on the differing personal preferences of editors from different countries, doesn't make the encyclopedia any better. --Kotniski (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
C The current practice is not "random variation" from worldwide naming conventions. It accords with WP:COMMONNAME, as evidenced by the AP Stylebook. The Oxford Guide to Style also has this to say (para 4.2.10): "Newspapers ...make allowances for the 'local knowledge' expected of their readers..the New York Times does not require clarification for White Plains or Yonkers, whereas the Wall Street Journal - ... aimed at a wider readership - does. When in doubt it is best to err on the side of caution." That seems to be good advice for WP. It is also consistent with the practice in other countries where a Placename, Subnational unit name for unambiguous places would be regarded as unnatural (or even an American import) and therefore inconsistent with WP:COMMONNAME. --Mhockey (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
E - None of the above. Don't make rules that force conformity for conformity's sake... let editors have some degree of flexibility to title their articles as they think is best. Obviously we need to disambiguate many city and town names... but as long as we do so, does it really matter how we do so? to me, it does not really matter whether the article title is: Boston, Texas or Boston (Texas).
C. I don't see the current situation as a problem. City, State is a very common way to refer to places in the United States even when disambiguation is not strictly necessary Eluchil404 (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
C. Agree completely with Eluchil404. Also, Born2cycle is mistaken about London and Paris. In the U.S. the "city, state" pattern is so common that this pattern is even extended to European cities, and one hears "Rome, Italy". In Europe this usage does not exist. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe not internationally prominent cities like Rome, Paris and London, but how about Modena, Italy which is at Modena? Brossard, Quebec which is at Brossard? Or Plymouth, Devon (a.k.a Plymouth, England) which, despite repeated attempts to move it, remains at Plymouth? There are hundreds of thousands of ghits for each of these disambiguated forms indicating how common this usage is, yet at WP that is not reason to move them from their base names when they are the unique or primary use of that name. Why should it be any different for U.S. cities? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
You are mistaken. This is a US custom that nobody uses in Europe. Nobody says Modena, Italy. This comma convention is an American convention. Sometimes the name of a city is ambiguous, and other means are used to disambiguate. If Frankfurt doesn't suffice, one says Frankfurt am Main. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Bingo. The American "City, Area" is not nearly as common in Europe. An example, in UK, is Newcastle. Newcastle is a common name, I believe we have 4 or 5, including 2 large ones. When disambiguation is required, the river is mentioned, not the county. (see Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Newcastle-under-lyme) Worm14:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
C. There is no need to change. City, state is the common form of the name for the majority of U.S. cities. It is not unnecessary disambiguation. There are far too many non-unique city names in the United States, and if we change the current method the next battle will be "my city deserves to be the primary, not yours" popularity contests among editors.DCmacnut<>17:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
In other words, U.S. cities will be treated no differently than any other topic in Wikipedia, including cities of most other countries. Is that really so terrible so as to warrant this exceptional treatment? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that there is a problem with multiple standards for multiple countries, but Wikipedia has long operated on concensus, and concensus has been that editors in each country can come up with standards that fit their situation. Concensus has long held that for the United States, city, state is the appropriate. People are free to debate and try to change concensus on this matter, but so far, none of the statements I have seen make a compelling in favor of such a major change. It is more natural to use city, state in the vast majority of cases. You asked for opinions, and there is mine.DCmacnut<>19:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand that there was such consensus in the past, but this discussion indicates that consensus has significantly weakened, if not evaporated. If so, this would not be surprising, as predisambiguation in general seems to be falling out of favor lately not only for place names, but for many other topic areas as well.
Anyway, what's relevant here are arguments in favor or against each of the proposals. So, you favor C because you believe, for example, that it is "more natural" to use Baton Rouge, Louisiana than Baton Rouge?
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "more natural", but WP:TITLE clarifies what is meant by "naturalness" in two ways:
"use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article"
"convey what the subject is actually called in English"
Now, are readers most likely to use "Baton Rouge" or "Baton Rouge, Louisiana" to search for that city? Remember, we're discussing only those cities, like Baton Rouge, with either unique names or names for which they are the primary use. I suggest the former is much more likely to be used, if nothing else because it's less to type!
As far as what the subject is "actually called in English", if you ask someone the name of their hometown (go ahead, try: "What is the name of the hometown in which you were born?"... not "Where were you born?", which is a different question), I suggest the answer most likely to be given is just the name, without the state, of the city, if the name is unique or the primary use of that name (e.g., someone from "Portland" is likely to answer either Portland, Oregon orPortland, Maine, but someone from "Baton Rouge" is probably going to say just "Baton Rouge"... because that's what that city "is actually called in English".
So, to refer to cities with either unique names or for which they are the primary use of their names, don't you agree it is "more natural" to use just the name, without the state? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, neither of our opinions are relevant here, per WP:JDLI. What matters are the quality of the arguments that underlie our positions. If you want to define "natural" in your own mysterious way and then declare that "city, state" is more "natural", that's fine, but it's not pertinent to a discussion about WP guidelines. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not defining anything in a "mysterious way." City, State is the common name used in the majority of "English-language reliable sources", and is not overly precise per WP:PRECISION. It's not that I "don't like" the change. The fact remains that the guideline is what is is, and I have yet to see a compelling argument that making the change you recommend will improve the use of Wikipedia and its readers.DCmacnut<>21:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Please explain how, Baton Rouge, Louisiana is not overly precise per WP:PRECISION. In the mean time, I will explain how it is. WP:PRECISION states: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. ".
Now, does Baton Rouge indicate the name of the topic? Yep. Is additional precision necessary to distinguish Baton Rouge from other uses of "Baton Rouge"? Nope. Is Baton Rouge, Louisiana avoiding over-precision? Nope. Is Baton Rouge, Louisiana precise? Yep. Is it only as precise as is needed? Nope. There is no need to be so precise as to specify the state; Baton Rouge is sufficiently precise.
Bam, on every WP:PRECISION point, Cityname beats Cityname, State when disambiguation is not required. It's no contest. I'm looking forward to learning how you see it otherwise. In addition to precision, Baton Rouge also clearly beats Baton Rouge, Louisiana on the WP:AT criteria of "Conciseness" ("shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones.").
As far as improving the encyclopedia for users, any benefit with respect to naming change will never be huge. However, to the extent that we disambiguate only when necessary, our titles more reliably convey whether the use of the name is unique or primary, or whether there are other uses. That is, if all U.S. cities were disambiguated only when necessary, then the title Portland, Oregon would clearly mean there is another relatively significant use of "Portland" (because if there wasn't, then that article would be at Portland). As a WP user I find this feature useful with book names, people names, film names, TV series and episode names, educational topic names, and names of cities in most other countries. For example, you can look at Category:Novels_by_Stephen_King and immediately see which of his novels have unique/primary names, and which of his novels have names that have other relatively significant uses. Or, take a look at Category:Port cities and towns in the United Kingdom to see which are unique/primary, like Bristol or have names with other relatively significant uses, like Sunderland. Why shouldn't we provide this feature for our readers with respect to U.S. city names too? What do they get in return for losing this feature by our putting all U.S. cities at city, state whether they require disambiguation or not?
So, I've explained how this convention is not in conformance with WP:AT and WP:PRECISION as much as it would be if we put those cities that don't require disambiguation at Cityname as I propose with A, and I've explained how readers will benefit if we disambiguate only when necessary. Are you persuaded, or do you still just don't like it? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
C. This guideline complies entirely with WP:TITLE#Explicit conventions, which was written to accommodate it. Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). Sometimes these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for flora and medicine). This is another naming convention; and I'm bored with this cyclic effort to assert falsehood. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Accusing others with whom you disagree of asserting falsehood is not exactly assuming good faith, is it? I respectfully request that you strike that comment. - Nick Thornetalk23:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
No, it is a statement of fact; the assertion is false. In this case, the policy - with B2C dissenting - has included the text quoted for a long time; it has always included some equivalent support for specific conventions. What B2C says is false; he should know it is false; and he has made the claim that the guidelines must be adjusted to comply with what he would like policy to say on multiple pages, in pursuit of an agenda he has been a (minority) advocate of since before he changed user name. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course, you have only stated why the US convention and WP:TITLE may not be in conflict, not that mandatory disambiguation is actually necessary. (If you look hard enough then there are loopholes in most policies for everyone's favourite idiosyncrasies). Despite the cherry-picking citing of the exemption, you cannot deny that the general principle of WP:TITLE is to use the common name, taking into account both preciseness and conciseness. You haven't addressed why US place names need to deviate from this general principle, and that is because there is no need for this deviation. Where is the evidence that the general naming principle across the vast majority of the encyclopedia is inadequate for US places? ILIKEIT is not an argument. Asserting that something is allowed does not mean that is worth doing. Accusing people with differing opinions of "falsehood" is not helpful either. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I haven't explained why we disambiguate; others have. But rather than making you read them: Most American placenames are ambiguous, creating a de facto convention; in this the United States differs from other countries. It is difficult for a reader to tell, other than for the most famous places, whether a place-name is unambiguous or primary usage. Therefore, rather than providing an unexplained patchwork in which some of the articles are disambiguated and others in the same county are not, we choose to disambiguate all but the most obvious cases. Consistency with similar articles is a principle of WP:TITLE, after all. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
No, apparently not. The United States has more names just because of its size and populousness, and tends to have produced uniqueness within each State, not within the United States (so for example, the US has 21 Springfields, each in a different state, and innumerable Washingtons and Madisons).
For comparison, the use of aboriginal names in Australia seems to have provided a larger name-stock; they're used more often than Indian names are in the United States (for example, Indian names - except for the States themselves - are quite rare in New England) and the Australian names are not as often borrowed within the country (see Wyoming and Miami, on the other hand) and are more diverse because of the diversity of the aboriginal culture (the same Algonquian name is all too often used several places in the Northeast; the same Lakota names in the Far Midwest; and so on.)
And much of the English namestock was left behind; nobody ever bothered naming a settlement anywhere after Brill, say. So England has, again, a larger stock of names for a smaller area. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone has done any analysis of this. Anectdotally, what you say makes sense, but I'd love to see some numerical evidence of percentage of placenames in (say) Massachusetts, Ontario, New South Wales, Jamaica, and England are either unique or their WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Dohn joe (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
A So far, I have heard people assert that it is most common for sources to use City, State. I have not yet seen anyone produce evidence of that, outside of the AP Handbook. Absent extremely strong evidence, it seems to me that these articles should conform to our normal naming principles, rather than specialized ones based on hypotheticals and unsourced claims. If someone were somehow able to demonstrate that, however, then I would be inclined to change my opinion. Three possible places to look: other encyclopedias, since we are specifically directed to look at them when considering other "ambiguous/multiple local names"; scholarly articles; and newspapers with a primarily national or international circulation. I hold that, even though the current procedure is to use City, State, the burden is on those who wish to maintain this counter-to-standard format to verify that their preferred titles meet the necessarily high bar required for an exception to standard conventions.98.176.17.189 (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Sorry, this was me. Please know I wasn't socking on purpose; I'm just on an unfamiliar computer which seems to log me out unexpectedly. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I supported 'C' for exactly the opposite reason. It works well for US cities because it is the convention inthe US. Outside the US is is not the convention and I would not want to see a US convention imposed on towns in other English-speaking countries. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment. At this point I count 10 A votes, 11 C votes, and one other. Out of over 20 participants only half support the current wording (C) - that's no consensus by any measure. Accordingly, I've added a disputed tag to the U.S. city guideline. We really need to come up with wording that has consensus support, or remove it. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
A We shouldn't be imposing excessive standardization, especially when it goes against popular usage. Newspapers have an entirely different purpose to encyclopedias, so using a newspaper style guide to determine article titles seems counterintuitive. The Celestial City (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
A: If the city or town has a unique name, it is unnecessary to disambiguate that it is within a specific state.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
C The status quo not only works well, but it is the standard usage in the United States in both written and spoken usage. We always put the state name on the envelope when mailing a letter. People don't say "I was born in Missoula"; they always say "I was born in Missoula, Montana", even though there are no other cities named Missoula. If I do a Google search for "Missoula," Google suggests that I must be looking for "Missoula Montana" and offers as its first choice "Missoula, MT - Official Website". Similarly, journalists and other writers follow the Manual of Style guidelines, on which our Wikipedia tradition is based: the state is always named at the first citation of a city, except for a few dozen specified cities that are considered to be recognizable without the state. This misguided attempt to eliminate the state from American city names would affect tens of thousands of article titles, without any improvement in Wikipedia's functionality and in fact a likely decline in functionality. (BTW, Born2cycle, I am more than a little surprised at your attempt to count "votes" above, only three days after your posted your proposal - because in another recent discussion which you started in an attempt to eliminate "unnecessary" disambiguation from neighborhood names, namely Talk:Alta Vista, San Diego, you strongly objected to "this whole approach" when someone began tallying people's responses.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not standard usage in other encyclopedias, like the Brittanica:
(I'd be happy to discount "votes" according to how well the arguments are presented, if you prefer, but I doubt you'd prefer the result). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
(Well, that's actually been your usual approach: "certain people are basing their arguments on the criteria that I prefer, therefore their opinion should count more." So I was surprised to see you promoting a head count in this thread. I'm guessing it was because about half the people here were agreeing with your viewpoint - which is more than usually do.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
For those cities with names that are unique or primary, the base city name is also clear and customary, not only here but in every day use, and also complies better with the WP:TITLE naming criteria concise ("shorter titles are generally preferred") and precise ("only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously"). --Born2cycle (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
C - I think the current system works fine. When writing for an international audience in plaintext, I tend to write "City, Country" (eg. Rome, Italy; or London, UK; or New Orleans, USA). When writing on Wikipedia, I tend to pipe the link to the article name, and add any in-text location disambiguators in plain text, such as "Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA" (depending of course on whether the location had already been imparted to the reader earlier in the article). Really, the actual title of an article is not something to argue over - better by far to ensure that the text in articles provides the necessary context and that piping is done where needed. Carcharoth (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
A (with B being my second choice). Titles which are not ambiguous shouldn't be disambiguated—it can't be any simpler than that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 27, 2010; 17:33 (UTC)
Comment. If I'm not mistaken, the count is now 15 for A and 15 for C. While there appears to be no consensus for the specific proposal, the status quo (C) also lacks consensus. But it's only been a little over a week. Is there a compromise position? That was the point of B - but few are expressing a preference for a second choice so it's hard to judge if that's a compromise that has consensus. Each side seems to be dug in pretty hard. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1st:C; 2nd:B Let's say for the sake of argument some tremendously important event were to occur in Amalga, Utah. No news media, textbook, or encyclopedia would say, "Osama bin Laden was apprehended in the small town of Amalga.", without the comma convention. Removing the state only makes sense (if at all) for very large, well-known cities. Ntsimp (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
C I visit here upon noticing multiple edits in Connecticut neighborhood names, by Born2cycle, citing some supposed policy or guideline. There is NO WAY that any reader expects "Marion (Southington)" as a placename. Marion, Connecticut (as it was) or possibly "Marion, Southington, Connecticut" (but marion spans out of Southington) make sense. This whole proposal and the recent Connecticut edits, in the midst of unfinished RFC, seem just disruptive. --Doncram (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
My edit summary referred to the CT neighborhood convention (which is undocumented - there is no documented guideline for naming U.S. neighborhoods),; I did not cite a policy or guideline. The CT neighborhood names have nothing to do with this U.S. city naming RFC.
In the CT neighborhoods case, I was just making the few remaining CT neighborhoods that require disambiguation, but were not disambiguated consistently with other CT neighborhoods, to be consistently disambiguated. See Category:Neighborhoods in Connecticut. How is that disruptive? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Your edit summary asserted there is a convention, which you clarify now here and at your/my Talk pages that there is no such documented decision. In fact there is no convention. As u acknowledge there is variety in practice in the existing placenames in Connecticut; u discern one pattern and try to spread that. From being involved in CT placenames for some time, I am aware of a different trend and editors views besides Polaron's and urs. Ur changes there are moves towards what you prefer in this RFC. U are using disruption elsewhere to try to support your position in this RFC. That's the simplest explanation: u r spreading disruption to make some point here. --Doncram (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
A. American cities shouldn't be treated differently than the rest of the world. The current naming convention overvalues consistency, placing it above conciceness and directness. We should also revisit the naming convention for American townships, which is even more onerous. They are named [township], [county], [state] (example), regardless of the need for disambiguation. - Eureka Lott01:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yikes! There was a tendency to name U.S. city neighborhoods similarly (neighborhoodName, cityName, stateName), also regardless of whether disambiguation was necessary, but thankfully that seems to be changing. For example, most CT neighborhoods are not disambiguated if they are unique or primary, and those that require disambiguation mostly use neighborhoodName, (StateName). See: Category:Neighborhoods_in_Connecticut. And for a WP:RM discussion about one that is out of compliance with that convention, see: Talk:Marion, Connecticut#Requested move. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't make claims about what CT naming conventions are, they are in disorder and there has never been a good discussion and rationalization of them. In a requested move u just opened for the properly named neighborhood "Marion, Connecticut", u propose moving it to something else, another editor proposes moving to "Marion, Southington, Connecticut", etc. There is no good practice or consensus in CT to point to, to bring insight to this larger RFC. You might be able to ride in and make some disruption there, but don't claim there is a consensus there. --Doncram (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Interesting! Born2cycle has tried multiple times to change the naming of neighborhoods of San Diego, which until recently have all been in the format NeighborhoodName, San Diego, California. He wants to change them to NeighborhoodName if he feels they don't require disambiguation, and NeighborhoodName (San Diego) if they do. One such recent, unsuccessful attempt can be seen here; the result of that discussion was NeighborhoodName, San Diego, rather than the format with parentheses that he prefers. From what you say it sounds like he is going ahead and inserting the parenthetical disambiguation into other neighborhoods - which he will then cite as precedent the next time he tries to do it in San Diego! --MelanieN (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Born2cycle and another participant in this RFC have changed names of Connecticut articles to Neighborhood (town) format, then Born2cycle comes here pointing to the pattern he sees (now) in the Category of Connecticut neighborhoods. Good for you, that you have more organized resistance to that kind of disruption. It's too bad so much of our wikipedia lives is spent dealing with this kinda stuff. --Doncram (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
When I first looked at that cat, all entries (several dozen) followed the convention except for three, so I changed them to comply as well. But the convention was obvious prior to those three moves. At the time, I had no idea how it came to be so, except I knew one other move for compliance was made by Polaron. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
C. I am convinced by statements by Users Pmanderson and MelanieN. Specifically that "most American placenames are ambiguous, creating a de facto convention;" and that in the current US practice "you don't have to wonder what to title an article or how to wikilink it." I looked up the relatively few dab pages I could think of with more than one Scottish placename on them, and it's clear the situation in the US (and perhaps also elsewhere) is different. Perhaps for this reason alone we simply don't use the US convention in normal speech or writing - no-one refers to Dallas, Moray as it is generally obvious whether you mean the local village or the Texan city. I see from the dab page there are more than a dozen others in the US, none of which I had ever heard of. Re comments by Ntsimp - I don't agree. I think UK news outlets might say "Osama bin Laden was apprehended in the small town of Amalga in Utah". In short to a degree we are dealing with WP:ENGVAR, which in my view trumps WP:PLACE in this instance. For the record, I have not been an American since the tragic events of the Jurassic. BenMacDui10:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Ben MacDui, you've convinced me. This must certainly be an instance of WP:ENGVAR. The UK style in your example is foreign to me; I was completely ignorant of it. I think that's likely what's going on in this entire discussion. Ntsimp (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, there is an important WP:ENGVAR aspect to this discussion. Ben MacDui is exactly right about the way disambiguation is handled in UK English. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I suggest the ENGVAR argument is a red herring. After all, there is no dispute about city, state being a common way to disambiguate in American English in contexts in which disambiguation is required. The fact that sources don't repeatedly refer to cities in that format clearly indicates its use is for disambiguation. In WP, we don't add precision when it is not necessary for disambiguation. This is ultimately about only those U.S. cities with unique or primary names, even if it's the minority of cities. And even if, say, Chicago was the only city in the U.S. that had a unique name, why not leave it at Chicago? We would unnecessarily disambiguate it just because every other city in the U.S. needed to be disambiguated? Why? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The point is that "City, State" in American English is not solely (or even primarily) about disambiguation—and using the large, well-known city of Chicago (an article whose naming is completely off-topic in this discussion) as the example obscures the point. The example of Amalga, Utah, unique but obscure, is more to the point. "City, State" is the common way to designate all but the largest and most famous communities in American English, whether or not the name is unique. Ntsimp (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Born2cycle, as I understand it, someone who lived in Amalga, in Utah, if asked where they came from, may well actually say, 'Amalga, Utah'. In other words, in the English dialect of their choice the place is called 'Amalga, Utah'. Imposing a naming convention on someone who lives in a particular place, just for the abstract concept of consistency, is likely to cause unnecessary friction. I cannot speak for someone from Amalga but I can say how I would feel if this were done the other way round. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Well the point about the Chicago example had to do with the issue of only a minority not needing disambiguation being justification for disambiguating all, but fine, let's go with Amalga.
Asking "where they came from" to someone from Amalga can result in a variety of answers depending on where they are when the question is asked, varying from "the United States" (if, say in China) to "Utah" (if somewhere on the east coast) to "1234 Pine Street" (if at a store in Amalga). A more appropriate question to look at here would be, "what is the name of where you are from?". The answer to that is likely to be just "Amalga", every time, and that's the point here. By putting that article at Amalga, Utah rather than at Amalga we are misleading those outside of the U.S. to come to mistakenly believe that the name of that town is "Amalga, Utah". That's wrong. The name is just "Amalga".
Speaking of Amalga, note that Amalga is a redlink, demonstrating one of the chronic problems with all categories of articles that are predisambiguated by conventions like U.S. cities are. I wrote about this and related problems below at #Another option, and it was referred to as "Evidence-free conjectures". But this is perfect evidence, particularly since it was chosen by a proponent of U.S. place name predisambiguation, not by me. Like most such evidence, it probably won't last long now that it's been identified as a redlink, but I note that this article has existed since 2002, and no one has apparently ever noticed and cared that the redirect from Amalga was missing. It will surely be fixed shortly, now that I've pointed it out, but I suggest that there are countless other such missing links (and the other problems I mentioned below) for these articles, precisely because of "predisambiguation mentality". I won't repeat here what I said below, and how "only disambiguate when necessary" fixes it, but I welcome others to continue discussion on these points down there at #Another option. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yet Amalga would still have to be disambiguated at Amalga, Utah, even under your proposed A, because there is also an unincorporated town of Amalga, Idaho and a historical town of Amalga, Alaska. Those articles don't exist yet, but could be created. So even an obscure name like Amalga further emphasises that most U.S. placenames will need to be at Name, State. Even if you argue that it should be at Name (State), it will leaves us with inconsistent naming and lead to multiple (and likely controversial) moves as editors start claiming "their" city has priority over the Name.DCmacnut<>20:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Dcmacnut, well, if Amalga would still have to be disambiguated per A because it is neither unique nor the primary use of the name, then it's not a good example here. However, from what you say here, it seems like the Amalga in Utah does meet the primary topic criteria relative to these other uses so obscure they don't even have coverage in WP yet. Even Microsoft Amalga is probably too obscure to challenge the Utah town for being primary topic, but an obscure town with a truly unique name would probably be best. How about Lompoc? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess this is as good a place as any to respond to Born2cycle's claim that "The fact that sources don't repeatedly refer to cities in that format clearly indicates its use is for disambiguation." This is definitely not what it indicates. When writing about a person, you switch to just the surname after using the full name. That doesn't mean the full name is for disambiguation. It's about conciseness, avoiding redundancy, and other points of good style. For me and other Americans outside of California, Lompoc is Lompoc, California. Giving the name of an unfamiliar town without its state is really weird and sounds like a foreign dialect of English. Ntsimp (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, point taken, when the name is unique we add on , state not for disambiguation, but for precision (beyond that needed for disambiguation). Yes, for those who are unfamiliar with the topic, including most Americans outside of California, we would likely use Lompoc, California to refer to that town. Of course. No argument there.
But recognizability is one of the key general naming criteria identified at WP:TITLE, and it is specified in terms of someone familiar with the topic, not someone who is unfamiliar with it: "an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic". This makes sense since someone unfamiliar with a topic cannot by definition be made to "recognize" it, until after he or she is made familiar with it... recognition of a topic implies previous encounter with the topic! This point about naming for recognizability being only for those already familiar with the topic, combined with conciseness ("shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones") and precision ("...only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously"), all clearly favor plain names of unique topics like Lompoc over more precise and longer names like Lompoc, California.
That is, the title indicated by the proposed wording in A, Lompoc, complies much better with our naming policy than does the less concise and more precise than necessary, Lompoc, California. The fact that the longer title makes it possible for someone unfamiliar with the town to know what state it is in from only the title is, according to our naming policy, irrelevant to deciding how to name the title. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, "readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic" of Lompoc, California are unlikely to know whether or not it is the only Lompoc in the United States. I'm personally familiar with (though not expert in) many towns in Utah, including Amalga, Utah, but it took me some searching to come up with that example. People from outside a given state are unlikely to know anything about any but its largest cities, and just being familiar with one town with a given name is no reason to know it's unique. Ntsimp (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This misses the point. It is not whether the town itself is unique within the USA that matters, it is whether there are two articles within Wikipedia that might have the same title. The problem only arises when a second article is written about another town with the same name as an existing article. Then the disambiguation will obviously be required and this requires no special knowledge since Wikipedia itself will tell you and no one here is arguing that disambiguation should not apply when there are two articles with claim to the same title. However, when there is only one article of a given title, predisambiguation is unnecessary and should be avoided as less concise and more precise than needed as per WP:TITLE. - Nick Thornetalk21:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Since every town should have its own Wikipedia article, your first distinction is moot. But I was responding to Born2cycle's quotation about an ideal title. In order for the title Amalga to confirm to this reader that it's about the Utah town I'm familiar with, I would also have to know that the name is unique on Wikipedia. That's a much higher standard than familiarity with the topic. Ntsimp (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
For the life of me I do not understand the inclination to have U.S. cities treated differently from all other topics in Wikipedia, in this case on the issue of titles being chosen so that readers don't have to know that the name usage is unique in Wikipedia from the title alone to confirm that it's the use they are familiar with. No other articles are named with this goal, why should those about U.S. cities? For example, one who is familiar with the (comparatively obscure) actors Leslie Howard and Tim Holt would have to know that the usage of each respective name is unique in Wikipedia (it is for one but not the other) to confirm to the reader that an article with that name is about the actor he is familiar with. Why should it be any different for Amalga? Because it's a U.S. city?
In fact, because (almost) all U.S. cities are at city, state, the article about Amalga is at Amalga, Utah and readers can't tell that Amalgais unique in Wikipedia. However, because Tim Holt is at Tim Holt (not at the disambiguated Tim Holt (actor)) they can tell it is unique (or at least primary which is actually the case here), and because Leslie Howard the actor is at Leslie Howard (actor) they know it's not unique. The reader would also be able to know that Amalga is unique, and Glenwood, Utah is not, if we abided by A consistently and only disambiguated (by adding ", state") those cities and towns that are not unique or primary, just like every other topic in WP. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
"Since every town should have its own Wikipedia article" Say what? Since when should every town have its own article? Have you never heard of notability? In fact every town should not have its own article, only those that are noteworthy according to reliable sources. I am sure that all twenty three inhabitants of Upper Kumbucta West think that it is the centre of the universe, but that hardly makes it a worthy of an article unless there is something particular that makes it so. - Nick Thornetalk05:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I have been told in other discussions on Wikipedia that the mention of a gazetteer on WP:WIS overrides the notability guideline in the case of geographical locations. Perhaps this is what Ntsimp is referring to? --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 11:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
A. The names of cities are usually unique within a state, but this varies greatly throughout the United States as a whole. Ultimately, the question arises which state "owns" the name. I am of the opinion that the status of a city in size, governmental importance, or international status should have no bearing on how the article is titled. The United States is a collection of states - just like the European Union is collection of states (albeit more of confederation than federal union). In cases of duel-names in the EU, I don't expect that one city would automatically become the official owner of the name. It is ultimately disrespectful and takes away from the neutrality of Wikipedia. The cities of the United States should be given the same level of respect. DevinCook (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
C. A view from outside the US. Originally I was going to support 'A', because that is how we generally do things in the UK. 'London' has only one meaning (unless qualified) to most Brits and even with relatively ambiguous names, such 'Newcastle' we generally have the convention that 'Newcastle' alone would refer to the most well known place in the UK with that name - Newcastle upon Tyne. On the other hand, in the US it would seem that it is a de facto convention to use 'Name, State'. As we use both US and UK English and conventions in WP and the policy is to use US English for obviously US-based articles, I guess we should use the US naming convention for US cities. We Brits on the other hand would not want to see 'London, England', for example. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Then the conversation goes, 'I thought you said you lived in Canada?'. 'Yes I do, there is another London in Ontario you know'. :-)
C. I think the current setup for city naming in the United States is fine. However, we need to develop a more precise standard for neighborhood naming. Dough487217:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
C - The status quo works just fine, and the status quo is consistent with the way Americans identify cities when communicating with people outside the local area. This likely has to do with the large land area of the country, and the large number of populated places that have names. While it is likely true that there is just one "Ishpeming" in the world, that city's denizens do not presume that the rest of the world recognizes the name, so it is conventionally referred to as "Ishpeming, Michigan." (BTW, much the same thing can be said regarding Wollongong, New South Wales.) Furthermore, maintaining the "city, state" form as a near-universal convention for U.S. places prevents many essentially pointless arguments over whether a particular city name is a primary topic. --Orlady (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
A. While City, State is commonly used in the US and to an extent internationally, I doubt it's the most common form for many cities with unambiguous names. Jafeluv (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
A. There's no reason to use "City, State," when the name is unambiguous or a primary topic. Baton Rouge, Sacramento, and so forth are perfectly fine article titles. To address some of the arguments for the status quo I've seen, I don't see how editors knowing how to link is relevant. Editors will be able to link via "City, State," regardless, and people who don't like getting to articles through redirects can change those links if they like. The idea that people won't know what state the city's in are also silly - if they are at the article itself, the article will obviously say that. If they are clicking through another article, well, that article should provide context when it's appropriate, and there's no guarantee as to what text other articles will show, anyway. I'm not sure how having an article called "Lompoc" is "really bizarre" or "out of some foreign dialect of English." It is how the city is normally referred to. It's how articles on cities are always titled in print encyclopedias. It's the name of the actual city. And again, in what context, exactly, will people be confused? The article will say it's in California in the first line. john k (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
C or better yet D go back to the convention before the "exceptions" were added. Consistency across the board for US cities is much more preferable than trying to make a patchwork quilt of "okay...AP cities...no wait, State Capitals...um, um...and NFL cities.", etc. AgneCheese/Wine00:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a good argument for preferring C/D over B, but not really A. I mean, A would result in a patchwork quilt of plain names and disambiguated names, but the distinction would be based on whether the topic's name is ambiguous or not, just like it for the vast majority of articles in WP, including most cities. For example, consider the "patchworks" of plain and disambiguated names in the following categories: Towns in Kent, Cities and towns in Quebec, Cities in South Australia, American actors, Episodes of Lost, Novels by Stephen King, etc., etc.
For any article in any of these categories and countless others, a given article's title may or may not be disambiguated. There is no problem with that. Why should U.S. cities be treated differently? If your answer is "because 80% (or whatever it is) of them have to be city, state anyway", I ask so what? Whether it's 80/20, 20/80, 10/90 or 90/10, you don't know and have to check whether the name is unique, primary or ambiguous.
So your solution to that is disambiguate 100%, right? Great, but then why not disambiguate 100% of Towns and cities in Kent, Quebec and South Australia, all actors, all TV show epistors, all titles of books... If it's good for U.S city names to preemtively disambiguate 100%, why would it not be good to preemptively disambiguate 100% of all titles in Wikipedia?
There are a multitude of good answers to that question, and I don't why any one of the reasons to not preemptively disambiguate 100% of all titles in WP should not also apply to U.S. cities... do you? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
C because it works well. To hopefully lighten someone's day, I'll point to some lines from the movie Broadcast News near the end, the Albert Brooks character says to the Holly Hunter character: "My agent has a hot prospect—the number two station in Portland. The general manager says he wants to be every bit as good as the networks. Personally, I think he should aim higher." If you have any doubt where he is going, you understand my vote right away. The dialog works in the movies, but not here on Wikipedia, even though Portland, Oregon has had an NBA franchise for 40 years. The city was named for Portland, Maine following a coin toss among the founders. Here in New England, Portland means the one in Maine that also has television stations with news departments. So even though by population (by 9 to 1) and economy (Portland is a minor New England city) the Oregon city would probably win a disambiguation contest, and through a straw poll among editors could probably win as well, it should stay titled Portland, Oregon. Yes, that is unscientific but the current policy works well in my experience, and because it is a very large English speaking country with many, many places with similar names, the U.S. can be treated differently with regard to geographic names here on Wikipedia. Sswonk (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
What's your point? Nobody thinks either of the Portlands should be moved. For the "many, many cases" where the city's name is ambiguous and there's no primary topic, the status quo is fine. The debate concerns what to do when there is an obvious primary topic. john k (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
My goal was to lighten up the the venue a little. My point can probably not be stated more succinctly than by BHG five !votes below. I have nearly four years experience editing geography articles here. I reiterate that the current system is beneficial. Boosterism by folks looking to drop the ", State" from their favorite city, becoming as a matter of pride unambiguous like Boston and Chicago, leading to more votes and dramz, is not. The New York Times maintains a list[2] similar to the AP for use in datelines, albeit with several locations in the tri-state (CT–NJ–NY) area nearest its base added. Still there are not many more cityname-without-,state entries than in the AP list. The United States' area and proliferation of places calls for using ", State" in a wide variety of contexts and that is widely practiced. The argument from minimalism is thus in many ways counter intuitive. The list is from a reliable source, about as neutral as a journalism source can be. Both AP and NYT, and likely other publishers, use a narrow list for a reason, which has been repeatedly stated here: it is courteous to the reader to be precise about the location, this is a huge country. Keep the geographic naming standard the way it is. Sswonk (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
C Status quo works for US cities. If conformity across the world is necessary (which I don't think it is) cities in other countries that have the equivalent of US states could use this approach too. And in countries where there is no genuine analogue to a US state, then conformity is of course a moot point anyway. Rlendog (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
C with B a very poor weak second choice (state capitols are notoriously ambiguous, with such examples as Springfield leaping immediately to mind; and nobody outside the U.S. is likely to care about an NFL franchise). --Orange Mike | Talk20:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Nobody thinks we should move Springfield or Salem or Madison or Jackson or other genuinely ambiguous city names. john k (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
C The current guideline works for US occupied places. City names that some users think are unambiguous, or at least primary, will not be so for others. Cityname, Statename is required for very many places. Weakening the guideline will likely fuel many arguments over whether a place name is unambiguous, or which place name is primary. -- Donald Albury02:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
C The current guideline provides consistency and stability for article names. Removing it will lead to an endless series of pointless arguments about whether one place is more significant than another. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The only consistency provided by the current guideline is limited to the cities on the AP list. Those too were unstable until they were no longer required to have ", state" in their titles, and they have been stable ever since they were moved to their plain names. The articles about U.S. cities which have unambiguous names have never been stable because of the comma convention requirement. But this destabilization effect of required predisambiguation extends far beyond U.S. city naming. For a more complete explanation, see User:Born2cycle#A_goal:_naming_stability_at_Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Quite apart from your determinatiuon to ignore the fact that "town, state" is standard usage in the USA, that's about as self-serving a load of circularity as I have seen in a long while. The current format which is already disambiguated as "town, state" is inherently more stable than one where a disambiguator by state is optional, because so long as its optional disagreements will arise on whether it is applicable in that particular case, and because that decision is highly subjective, the result is instability. By removing that primary topic decision the "town, state" format is inherently more stable, unless someone rejects the guideline and sets out a mission to abolish all naming conventions, and to try to create exceptions to existing conventions. The effect of what you are saying is that unless articles are moved to your preferred format, you will do your best to destabilise the names ... and then denounce the resulting instability. Please read Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions, which explicly authorises naming conventions such as this one. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
In many cases, the unqualified name already redirects to the pre-disambiguated name. In these cases, there has already been an implicit decision that the target of the unqualified name is the primary topic. Stability will be achieved by using the simplest name that the article already occupies, whether by redirect or being the actual title. No extended discussions are required at all. --Polaron | Talk05:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You're conveniently ignoring the evidence of some sampling which showed above that 70% of US placenames are ambiguous, but even for the remaining 30% your argument is still circular. If the name already meets the guideline, it will be stable at that location unless editors choose to ignore the guideline, as B2c does in his mission to remove them. The situation with US towns being commonly known as "town, state" is similar to that with the names of people. Churchill redirects to Winston Churchill, and Reagan redirects to Ronald Reagan but that's stable because we don't have a small group of editors on a mission to reduce people's name to the shortest possible. Not even B2C seems interested in overturning the convention that people are generally known by firstname lastname ... though maybe in saying that I've made a WP:BEANS error. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, first, allow me to correct what I said above. The current guideline does provide stability for more than just the AP cities. It provides stability for those U.S. cities with ambiguous names, by indicating they should be at "city, state". Where the guideline does not provide stability is for those articles about cities that have unambiguous names, which of course are the articles at issue here.
As far as the guideline providing stability to even those articles "unless someone rejects the guideline and sets out a mission to abolish all naming conventions...", hyperbole aside, you give me far too much credit. The guideline would provide "inherent stability" if the names indicated by the guideline were not inherently different from how most articles in Wikipedia are named, including most non-U.S. cities. Due to the naming conventions used almost universally at WP, people expect titles to be at their most concise natural names. I have nothing to do with the fact that when someone came upon, for example, Carmel-by-the-Sea, California a few months ago, it seemed so obvious that it should be at Carmel-by-the-Sea, that he just unilaterally moved it. There is no reason to expect anyone to be familiar with the oddball convention here, or to expect someone who knows the nearly universal convention is to be as concise as is reasonably possible, to not want to move Tallahassee, Florida to Tallahassee. It's going to happen no matter what I do or don't do.
You can justify the comma convention as being the standard usage in the U.S. all you want (a fact not in dispute), but there will always be a large number of people who will not be convinced that that means U.S. city articles should necessarily be named per that usage, and many if not most of them will not even be aware of this idiosyncratic guideline. I'm not God. Just because I say "that's never going to happen" isn't what makes it true. It's never going to happen regardless of what I say or do. That is why as long as the guideline continues to require articles about cities with unambiguous names to be disambiguated never-the-less, the U.S. city naming situation will never be stable. I said it five years ago, I said it three years ago when it still applied to the cities on the AP, and I'm still saying it today, after a period of stability for the cities on the AP list because they were moved to their concise names.
For stability, we have to put articles at their most concise natural and available title; any other title will be inherently unstable. That's just a fact; don't shoot the messenger. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, your point about the "First Last" convention is well taken, and I am delighted to complement you for it. I rarely have an opportunity to do that with pro-mandatory-comma-convention arguments. But I must point out that the situation would be more analogous if people outside of the U.S. were named "First Last", but there was a convention to name U.S. people "First Last (occupation)", because stats indicated that 60% of notable Americans had ambiguous names. If that were the case and people were regularly trying to move American people articles about people with unambiguous First Last names from "First Last (occupation)" to "First Last", then, yes, I would probably support changing the convention to require specifying the occupation in the title only when disambiguation was necessary, to be more consistent with how all other articles in WP did it. Does that make sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
B2C, your distinction between ambiguous places and unambiguous places is one of the basic flaws in your argument, because even when things are ambiguous, the primarytopic approach allows scope for frequently sterile arguments about which is more ambiguous than the other. You may not be the only person who moves articles contrary to established guidelines, but when the guidelines exist, we have a simple solution: move the article back to comply with the guideline, and move on. You seem to prefer endless arguments about article names than actually improving the articles.
I don't understand all these claims about "frequently sterile arguments" about primary topics. When does this happen? What I do see are constant arguments about US city names that result from some people wanting to apply general naming guidelines and other people holding firm to the US city naming guideline. When there are disagreements about whether something is a primary topic, they generally resolve themselves and don't spring up again. john k (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
"My" distinction between ambiguous places and unambiguous places is no different than how we distinguish ambiguous and unambiguous names for all topics in Wikipedia. That is, it's not my distinction, it's the standard Wikipedia distinction. I see no reason to distinguish ambiguous and unambiguous non-AP-list U.S. cities differently from how we distinguish ambiguous and unambiguous U.S. cities on the AP list, or TV episode names, or chemical names, or anything else. It's not perfect, but, as John points out, it works quite well, much better in practice than it might seem it would in theory. In contrast, naming articles per a fixed convention might seem like it would lead to more stability, but in practice it does the opposite, for the reasons I've explained and won't repeat.
The guideline you promote used to apply to all U.S. cities without exception besides New York City, and there was much debate and instability. The situation was improved by relieving the cities on the AP list from having to adhere. I have no reason to believe the situation would not improve significantly again if the remainder of the unambiguously named cites could be moved to their most concise names as well, to be consistent with all other articles in Wikipedia. And I have every reason to believe it would improve the situation, because it has in every situation I know of where mandatory predisambiguation was abandoned.
As to people, I did not evade the point. I get what you're saying, but you missed mine. I know that because I'm so vocal on this topic I might give the impression that I drive the instability and dissatisfaction, but you give me far too much credit. In fact, it's the instability and dissatisfaction that drive me. If there was nearly as much instability and dissatisfaction with the First Last people naming convention as there is with the mandatory disambiguation for non-AP U.S. cities, then I would oppose that too. But there is no such instability or dissatisfaction, so I have no objection to it.
A. "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." Or as WP:TITLE puts it, "shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones". Tallahassee is a better, more concise title than Tallahassee, Florida. If there's any contention over what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be, disambiguate with the state, but if there's not, keep it simple. 28bytes (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
A This exception to all our other policies (WP:PRIMARY, WP:COMMON, etc) has always been a bad idea and continues to be a bad idea. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Prefer A, B is acceptable, C is far less acceptable. 28bytes has said it properly just above me, but the more important case is surely Las Vegas vs. Las Vegas, Nevada, already mentioned here. The assertion that these are two separate topics is gibberish; at most they are two aspects of one topic. The current guideline is being used to play a sort of Cups and balls game with the topics of the various Las Vegas articles, with any criticism of the current split being met with an assertion that you cannot complain about the issue there because (handwave) the ball is actually under some other cup. That alone should be a sign that the current guideline is wrong. — Gavia immer (talk)04:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Cumulative Tally Count and Comment Not that this is a democracy, but one indicator of consensus is counting votes like this. As of right now we have 24 A and 30 C. While there does now appear to be more support for C (56%) than A (44%), it's clear that there is no consensus support for the current guideline wording. I anticipated this from the start, by proposing a compromise, but there does not seem to be much interest in that, nor in the other compromises proposed.
What if we split the difference? Cities west of the continental divide don't have to follow the comma convention, but those east of the divide do? --Born2cycle (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Edit count and comment. What if you step back a bit and stop trying to dominate the discussion? 122 of the last 500 edits to this page were by you, and the period in that revision history extends back before this RFC was opened. An RFC is a place for discussion, not for you to try to wear down everyone else. You have made more than 25% of the edits to an RFC where dozens of people have participated, and that is excessive to the point of disruptiveness. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
People who disagree with me keep saying that, but it strikes me as a novel redefinition of disrupt specially contrived to muzzle me specifically because I argue an opinion they disagree with and I'm vocal about it. I say "novel redefinition of disrupt" because being (by far) the most active participant in a discussion is not a characteristic of disruptiveness listed at WP:DISRUPT, as far as I can tell. I think a better argument can be made that my approach is ineffective because people tire of me and dislike me due to the volumes I spew out. But, honestly, am I preventing anyone from voicing their opinion? Has anything gotten lost on this page due to my activity? I sincerely hope not. How exactly am I being disruptive? Am I preventing anyone from being able to reach a consensus? Of those participating, about 45% say they prefer A over the status quo, while about 55% support the status quo. Finding consensus in this situation is very difficult, but blaming me for that not occurring is, I suggest, untenable. Many of the arguments made here are interesting to me, including yours, and I enjoy inquiring about them, making sure I understand, and explain where I think the weaknesses are. This kind of approach tends not to be very persuasive, but ultimately it helps work out the kinks in the arguments, and help create a clearer picture, hopefully, of what is going on.
At any rate, not because I'm disruptive, but just because I should take a break from this for many reasons, I think I will. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
B2C, a discussion does not consist of 50 people taking it turns to be harangued by one person, and verbose repetition of your own views makes it harder for other discussions to emerge, because you repeatedly insert yourself in the middle. You've been warned before, by others; just back off. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Born2cycle, as you may realise I support option A. However, it really does not do our side of the argument any good at all for you to continually post all the time and in response to virtually every post expressing a divergent POV to yours. Frankly it just becomes a wall of words that makes it much too hard for anyone to properly digest and really makes getting a consensus for change virtually impossible. You cannot beat people into submission - instead only make any particular point once and allow others to have their say as well. - Nick Thornetalk13:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
B2C, your numerous, lengthy, repetitious, aggressive and sometimes rude comments make some editors (like me) tire of keeping up with such a discussion, leading them to ultimately abandon the process altogether — some might be forgiven for seeing this as your intent. However whether this is your intended goal or not, such activity can be disruptive. Please listen to and take to heart the voluminous feedback you've gotten from your fellow editors. Paul August☎14:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay. For the duration of this RFC I plan to limit my posts here to only those comments that are discussing something with me personally, plus maybe a few per week, no more than 5, of the "unsolicited" variety. Will that help? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
C With 70% of US cities requiring disambiguation, the form "City, State" has become very common to the point of standard. Adding the state name does not make the title overly precise, just reasonably so. I don't see that this is an issue that needs fixing Worm14:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
A. There is an issue here that needs to be addressed, and it will be eventually. The issue is that this guideline as written causes disruption, here by being the subject of recurring debate and across the concerned talk pages in the form of stifling RM discussions that could normally procede based on criteria used by the whole of the encyclopedia. The problem is not that 70% or however many pages will likely need disambiguation, that is a technical consideration, and it can't easily be acted upon until the editorial process of the rest of the encyclopedia is allowed to function in this currently walled garden. Furthermore, I agree with the positions taken by B2C and others. There is no coherent reason this guideline should have the effect of overwriting policy and, as has also been said by others, interested editors should be able to discuss and choose titles for the articles that they are writing based on hierarchically superior policies and use guideline pages for counsel—not mandates—concerning their selections. They should be able to do this without being continually affronted with combative rhetoric backed by references to an irresolute consensus-by-status quo.—Synchronism (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
C I don't see any significant issues with the status quo or any reason why Wikipedia should be inventing its own naming scheme for U.S. cities. ElKevbo (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
A. The AP style convention for U.S. cities is not designed for titles. It is intended for datelines. Journalists know the importance in keeping their article titles short and would not likely keep them from becoming overloaded. If the AP style is primarily intended for them but they do not use it in their article titles, why should we? While significant number of cities may require disambiguation, we should not force the rest to follow just for the sake of consistency. We should not take shortcuts even if there is likelihood that some of these cities may require disambiguation in the future. --JinJian (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
C I also agree the current rule works just fine, plus it avoids opening Pandora's box of discussions on several cities as to which is the primary topic. More times than not, in the U.S. a city is referred to by "city, state" outside only the largest and most well-known cities. The AP guideline is for datelines, but it is also a common usage that a lot of people see in print. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Well said. Also, when looking at the title "Matawan", I have no idea what that is, but when looking at the title "Matawan, New Jersey" I know immediately.Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it not so that redirects still have to be disambiguated, resulting in those primary topic debates anyway? --Bsherr (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
C The vast majority of reliable English-language sources referring to American communities are American, and the vast majority of American sources referring to these communities use the state names. The current rule is simple and unambiguous, but getting rid of it will open up virtually all communities to disputes over their names. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
If by that link you are pointing to the sentence "Be precise but only as precise as is needed", that would not be a positive reason to change things. I say so because only countless events involving supposition, conjecture, assumption, original research, argument, voting, and acrimony would result. It is not feasible or possible to state using reliable sources and verifiable documentation which way (with ", State" or not) a geographic location is described will be "as precise as is needed" to any given reader. I will repeat this below in a further statement. Sswonk (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Really? Is there any evidence of that, or is this just your gut feeling? I suggest we have considerable evidence to the contrary. First, three and a half years ago those U.S. cities on the AP list were made subject to only the "Be precise but only as precise as is needed" rule, and no such problems were encountered with them. Further, there is far less "supposition, conjecture, assumption, original research, argument, voting, and acrimony" regarding just about every topic subject to normal title/disambiguation/precision rules, including most articles about cities outside of the U.S. as well as those on the AP list, than there is about the topics subject to this mandatory disambiguation rule. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
C, with consideration toward moving some of the AP guideline cities back to City, State. The guideline and most article names were stable before 2007, and the change to allow AP names has increased the instability. — Arthur Rubin(talk)10:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
A. The name of a city isn't "City, State", it's just "City". The fact that the state name is an appositive has become so misused on Wikipedia that users now argue the state in "City, State" shouldn't be followed by a comma when it occurs in a sentence. It's getting "fustrating". --Bsherr (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
C, and I support eliminating the exceptions and moving them ALL back to City, State, like mentioned by Arthur Rubin--I think the consistency/predictability is helpful, and agree with others that it is consistent with the principle of least astonishment. 76.121.3.85 (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment I find B2C's statement above "Accordingly, I've added a disputed tag to the U.S. city guideline. We really need to come up with wording that has consensus support, or remove it." quite alarming. As I understand Wikipedia process (as someone who has edited here since February 2004, if not earlier), when a change is proposed, if there is no consensus to make that change, the standard process is to leave the subject of the proposed change alone--keep the status quo. B2C's statement seems to suggest something counter to that standard. If there is no consensus to change the current US city naming policy/guideline, it is my understanding that it should be left in place, per long-standing precedent. 76.121.3.85 (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Updated tally Since the last count on 5 January, there have been 9 additional Cs and 5 additional As (averaging about one vote per day), for a current total of 39 C to 29 A, or 57% C to 43% A - essentially no movement in the percentages over the last two weeks. Dohn joe (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
Point is that the base assumption of these naming conventions has problems. A while ago, it was decided that Las Vegas should not be the place for one of the cities with this name or a redirect. It currently is a dab page. In processing the new incoming links which run about 5 a day or approaching 2,000 in a year, at least 90% are not for the city. While I agree that this is not the normal case, it does show that the normal can be problematic. Add to that the problems with category names where there is no way to see what has been added to any category and you have a recipe for disaster. The better solution is to have all places in the form of place_name, some_country_dependent_higher_level_division. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not sure I understand the argument that "Las Vegas" is ambiguous between the city proper and the Strip, but "Las Vegas, Nevada," is not. "Las Vegas, Nevada," in fact implies the postal usage "Las Vegas, NV", which actually includes the Strip. The use of pseudo-postal names to designate municipalities seems problematic to me. john k (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Trying to fix issues with category names by changing article titles is a case of the tail wagging the dog. If category naming is an issue, then fix the way categories are named. I am starting to come to the conclusion that the concept of categorisation is not worth the problems it creates for the rest of the encyclopedia. The idea that the article title should provide context to a name is a strange one too. Why should this principle only apply to place names? Should we also haveCalcium (element) and Heroin (drug)? It seems far more practical to treat disambiguation as a necessary evil and to rely on the article to provide the context needed, across the entire project. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I have never understood the insistence on forcing conformity of style when it comes to article titles... no matter what the topic area. Of all the criteria at WP:Article titles, I think conformity is the least important. Conformity is nice, but it is not necessary... and should always take second place to other criteria and needs (recognizably, brevity, the need for disambiguation, etc.). I see nothing wrong with different articles having different title styles, as long as the reader can easily find the article on the city they are searching for. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Conformity establishes part of the look and uniformity of the encyclopedia. If 98% of the articles have state, city, then the other 2% look out of place. If we go to 50%, then it looks random, like there is no style sheet. If we go down to 10%, then they look out of place. Better to have a uniform look and feel for the readers' benefit. The fact that article name are predictable is a good thing. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Besides, I think your 2% estimate is grossly underestimated. I would expect around a third, maybe close to half, of all U.S. cities have names that are either unique or or the city is the primary use of that name. Besides, the unique or primary use ones are trivial to identify since for most of them the base name, like Sacramento, Spokane, Boise, Nashville, Nantucket, Tallahassee, etc., already redirects to the article about the city. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Green Bay has many uses, including the name of several bodies of water. It is not at all obvious that the Wisconsin city name could be considered a primary topic. --Orlady (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I did not make an estimate. I just used some numbers. I don't know how many place names are of the compound form. But pushing for dropping the second level will not remove all of these. There will still be many conflicts in the name space. Keeping and expanding the US convention will actually produce fewer exceptions and improved clarity and readability. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Powers, you say the error is in thinking that the state name serves only to disambiguate. Who thinks that? Clearly, including the state name serves a descriptive purpose, by adding precision to the title in addition to conveying the most common name of the topic. So the mistake is not in thinking that the state names serves only to disambiguate, but in thinking the title should do anything other than convey what the topic is usually called, and be the unique or primary use of the name in the title. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Born2cycle, you say the error is in thinking that the title should do more than just convey what the topic is usually called. Who thinks that? PowersT21:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought you were thinking that the title should do more than just convey what the topic is usually called, unless you're also thinking that U.S. cities are called with the state qualifier more often than without it. Are you? If so, I suggest google search counts indicate otherwise, at least for cities whose names are either unique or are the primary use of the name, which is all that is relevant here. Here are two examples:
Anyway, you say the error is in thinking that the state name serves only to disambiguate. So, what purpose do you believe the state name serves, and is that a purpose information other than state added to Wikipedia titles serves? If so, what is that information in which titles? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
It's hardly surprising that "Cityname" gets more hits than "cityname, state", since one is a subset of the other! Even if you were to adjust the search terms to account for that, however, it's a crude tool at best; it fails to take into account the differing contexts in which city names are used. For example, many hits for the name without the state will be local sources where the context (meaning the state) is already established and specifying it would be redundant. That's not the case in a generalist encyclopedia. It also fails to take into account that the state name is not repeated if it's been specified once already. As for other purposes, there are several: clarity, consistency, simplicity, and recognizability. There may be more, but that list should suffice for my purposes. PowersT00:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting establishing context is a purpose WP article titles are supposed to serve? If so, what is the basis for that? If not, why are you talking about context? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
No, and it's getting difficult to believe you're not intentionally missing my point. What I'm saying is that the name that we consider "most common" per WP:COMMONNAME changes depending on context. On Wikipedia, our context is world-wide, and in world-wide contexts, most U.S. cities are referred to with the state name appended on first reference. Cities are mentioned without the state name only when a more limited context has been established, either by a previous reference to the state, or by the reader's knowledge of the local area to which a source pertains. PowersT11:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm with you. Thank you for having the patience and taking the time to explain what you mean, and that is a very good point. However, to use your words, it's also true that in this world-wide context, most cities in other countries are referred to with the country name or a state-like administrative unit appended on first reference... for example: Nice, France, Cork, Ireland, Salzburg, Austria, Brossard, Quebec, Whyalla, South Australia. These cities are mentioned without the disambiguator only when a more limited context has been established, either by a previous reference to the context, or by the reader's knowledge of the context to which a source pertains.
Yet the titles we use in Wikipedia for these cities is just the name of the city, without the context, unless additional context (as in Cork (city)) is required for disambiguation. For example, the cities just mentioned are at: Nice, Cork (city), Salzburg, Brossard and Whyalla, respectively.
So, I ask again, why should cities in the U.S. be treated by Wikipedia differently, inconsistently, from other topics in general, and in particular from other cities in the world? Why does the common name in a world-wide context reasoning you just gave not apply to non-U.S. cities in the way I demonstrated? And since it does not apply to them, why should it apply to U.S. cities? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
(sorry for outdenting) No, Born2cycle, as I also said earlier on this page, one does not say "Nice, France". Maybe you are used to hearing such things, it may be natural in your local context, but it is very uncommon in Europe. Since Wikipedia is not a US-only enterprise, it refers to places as one commonly does. It is Amsterdam, and Washington, D.C., and Frankfurt (am Main). 213.84.53.62 (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit of a compromise, I suppose. That is, a compromise between a truly global view and a local view. Perhaps earlier I should have said "national" or "regional" context rather than global. My sense is that the states of the U.S. are so well known and differ enough from each other that they are more frequently used with U.S. city names than country names are on other cities around the globe. On the other hand, I can't say I'd object strenuously if editors wished to add country names to most cities -- although I might caution against it because of certain awkward constructions that might result such as "Brighton, Monroe County, New York, United States of America". The other factor is that so many United States communities are named after other communities in other states (due to migration patterns and a lack of creativity on the part of the pioneers) that most communities would require disambiguation anyway, and it just feels right to go ahead and do them all that way. PowersT14:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the exception that proves the rule. Anyway, "it just feels right" is not the same as "I like it". Just because the reasoning is ineffable doesn't mean it's invalid. And, it's only a small part of my reasoning anyway. PowersT19:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Powers, I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing between "it just feels right" and "I like it" that is significant here (I concede that they're not the same in ways that are not relevant to this discussion). WP:JDLI states, "Emotion does not trump logic at Wikipedia." clearly indicating it's referring to "feels right" as much as to "like it".
As to the rest of the reasoning, it seems to be a rationalization of what "feels right". The aesthetic attraction of everything named consistently according to the same pattern is undeniable, but it's not the only consideration to be weighed.
Part of your reasoning is based on a sense of how often U.S. cities are called by city vs. city, state as compared to how often international cities are called by city vs. city, country, let's look:
Granted that's a small sample and has various problems associated with google tests, but it's still better than by going by a totally subjective personal sense, and indicates the difference is not that significant.
Finally, I don't understand why it matters whether 90%, 9% or .9% of topics in a given group have either unique or primary use names to decide whether they should be at the base name. This was an argument made against moving the cities on the AP list, which of course amount to only a tiny percentage of all U.S. cities. That was no problem. Other than as a rationalization for what "feel rights", I don't understand why anyone would object to moving the remaining unique or primary use U.S. cities to their base names because they amount to some small percentage. No matter how small that percentage is, it's much larger percentage of all U.S. cities than the two dozen or so AP cities currently comprise. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, it's quite obvious by now that you don't understand why anyone objects. I'm about ready to give up trying to explain it, honestly. PowersT20:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It's becoming obvious to me that the main purposes of removing state names from article names are (1) to obfuscate and confuse readers and (2) to help ensure that Wikipedia contributors spend more time in the inherently pointless (but apparently very stimulating) activity of arguing about inherently trivial topics (e.g., over whether a particular U.S. city is the primary topic for a name like "Springfield") than in building encyclopedia content. --Orlady (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
There is obviously no primary topic for "Springfield." The normal naming conventions seem to work well enough for every other topic on wikipeia, so I don't see why pointless and ridiculous arguments would be more likely to be generated here. In fact, most naming arguments arise out of special conventions, not out of normal application of the general naming guidelines. john k (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
In addition to what I've already said, I'd like to point out that usage of "City, State," is often misleading. Our articles on localities are based, for the most part, on municipalities, minor civil divisions, and census-designated places. Our article on Rockville, Maryland, for example, is about the City of Rockville. The most common usage of "City, State," in everyday parlance, on the other hand, is for post office addresses. Post office addresses are usually quite different from municipalities. The post office designation "Rockville, MD," for example, comprises a significantly larger area than just the city of Rockville. Southern Methodist University has a post office address that says "Dallas, Texas," but is actually located in the tiny enclave of University Park. The Las Vegas strip is outside the City of Las Vegas, but to mail something to Caesar's Palace you'd still address it to "Las Vegas, NV." In some cases, such confusion is inevitable - Rockville, for example, is ambiguous with Rockville Centre, New York and other, smaller places, and isn't really a primary topic, so we don't have much choice but to use that form. But there's no reason to insist on this potentially misleading format when it isn't necessary. john k (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
A topic of contention in this discussion is whether the common name for all locations in the United States is Name, State or just Name. This across-the-board kind of thinking may not be helpful, as it seems to me that there will always be exceptions regardless of which convention is agreed to (Name, State or Name). A suggestion: remove any references to a "canonical form" from the guideline. When the name of a place needs to be disambiguated, the name can be determined using the guidelines at WP:NCDAB. When it does not need to be disambiguated, the common name can be determined by what English-language reliable sources most commonly use to refer to the subject of the article (whether that be Name, State; Name; or something else). Thoughts? --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 00:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
That produces random forms of article names and requires work to dab many of these are more articles are written. What is wrong with keeping the guidance which provides predictability and a uniform look with a bare minimum of exceptions? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
This suggestion is basically no different from Born2cycle's option A above, namely, "to disambiguate only when necessary" - unless you intend for all of us to go and argue endlessly about every individual place name. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Another option
Hey folks - not being entirely satisfied with any of the above options, I propose an Option D. This option keeps the first paragraph as is, while making the following change to the second paragraph of the guideline: "Provided it is the primary topic for that name, any United States city may or may not have its article named [[City]]..."
This option preserves the "canonical form" language of the first paragraph, letting people know that "City, State" is a generally accepted way to refer to U.S. cities, while allowing more flexibility on an individual article basis - but emphasizing the importance of renaming only where it is truly appropriate. The practical effect should be that only articles where [[City]] currently redirects to [[City, State]] will be candidates for renaming. And since the language remains permissive and not obligatory, changes will only happen where there is consensus. Feel free to support, oppose, or comment. (Or ignore, for that matter....) Dohn joe (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I feel that this Option D will just lead to editors, such as those favoring Option A above, requesting moves of a large number of towns and communities. --Bejnar (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The reason we don't do that is straightforward, and should be included in this page: How is a reader to tell whether Matawan, New Jersey is the primary topic for Matawan or not - without consulting an encyclopedia first? Most US communities aren't either unique or primary. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so let's posit that a reader doesn't know whether Matawan, New Jersey is a primary topic or not. Er...what then? How oes this lead to actual problems? No matter what our naming convention is, typing "Matawan, New Jersey" into the search box will take them to the article. Typing "Matawan" will either take them to the article or to a disambiguation page (or to another page with a hatnote, I guess, if there's another subject that is a primary topic for "Matawan"). All of this is true regardless of where the article is. john k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The challenges of topics with names with similar spellings are not unique to U.S. cities. Sometimes determining whether a given name has a primary topic is also challenging. Neither issue is unique to U.S. cities nor is a reason to treat U.S. cities differently.
If requests to move large numbers of towns and cities did occur, so what? It happened with the cities on the AP list, and was hardly an issue at all. It happened with Carmel-by-the-Sea, and nobody noticed. What's the problem? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
We have to decide that even if we use "Matawan, New Jersey" as the name of the article, when deciding whether Matawan should redirect to the article about the town (if it's the primary topic) or to a disambiguation page (if there's no primary topic) or something else (if there's a primary topic other than the town). A. di M. (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. And this highlights one of the problems with predisambiguation - apparently, it causes editors like PMA to believe or assume that putting an article at a unique predisambiguated title obviates them from their responsibility to consider treatment of the base name of that topic as it applies to that topic.
As a result, it is very common for the base name of topics with predisambiguated titles to be neglected with respect to how that name is treated relative to that topic. The problems are manifested as:
missing redirects (the predisambiguated topic's base name is a red link),
missing links (the predisambiguated topic is not listed on the dab page for the predisambiguated topic's base name, nor in a hat note of the primary topic article when there is no dab page), and
the predisambiguated topic is not considered a "significant competing use" in primary topic determinations for that base name (e.g., Plymouth).
But this proposal won't do do any of those things.
The solution to missing redirects or dab entries is to create them. Moving the articles around will not help; indeed it is more likely to result double entries or none.
As for Plymouth: it is not the responsibility of this page to counter British or American nationalism; if consensus can be formed that Drake's home town is not primary usage for Plymouth - and that there is none - so much the better. But this proposal will do little or nothing for that; Plymouth, California will still need disambiguation (so will Plymouth, Massachusetts; it's not primary, it's merely the second most common reference of a name with many); the difficulty is to persuade people that Plymouth, Devon is desirable. Arguing loudly that Carmel-by-the-Sea, California is not desirable is unlikely to help in that. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course the solution to creating missing redirects is to create them, but editors have to care in order to do that, and "predisambiguation mentality" quite apparently inhibits that kind of care. The fact that a significant inappropriate consideration in city naming might be nationalism is beside the more general point that applies to all kinds of topics that are predisambiguated, not just U.S. cities. When the default is the base name rather than a predisambiguated name then consideration for how the topic is represented by the base name is naturally improved, and that's why proposal A would help with all of the issues listed. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Evidence-free conjectures of your own. The work of adding redirects and dab entries is widely ducked; most people add them when they have trouble finding articles (if then). This occurs with all articles, whatever their titles or topics; none of this declamation gives any reason why option A should make any difference.
Question I see that every country has its own link on the "Naming conventions" project page, which suggests that each country may have its own rules or can reach its own consensus. Does that suggest that the only people participating in this discussion should be Americans? Or at least, should people offering their recommendation for the titling of United States cities identify whether they are or are not Americans? --MelanieN (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
BTW I see that the same convention is also used for Australia: "Most Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is." Are we discussing Australian placenames here too, or only United States placenames? --MelanieN (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Melanie. There have many, many discussions about the Australian convention (on this page and at WP:AWNB ). American views in those discussions were very welcome and useful by the way, even if I did not agree with them. (There seems to be a lot of desire to shut down or illegitemise differing opinions by the supporters of mandatory disambiguation ...) There is another going on now at Talk:Alice Springs, Northern Territory if you want to take a look (or participate, even). I would think that attempting to broaden the scope of this discussion beyond US place names would be seen by most as an transparent attempt to deflect and divert the discussion from the topic at hand. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. My question was an honest one: are the guidelines for a given country decided by Wikipedians at large, or primarily by Wikipedians from that country? And would a decision here affect the guidelines for Australia as well, since they follow the same general pattern? I take it your belief is that guidelines for each country should be discussed separately, and that no particular precedence should be given to the input of people from that country. Thank you for the invitation to participate in the current Australia discussions, but I will decline, because I don't know what the common usage in Australia is. I do know that the common usage in the Untied States is virtually always to say "city, state" in both written and spoken usage. We always say "I'm going to Buffalo, New York" even though there is no other city named Buffalo. (In fact, if someone did say "I'm going to Buffalo," the listener would almost certainly reply "Buffalo, New York?") --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Remember, we're talking only about cities that are either unique or the primary use of their name. Buffalo is not one of those.
People are much more likely to say "I'm flying to Sacramento", "I'm flying to Las Vegas", "I'm flying to Spokane", or "I'm flying to Orlando", than "I'm flying to Sacramento, California", "I'm flying to Las Vegas, Nevada", "I'm flying to Spokane, Washington", or "I'm flying to Orlando, Florida".
Of course, it's all about context. If the context is such that the state is not clear, usually the state is specified. With unique and primary names like Sacramento, Las Vegas, Spokane and Orlando more context is generally not needed, with cities whose names are homonyms for other uses, it's more natural to add additional context. One might argue that with WP titles more context is required or useful, but we generally don't add information to names in Wikipedia titles in order to provide more contextual information, unless it is needed for disambiguation (like for Buffalo). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment One of the beauties of the current system is that it is so consistent, so predictable. Every city is treated exactly the same (with 30 exceptions supported by outside authority). You don't have to wonder what to title an article or how to wikilink it. But if this convention is changed as suggested, every city will require research to know how to cite it. Take a biographical article, which typically mentions several cities: you would have to look up each city to know how to cite it. Was the subject born in "Racine" or in "Racine, Wisconsin"? Did he settle in "Cody" or in "Cody, Wyoming"? Under the current system you don't have to bother with questions like that. The change would make it more difficult, more hassle to improve Wikipedia. Another advantage of the current system is that it immediately conveys what KIND of article it is. An article title like "Cayucos, California" or "Sleepy Eye, Minnesota" immediately tells you that this is a geographical article, about a place in the United States. An article titled "Cayucos" or "Sleepy Eye" could be about absolutely anything. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
But to wikilink to "City" alone, you have to look up the article first. Under the status quo, I can be confident that Farmington, New Mexico links right where I want, even though I've never looked at that article. Ntsimp (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
You miss my point. Under the status quo, that link didn't require me to look up any of the umpteen other places named Farmington. If the standard were to change to "City" only for titles, then I would need to know whether or not the one I care about is unique. Ntsimp (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Requiring editors to determine whether the name of the topic to which they wish to link is ambiguous is a good thing, because that process is how missing redirects and links are discovered. For example, if instead of Farmington, New Mexico, you were linking to Amalga, Utah, under the status quo you would be unlikely to notice that there is no dab page or redirect at Amalga, as it has remained a redlink since the article at Amalga, Utah was created in 2002. However, under A, you would be forced to check and see if "Amalga" is ambiguous, and in that process you would almost certainly discover that the redirect is missing. So, you would create it, or ideally, you would move Amalga, Utah to Amalga. All good. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of article titles is not to make it easy for editors. You have provided no reason why place names in the USA are so different from everywhere else that they need special treatment, nor how their article are so different from the rest of the encyclopedia for that matter. Saying that US places require different treatment to everything else is what is known in the logic racket as special pleading - which isa logical fallacy. If the name is unique then there is no reason why the article should not be at its most concise form. Even for place names that are not unique, unless the non-primary ones are sufficiently noteable to warrant their own article (and the bare existence of a place does not make it noteable) it is not a problem. As an editor you should be concerned about which particular town you are linking to. Your argument looks simply like one of a desire to be lazy and sloppy. It is not good for the encyclopedia for editors not to take care when writing articles. Personally when editing I always check my links, it seems only polite to the reader to do so. - Nick Thornetalk02:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that the "City, state" convention is good for most cities, except the major ones noted in the AP Stylebook, because it helps the reader determine what state it is in. For example, very few people outside the Philadelphia area would know Hatboro is in Pennsylvania, so the article is titled Hatboro, Pennsylvania. In addition, most city and town names in the United States are repeated several times. Dropping the state name from unique city names would make article titles for U.S. cities confusing and inconsistent. Dough487216:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
And it makes it much easier to write articles mentioning places in the US when you don't have to look up whether or not the city needs the state.--20:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you guys reading the comments in this section? This point was already made and addressed just a few comments above. See my comment starting with, "Requiring editors ...". --Born2cycle (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
To get this back to Dohn joe's suggestion, I think this might be best of all, as it would allow for discretion. There's no reason interested editors shouldn't be able to discuss these issues on a case by case basis. Those editors who believe such discussion is a waste of time can, you know, not waste their time on it. john k (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I would not be opposed to a variation of the proposed A wording that makes it clear that the transition from the previous canonical form (city, state) to the new one (disambiguate only when necessary) may take years. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The essay you linked to suggests I link to policy instead. Very well. Claiming that Born2cycle "is prepared to be disruptive (link mine) for years until he gets his way" without evidence is incivil and a personal attack. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 09:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
And, could someone please open a Move review, or a Requested move 2, about Ann Arbor, Michigan? And could anyone please list a few hundred previously disputed city names, and open new move requests about them? Please do this before the present RFC is closed, so that these results may swing the RFC outcome. --Doncram (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Please note the moves are in varying directions. For consistency, please take care to vote "Support", "Oppose", "Oppose", "Oppose", "Oppose", or vote "Oppose", "Support", "Support", Support", "Support". Any deviations from that would be inconsistent. I would like to suggest that any votes should be discarded where the voter does not vote consistently across all 5 so far. Any local votes (identified by someone only voting in one case) should be discarded, because the voter would not be familiar with the general issue. --Doncram (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
First, this could be a canvas for votes in contradiction to other WP guidelines. Having said that, I support the current guideline based on my reasoning above. However, I think that all editors in good faith should call for a truce and call for a moratorium on all place name moves. We are in the middle of a debate/discussion that, for now, seems to be going nowhere. Any attempt to move Boise, Idaho to Boise or any similar request goes against good faith in trying to reach concensus. The same goes for any attempt to move Carmel-by-the-Sea or Ann Arbor back to the City, State convention. All these repeated moves do is piss off one side or the other and undermine our efforts to try to come up with a reasonable solution. I call for all parties to join me in calling for a moratorium on placename moves.DCmacnut<>15:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
DCmacnut and john k (he had voted already in the first one) and i have now voted in all 5. It's been suggested that calling for local voters' views to be discarded is un-American. It doesn't matter, this is Wikipedia, not america. And those of us here can far outnumber the locals voting in any one of these, so their views will be drowned out anyhow. Come on people, vote! and vote! and vote! and vote! and vote! --Doncram (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, probably so. I do think that re-opening a move request on Ann Arbor, or simply administratively moving it back, should be done. That was too quickly closed, IMO, with comment "The only opposition seems to be related to a guideline that is under discussion, and it is discussions such as this that ultimately inform the guideline, and not the other way around." It was closed with deliberate disregard for the guideline, and all the discussion setting it up, which governs! Just because a guideline is under discussion, doesn't mean it doesn't apply. It wasn't adequately understood there what are the reasons for the guideline, and it wasn't known here that a quick "win" there was intended to shape the outcome of this RFC. Also, more moves should be started so that there are an equal number of moves pending, in each direction. --Doncram (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I second DCmacnut's call for a moratorium on placename moves. Let's figure out what the Wikipedia guidelines actually are before we start applying them to articles. (Full disclosure: I opposed the Carmel-by-the-Sea move; I believe that another Wikipedia guideline that is not in dispute applies there.) --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 19:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree to a moratorium on U.S. city moves while this RFC is in progress, though I think any currently active proposals should remain active (though perhaps held open longer than they would otherwise, especially since many are not participating during the holiday period). --Born2cycle (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Corrected on both points subsequently... see following comments below. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, without looking at WP:NCDAB I took PMA's word on his assertion that it would support Carmel-by-the-Sea, California as "the more complete name". However, when I read it in context, it's only referring to cases where disambiguation in required, which is not the case for Carmel-by-the-Sea. So, yes, I agree there is no contradiction with WP:TITLE, but maybe we're both missing something and PMA can explain. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:NCDAB option 1 says "a more complete (emphasis mine) name that is equally clear and is unambigous". How does "Carmel-by-Sea, California" fit that criteria better than "Carmel-by-the-Sea"? Also, how is that option contrary to the principles of WP:TITLE? --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 10:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not particularly sympathetic to the idea of a moratorium. When you have a status quo that is one way, and editors divided about 50/50 between changing it and keeping it the same, there is absolutely no incentive for supporters of the status quo to try to find a compromise solution so long as we agree to maintain the status quo until a compromise is arrived at. The incentive for supporters of the status quo in such a situation is to refuse to compromise, knowing that if they do so, they will get their way. I don't think orchestrated campaigns of article moving are helpful, as they tend to inspire maximum resistance, but the only way we'll get a consensus-backed solution is if supporters of the status quo feel that the status quo is under threat even if they don't agree. Furthermore, what does such a moratorium mean? I have no intention myself of proposing a bunch of moves, but if somebody else who's been uninvolved in the discussion here proposes a move I support, am I supposed to oppose it on procedural grounds based on an informal agreement somewhere else? john k (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Several or all of the open move requests were started blithely by statement "[City]" already redirects here. Why not just simply call the page "[City]" instead of "[City, State]"? Just like Detroit, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee don't include the name of the state because they're so well-known, so should [City]. It would greatly enhance our readers' Wikipedia experience by simplifying. Super! That's a great way to ignore all the past discussion and consensus, and to bring to a new set of local editors the experience of debating what a policy should be. They should not be allowed to benefit from the issue having been settled, centrally, at great cost, already. All editors everywhere should be brought into this, full-time. This is firmly in the vein of warring on a grand scale. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is indeed a battleground. Bringing everyone's attention, again and again and again, to the article naming question, is very valid. This is more important than unsourced BLPs, or global warming, or developing articles, or any other conceivable issue in Wikipedia or anywhere else. Some might point out that the existing guideline, reached by consensus, IS ALREADY a moratorium, an agreement not to spend forever on this issue. But recognizing past editors' wisdom on this would be denying a few current editors the pleasure of making this their issue, their way to get not just 20 minutes, but hours and hours and hours of fame, on the important question of whether ", State" should be part of a name. Please open more move requests! And, in each one, let's get hundreds and hundreds of votes! --Doncram (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Deriding attempts to change the status quo, including by characterizing large significant numbers who disagree with your position as "a few", by someone who favors the convention that happens to currently be the status quo, smacks of being disingenuous. For someone arguing how unimportant this is, you sure seem to think it's important. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You counted up 10 A votes earlier. Suppose it is now 20 votes. 20 editors is just a few, relative to all who have been involved in this issue at different times over many years, and a tiny fraction of all who would be forced to deal with it in the next year if the guideline were changed as u wish (which is for it to be no guideline). The status quo is a decision to have a moratorium, fixed at one arbitrary level of single-word city names, and to cease with the debating. Which arbitrary level doesn't matter, but the current one is stable and works. You want to change from a stable state to a constantly changing one, with all city names always changeable. Which i pointed out would likely have further impacts on many articles which use (City, State) as secondary disambiguation. And it would also have endless impact on neighborhood/village/other community names. It is your disruptive edits over in Connecticut neighborhood articles that brought me in here, by the way. I am responding, eventually, to what i have come to perceive as an out-of-control situation, where some editors are committing themselves to endlessly disrupting Wikipedia, for no real potential gain to Wikipedia. Maybe i am becoming more conservative over time, as I find myself thinking that eventually it becomes important to try to stop the wannabe-revolutionary-type disruptive activity. --Doncram (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Proposing moves through the normal process and abiding by the results of consensus is not disruptive. It is how wikipedia is supposed to work. john k (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Common ground... Stability in naming!
Well, Doncram, I'm delighted to announce that we've discovered common ground! And that common ground is the desire for stability in naming. You see, we do want the same thing, we just disagree on how that's actually achievable in practice. You apparently believe it's possible to achieve stability through naming guidelines and conventions that indicate titles contrary to the way most other articles in WP are named (most notably, less concise and more precise than is necessary for disambiguation), and I don't believe that's possible, not in the long run.
I too want a stable state, a state that is as stable as any WP articles can get; the same relatively stable state that the other articles are in... the vast majority are stable, but a small minority are renamed from time to time. I know of no reason to believe that U.S. city articles should, or could, be artificially named into a state more stable than that.
My vision of stability is every WP article titled in a manner that is as compliant with the general criteria at WP:TITLE as is reasonably possible, because once an article is that compliant with those criteria, there is no justification to change it. That's real long-term stability. But the converse is also true... as long as articles remain at titles that are not as compliant with those criteria as they could be, there will, eventually, be pressure and desire to change it. The desire for consistency is just that fundamental to human nature... just look at the numbers of people who came here and asked, why should U.S. cities be named differently? As long as so many U.S. city articles remain unnecessarily disambiguated, that question will never have a satisfactory answer, and the pressure to change will remain. That's not stability. That's a pressure cooker ready to blow.
The current state of every article, U.S. city or not, that has a more concise and no less natural and recognizable name redirecting to it is unstable because it could be at that more concise title instead, which means better compliance with the naming criteria. U.S. city articles are no exception to this. You and I will be long gone from WP and there will always be people around who will want to bring titles into better compliance with the criteria. So, as long as U.S. city articles that don't require disambiguation remain disambiguated, the state of their names remains inherently unstable. It's like a snow bank sitting on the side of steep cliff. It looks stable - it's not moving at all - but the energy is stored up inside, waiting to let loose at any time, sometimes without warning. The only way to true stability is to let nature takes its course. Let gravity do what it needs to do. Don't try to artificially hold it up there. Allow the names to gravitate to more conciseness and less unnecessary precision. Only then will they be stable. You might be able to delay it a bit, maybe even years, by propping them up artificially, but sooner or later it's going to give . It might be a little bit at first [1], [2], [3][3][4], until it finally lets loose, but ultimately letting nature take its course is the only path to true stability. Why fight it? [5], [6]. It can only delay the inevitable. See Also: Resistance is futile.
Letting nature takes its course in the context of Wikipedia article naming means allowing articles to be named consistently with the general naming criteria at WP:TITLE, including not objecting to titles that are more concise, and not objecting to the removal of precision in titles than is not necessary for disambiguation. Those of us who favor stability really need to support A, because we're not going to get the stability we desire otherwise. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, we would; we need two things, and two things only:
We need to explainC, which is not immediately obvious, in the guideline.
We need to ignore Born2Cycle's persistent and solitary efforts to destabilize.
On the other hand A cannot be stable; whether a name is unique, or primary usage will change as names and population shift; and the idea of having the articles in a category similar will always encourage movement towards C.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to suggest that what's going on are "solitary" efforts by Born2cycle to destabilize things. The discussion above has shown that many people agree with him that we should move to make US city guidelines more in line with broader naming guidelines; recent moves of Ann Arbor and Carmel-by-the-Sea had nothing to do with Born2cycle. john k (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out John. The hyperbole and mischaracterization to which you respond is very unhelpful in terms of finding consensus in a discussion like this.
The only truly destabilizing factor here is the current wording of the U.S. city guideline. It was causing consternation and debate long before you and I became involved, and, if it's not changed to something close to A, will continue long after we're gone.
Many of the AP cities like Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles etc. each had a tumultuous naming/renaming history, similar to what Las Vegas, Nevada and many non-AP cities that are supposed to remain unnecessarily at city, state per the current "C" wording now have (e.g. Carmel-by-the-Sea, Ann Arbor, Boise, Idaho, etc.) until the convention was adopted to allow them to be at their concise names. Once the cities on the AP list were moved to their concise names, there has been nothing but peace and stability with respect to their names (as far as I know, without a single exception).
I am aware of no reason to believe that the remaining U.S. cities with unambiguous names would not also be blessed with the same peace and stability once they are allowed to be moved to their unambiguous concise names. And, again, this prediction is based not only on the stability observed with respect to U.S. city names on the AP list, but also on other categories of articles that moved from conventions to predisambiguate, which caused conflict and tumult, to disambiguating only when necessary for disambiguation, which brought on peace and stability.
From city names in Canada, Australia, Philippines, etc., to names of TV series, TV episodes, movies, films, military bases, company names, car models, actors, sports figures, etc., etc., the natural law of Wikipedia is clear: if naming stability is sought, disambiguate only when necessary; otherwise, use the plain natural concise name of the subject. There is no reason for this natural law of Wikipedia to not also apply to the articles about U.S. cities. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
A compromise idea
What do all of you think about using a population threshold as a compromise solution? Many of the objections to changing the convention come from those opposed to dropping the state name for villages and towns that aren't well known. If we use population as a guideline (a minimum of 100,000 people? 200,000 people?), then we would move only the articles for larger cities, and only when they are the name's primary topic. We would then have articles at Tampa and Tulsa, but the Amalga, Utah article would not be moved, nor would those for cities like Buffalo, New York and Syracuse, New York that are not primary topics. - Eureka Lott00:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a fair critique, but I can't think of a dividing line that isn't in some way arbitrary. The discussion above has convinced me that we're unlikely to reach an all-or-nothing consensus anytime soon. A compromise of some sort may stand the greatest chance of obtaining consensus. - Eureka Lott08:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The debate could easily go on for 5, 10, 15 or 20 years... perhaps longer... as long as nature continues to be blocked from taking its course. This course was set many years ago when most U.S. cities were either created or renamed with the artificially (via bot) imposed city, state format. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea to the handful that made that decision, as it still seems like a good idea to some today. But the result is two fixed magnets pulling in opposite directions. The WP:TITLE magnet is pulling towards concise titles with no unnecessary precision, while the current U.S city guideline wording pulls in the direction of predisambiguation. There is no way to resolve this without moving one of the magnets next to the other to align them so that they are pulling in the same consistent direction, and there is just no way that the WP:TITLE magnet is going to move in the direction of U.S. city one with respect to conciseness and precision, because that would mean moving every article in WP that has a unique title or is the primary topic. That's why the debate will necessarily go on as long as the U.S. city guideline/convention contains to maintain that city, state is the canonical form. The only route to stability and ending this debate is via increased compliance with WP:TITLE... no unnecessary precision. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The argument about precision is a red herring. WP:PRECISION cannot override WP:COMMONNAME. The argument is about whether most US places are most commonly referred to (outside their localities) as Placename, State. I believe that most people use that format in ordinary speech in the U.S. because, with a few well-known exceptions, they cannot otherwise be sure that their audience will know which place they are talking about (i.e. they cannot be sure that there is not another place with the same name in a different state). That I think is the rationale for the current WP convention. And from a practical point of view, the convention gives stability - avoiding many primary topic arguments, avoiding the need to keep researching whether a placename is duplicated elsewhere in the U.S. and avoiding renaming whenever someone creates an article about a place with the same name in a different state.
If we were to ignore WP:COMMONNAME and follow the "worldwide naming convention" (insofar as there is one) for the US, we would use "Placename", except where disambiguation is required, when we would use "Placename, United States", unless the name was ambiguous within the US. Does anyone want that? If not, why not? Maybe something to do with how places are usually described in the US. --Mhockey (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Nobody wants that, because when disambiguation is required we use forms of disambiguation that are actually used in the real world. Furthermore, I suspect you will be unable to find very many places that are unique within the United States, but ambiguous with places outside it. As far as using "City, State," in ordinary speech, people keep saying this, but I don't think it's actually particularly true. Obviously, in cases with truly ambiguous city-names, like Springfield or Portland, people will use the "City, State" form to make clear which one they mean. In other situations, it really depends on the context, and the particularly city. Somebody saying "Dayton, Ohio" in conversation would not seem odd to me. But somebody saying "Colorado Springs, Colorado" or "Sacramento, California" seems rather bizarre. I think it's worth noting in this context that the standard form for non-wikipedia reference works is to simply use the city-name in all cases. Looking at other encyclopedias and the like is one tool we use to determine common usage. john k (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
To the extent that the novel WP:COMMONNAME argument might even be valid for supporting city, state, it needs to be argued on a case-by-case basis, for each U.S. city article individually, just as it does for every other article in Wikipedia. I will note that that is not the case at the current discussion of, say, Talk:Sacramento, California#Requested move, where the only mention of WP:COMMONNAME is from me in support of the move proposal, not from anyone in opposition who favors leaving it at "Sacramento, California". Almost everyone in opposition cites this (disputed) guideline as justification for not moving. And rightfully so, I might add, because it's the only reasonable justification.
After all, reliable sources like the LA Times typically use only "Sacramento" to refer to that city. [5], [6], [7]. But that's a California paper, you protest? Well yes, but if "Sacramento, California" really was its most common name, then the California paper from a city 350 miles away would use "Sacramento, California" too. Besides, the NY Times, 3,000 miles away, also uses just "Sacramento". [8], [9], [10], [11]. Or is not going by usage in reliable sources to determine common name yet another exception for U.S. city articles?
The argument that the WP:PRECISION argument is a red herring and that city, state is justified by WP:COMMONNAME is simply wrong. The only reason ", state" is used for even the most obscure towns with ambiguous names is to clarify which town with that name is being referred to, and/or to be clear about which state the city with that name is in, not because the ", state" is part of its name. We are doing a disservice to our readers by implying otherwise. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that a population threshold would be arbitrary (and it doesn't preclude future haggling over population estimates, boundaries &c). I think there's an underlying issue which the population rule tries to address - ambiguity/familiarity of demonyms - and I'd rather address that directly; so we'd have a BigCity article which stands on its own as readers can be assumed to know what its about, but TinyVille gets a qualifier. However, part of me would be happy with any rule that we can actually get people to agree on (even if it's a silly rule) and I think this proposal is a step in the right direction. bobrayner (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
How about the novel and unprecedented idea of following the usage of a primary American-speaking source (the Associated Press), except for those cases (like Phoenix, Arizona against Phoenix) where our scope is wider than the AP's and runs into other ambiguities? That's the line we have; and it is a compromise.
Quite seriously; the problem here is an editor who has just declared repeatedly there will be no stability unless he gets his way. All other difficulties can be dealt with by explaining why there is sentiment for a bright line between Great Cities and little villages, and why we have chosen the one we have (whatever it is). SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that. The real problem is that this editor has chosen to ignore the language at WP:TITLE that says "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." And even more to the point, Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." Not my words - the words of WP:TITLE. --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment I often see the argument here "why should American cities be treated differently from the rest of the world?" The obvious answer is that the conventions listed at WP:PLACE have separate sections for many countries, not just the United States. But a more subtle reason has become clear in the discussion here: that routinely naming places as "City, State" is an Americanism - maybe not familiar to the rest of the world, but common here for many reasons (partly because of the size of the country and the common duplication of city names; partly because the states are so important to our thinking in terms of government, history, and identity; even our name "the United States" reflects the importance of the states in our thinking). The convention at Wikipedia is to respect that kind of national speech variant, not to insist on uniformity from one country to another. For example, we discuss how to name the "neighborhoods" of American cities; nobody insists that we talk about "neighbourhoods" instead. It seems to me that routinely naming places as "City, State" is a valid form of American English and should be treated as such - not eliminated because they don't talk that way in other English-speaking countries. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
If you don't care about article naming, why are you here? Just ignore naming disputes and focus on the more important things you actually care about. My general feeling is that "Why are you wasting so much time talking about names? They don't matter!" is a line that always comes not from people who don't care about naming, but from people who prefer the status quo, which isn't the same thing at all. john k (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
So why is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC being ignored here? How may Tulsas, Tucsons, Las Vegases, and Sacramentos can there be that disambiguation is necessary? If there's only one city (or topic) with that name, then there should be no reason to disambiguate. Using the "AP list" doesn't help. This is an encyclopedia. Not a newspaper.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
PRIMARYTOPIC is a useful guideline for a general approach, but per policy at Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions, it is permissible to have a subject-specific neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain. Rather than an endless cycle of RM discussions about PRIMARYTOPIC, the neutral and common convention in this subject area provides stability for article names. That saves editors from wasting time discuss the primariness or otherwise of one topic after another, and fixing the resulting links. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Rather than a not actually endless cycle of RM discussions about PRIMARYTOPIC, which has, in most cases, already been resolved by the question of whether "City" redirects to "City, State" or is a disambiguation page, we have an endless cycle of RM discussions and guideline discussions as it is. I find it astonishing that anyone would say that the current guideline is saving anybody any time and preventing any arguments. I will add that I generally don't even understand the idea about "saving editors from wasting time." If anybody doesn't want to "waste time" with move discussions they are free to, you know, not waste time with move discussions. Either the location of the article is important or it isn't. If it is important, then it's not "wasting time" to debate where pages should be. If it isn't important, then there's no reason to argue because you shouldn't care about where the article is. john k (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
That is part of the problem. The assumption that cities are always the primary topic or that one city has to be the primary topic is a big part of the problem. In practice, cities are not always the primary topic. One specific city may not be the primary topic. The sooner everyone realizes that allowing a dab page at the main name space is not a bad thing the better off we will all be. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
But if there are no other cities or topics sharing the exact same name, then it pretty much is the primary topic. I don't see any other titles that are solely "Ann Arbor" or "Tallahassee". Everything else is disambiguated. The city does not have to be in this case. Disambiguation is only for differentiating between identically named articles. Not for an "explicit convention" when it comes to one city for which there is no other topic that shares its name. It's clear that this neutral convention as you call it is clearly not very neutral, or is possibly too neutral.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You are arguing with a straw man. Nobody is saying that cities are always the primary topic or that one city has to be the primary topic. Portland obviously has no primary topic. Neither do Springfield or Kansas City. In some cases, however, one city is the primary topic. Such cases include Ann Arbor, Tallahassee, Sacramento, and so forth. These are the cases this discussion is meant to address. Note that in the cases where we are already allowed to use the short name, in the AP lists, we already exclude Phoenix, Arizona because it is not the primary topic. john k (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyone for mediation?
After several weeks of discussion, it seems that the guideline is no closer to consensus than when the discussion began. There are two pretty entrenched camps, fairly equal in size (with the edge going to the status quo), and thus far, I haven't noticed anyone switching positions (although a couple of compromise ideas have been floated, including one from me). And history suggests that even when this particular discussion peters out, it will come back (with or without the current participants) periodically.
So does anyone want to give mediation a shot? We could have a representative from camp A and one from camp C. Maybe a third party whose goal is to gain consensus (rather than push a particular position) can actually find satisfactory common ground. Any thoughts from the regular contributors? Dohn joe (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
For the record, the !votes are running about 2:1 in favor of the status quo which is as close to consensus as a topic like this is as likely to reach and hardly "equal in size" at all. - Dravecky (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
For the record, currently the vote is 26 in favor of A, to 37 in favor of C, which is 58% in favor of the status quo, and not terribly close to "2:1 in favor of the status quo." For much of the life of the discussion, the parties have been close to equally balanced. (I'd also add that many of the votes for the status quo seem to be largely based on misunderstanding what's at issue, as the frequent C votes asking "But what about Portland? There's two of them!" demonstrate. Wikipedia's not a democracy, and votes based on active misunderstanding of what's going on shouldn't be given the same weight as informed votes.) john k (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I think John K and Born2cycle are of the camp wishing to vacate any convention, and find it amusing now that they speak up in favor of mediation, after recent independent !votes and recent decisions in actual REquested Moves have gone against them. In fact i was irked before when John K glibly dismissed something i wrote, in these edits. He and Born2cycle are only willing/wanting to deal now, now that a lot has changed. They had their chance in an RFC which could have possibly gone heavily their way. There's no need to give further to them.
I Oppose mediation in anything like this format. I am serious. I do value consensus; i have worked in consensus processes; i have learned about decision-making in various academic ways; i am interested in groups coming to compromises and other solutions in general.
But here, I think it is predictable that in a mediation as proposed, with one or a few representatives from each of two opposing camps, with a mediator seeking compromise, that no agreement can be found unless one representative accidentally or on purpose sells out their side. The mediator would just be trying hard to get some compromise temporarily accepted, then would declare victory and run away without having to deal with the consequences. The camp for changing the convention to anything else, would settle for anything else for now, to get some movement, but would not hold to any agreement. That camp includes parties who have expressed their personal long-term commitment to eradicating the convention, however long it takes, whatever they have to do. I don't think anyone can sensibly negotiate with parties like that, honestly. The camp for having the convention as is, is pretty stable, and should not rationally change its position. That is in fact reasonable; it is not merely some evil expression of raw power. I am in that camp, and believe the current standard is in fact the best possible convention: simple, clear, useful, stable, predictable, good for business climate. I don't see the other camp working out any reasonable other convention that would be stable and have any good properties. Honestly i don't think anyone should be allowed to negotiate with any power to agree with that other camp. --Doncram (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I am dismayed by the fatalism and the camp/battleground mentality conveyed in this comment, Doncram, and choose to respond by quoting liberally from WP:BATTLEGROUND:
Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. ...In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia— especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction with the main goal of disrupting Wikipedia’s fundamental decision–making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints.
I suggest we all follow the advise from WP:BATTLEGROUND and "work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints" that apply to this large dispute, and I would think a good mediator could only help us do that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I wish editors who quote policies would make sure they are following them. WP is not a place to carry on ideological battles and it is inappropriate to try to build a faction to carry one those battles. Will Bebacktalk01:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
As the editor who quoted that policy, you seem to be clearly implying here that I am "carrying on ideological battles" and "trying to build a faction". You of course have no evidence for that accusation Will, because it's not true. That ideological battles refers to political ideologies, religious ideologies, etc. All I'm trying to do is bring all article titles in compliance with the principle naming criteria specified in Wikipedia policy as much as is reasonably possible. If you think that amounts to "carrying on ideological battles", that's misunderstanding "ideological battles".
So, Will, are you willing "to work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints", or not? With a mediator? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, with that broad of an interpretation of "ideology" (which I don't think is the intent there), you have to include your own carrying on of the "ideology" that favors the comma convention.
Again, are you willing "to work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints", or not? With a mediator? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If the most active editors here will promise to stop making this their principle topic of editing then I'll support them in that good faith effort to reduce the battlefield atmosphere that has developed around this dispute. Will Bebacktalk02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The issue here is not editor behavior, it is the wording of this guideline. The advice at WP:BATTLEGROUND is simple: "work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints". It is not, "work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints, but only if other editors agree to demands that you set which have nothing to do with working in good faith to find broad principles of agreement." As your condition is irrelevant and inappropriate, practically speaking, your answer is no. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I already worked in good faith with you and we agreed to a compromise. Now you're no longer accepting that compromise. I don't see how investing further time into finding an agreement that will be discarded later is useful. I'll register my opinions and views, but don't expect me to negotiate temporary compromises. I've already been burned once. Will Bebacktalk09:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Will, that AP city compromise occurred in August of 2007. At that time there was clear consensus support for the convention, with the AP list exceptions. I waited over three years before suggesting we check on the state of consensus support for that convention again. Not three months. Not six months... but well over three years. You call that a temporary compromise? You expect to do better in Wikipedia? Really? And if the result of this survey was that the current wording enjoyed consensus support, I would have backed off after the first week or so. But, as you know, that's not the case. If you guys don't agree to mediation, I really think we're all going to have to take our chances with arbitration.
Decisions are made by consensus in WP, and the fact is that right now there is no consensus regarding this issue. If we can't work out a compromise that consensus today supports, then we are forced to go to arbitration. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
What if you're wrong and something will be accomplished? What have you got to lose? Oh, that's right, since you like the status quo, you've got everything to lose. No wonder you see nothing to be gained by mediation.
The reason I don't see any point to "mediation" is that mediation assumes that some middle ground can be found that will be acceptable to everyone. But how can there be any middle ground between "change it" vs. "leave it as it is"? No wonder you see something to be gained by mediation - the only possible "middle ground" between our positions would involve some kind of change. (In my experience it is almost always the party losing the dispute who calls for mediation; they have everything to gain and nothing to lose.)
In any case, mediation is for "disputes between editors," and that's not what we have here; what we have is a discussion about Wikipedia conventions, which can ONLY be resolved through consensus. The consensus seems to be leaning toward retaining the current convention, either because a majority favor it, or because there is no consensus to change which defaults to "keep" - but the "change it" people seem to be unwilling to accept that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere in WP:M that policy disputes among groups of editors can not reach a consensus through mediation. I really see it as kind of a bad faith move to try to stonewall one's way out of having to find a common ground just because a continued lack of consensus favors one's position. Also, I think it is a hypocritical to complain about continued discussion on this subject, when refusing to go through processes which could resolve the dispute.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If you are implying that I am declining mediation simply to defend a lack of consensus - in effect, stalling to preserve the tie - that is false. It's pretty clear that a majority here favor keeping things the way they are. My point in mentioning "no consensus" was that the "change" faction are still a very long way from obtaining consensus for their arguments, and without a clear consensus they are not going to get their change. The reason I am dubious about mediation is because I can't imagine any "compromise" or "middle ground" proposal that wouldn't make the naming situation worse. Right now the rule is very simple, very clear, unambiguous, everyone understands it, everyone knows without any research what to name a particular American city - namely, use City, State except for those named exceptions which are supported by a Reliable Source, namely, the AP Manual of Style. Completely straightforward, completely Wikipedian, can be summed up in a few words. The minute we move away from this toward some kind of undefined "middle ground", we are opening the door to endless arguments about whether a particular city or class of cities should be an exception, based on little more than people's hunches and feelings. (Half a dozen such arguments are going on right now at various city talk pages, all because Born2cycle proposed a dispute to this convention and then flagged it as "disputed" on the project page here.) I would not favor any "compromise" which undermines the clarity and stability of the current naming system, and I can't imagine any compromise that wouldn't. That's why I see no point to mediation, where the goal is usually to find some kind of middle ground. I would like to see somebody close this discussion with a clear statement that consensus still favors the existing convention, coupled with a recommendation that the opponents of the convention drop their objections and respect it for at least another few years. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Just saying there is a consensus doesn't make it so, opinions are decidedly split on this issue. And in a situation like this it just doesn't work to have one party simply reject all negotiation. You may not get it right as you want through a compromise, but that is kinda the definition of a compromise, that nobody gets what they want. Well, except peace, because I see no way this issue goes away by just refusing negotiation. That's only a way to get this problem more entrenched. Oh, and if it really is simplicity you are looking for, then I can't think of a more simple solution than to just do away with all exceptions, and name all US cities in accordance with WP:title.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The demand for "negotiation" and "compromise" could become simply a back-door way of undermining and ultimately destroying the existing convention, without ever gaining consensus to do so. All that would be needed under that strategy is to challenge the existing convention every year or two, then demand a "compromise" which waters down the naming convention or creates more exceptions. Then another challenge and a further demand for compromise. After a few rounds of this, the convention would be so muddled that fewer and fewer people would rise to defend it. Basically it could be a nibble-away strategy (since an all-or-nothing strategy isn't working). That seems like it would be a terrible way to determine a Wikipedia convention. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, that sort of strategy would only work if you could consistently get about half the editors involved for keep changing the existing convention/guideline. I agree that it would be unreasonable to ask for compromise if only a couple people supported this proposal. But that is not the case here, there are quite a lot for changing this convention. And I in general don't see anything wrong with instituting change though a piecemeal approach. There might be many reasons why people do not want big changes all at once.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
That's right. And through such a process sooner or later you get to wording that has consensus support. But if this process is not allowed to take its natural course, then we stay in this no consensus limbo state of instability. The fact is that if the comma convention with the AP caveat had consensus support, then there would be no justification to seek change We don't need consensus to justify change - change is justified as long as we don't have consensus. --Born2cycle (talk)
We are going through 2 of the recommended dispute resolutions processes that are recommended at wp:DR, namely running a RFC and conducting a Survey. It has been pointed out that a compromise was previously reached (3 years ago). I think what is going on is that the then-compromiser doesn't like that compromise and doesn't like the RFC and survey results so far, and that is what is hypocritical, to try one or two or three approaches and then seek a fourth approach only because the first three didn't yield what you wanted. I argued above against delegating power for a negotiated outcome, in part because i don't believe any new negotiated outcome would really be accepted (I think it would have to be a compromise of some kind, while the current convention is in fact best, and any other convention would be less stable). Maybe i don't properly see how a mediation could be run more imaginatively. I think the opposers of the current convention haven't done enough: their proposal "A" is too vague. They could work to come up with an actual compromise that would be stable, but they would have an uphill battle to convince me that they would really support their new proposed compromise permanently. --Doncram (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
What is vague about proposal A? The proposed wording is essentially identical to that used for naming cities in most other countries. If it's not "too vague" for them, why is it "too vague" for the U.S.? This is the first objection to it I've heard on those grounds.
Again, the current wording lacks consensus support. Whether we use mediation to help us or not, we should be focussed on finding wording that has consensus support. Since A-like wording has consensus support for naming cities in other countries, it makes sense to use it for the U.S. too. Perhaps this excerpt from WP:CONSENSUS will help.
Consensus can change
Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed.
Anyway, if your "too vague" objection to A was made in good faith, please explain what you mean. Then maybe someone can come up with an alternative. That's how we build consensus. The other way is to start from common broad based principles, which is what I tried to do in the section below this one, but no one seems to be interested in doing that. Overall, there seems to be little interest in developing wording that has consensus support. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's not rehash arguments (or even present new ones), at least in this section. This section should be simply for figuring out whether mediation might be at all worth exploring. Dohn joe (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I was gonna say the same as Born2cycle, consensus can change, and there clearly isn't consensus for the current wording of the convention. Many of those here probably weren't there 3 years ago. 3 years is a really long time on Wikipedia. About WP:DR, I don't see anywhere it says anything about stopping at certain number of different tried approaches. A "no consensus" situation should be satisfactory to no-one, and I can not see what is wrong with trying to resolve a situation like that. It is wrong to think that Born2cycle is the only one who wants this convention changed just because he has been the one pursuing it most actively. About mediation, no-one says each side has to choose just one to argue their party's case, you, as well as anyone else who wants, can participate in the mediation process.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Doncram is correct that this forum is part of the dispute resolution process. But mediation is another step that is there precisely to address the case where earlier steps have failed to resolve the dispute. And as a non-voter/observer, I think it's fair to say this dispute has not been resolved. Despite Dravecky's claim above, no option has garnered 60% to date. New people continue to weigh in on one side or the other nearly daily.
So what can mediation achieve? The hope is, peace. Even if it's temporary. Three years of not having to worry about what's going on in this talkpage would seem to be an actual achievement to me.
And what would a peaceful outcome look like? I don't know. Maybe there is a middle ground that is acceptable. After all, the AP list itself was a compromise that brought peace for three years. Or maybe the mediator could get camp A to see that the AP list is the middle ground, that A is not a winnable position as things stand, and everyone goes home. Again, I don't know. But just because we can't envision an acceptable outcome doesn't mean that there isn't one. Does anyone from camp C at least agree that an acceptable outcome that puts an end to this discussion is possible? Dohn joe (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Demonstrate good faith: find broad principles of agreement
Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints.
So, to demonstrate "good faith to find broad principles of agreement", please identify which of the following broad naming principles you agree or disagree with. Most are direct copy/paste statements from WP:TITLE, but a few I've customized to be specific to this discussion.
Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article.
There will often be several possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus.
An ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject.
Titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English.
Titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
Shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones.
Titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above.
When most similar articles follow a certain pattern, it is generally preferred to have any other similar articles follow that pattern as well, even if doing so is not in accordance with the principal criteria above.
When most articles follow a certain pattern, for those cities that have unambiguous names which are concise, natural and obvious, following this pattern does not indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above (i.e., 5 & 7), and so those articles with concise, obvious and unambiguous names should not follow this pattern, but should use the shorter title comprised solely of the unambiguous, concise and obvious name instead.
Most articles will have a simple and obvious title that is better than any other in terms of most or all of [the above] ideal criteria. If so, use it, as a straightforward choice.
For any article with an unambiguous, simple, concise and obvious name, the "simple and obvious title that is better than any other in terms of most or all of [the above] ideal criteria" is the plain undisambiguated name of the article's subject, and so should be used "as a straightforward choice.", even when similar articles follow a pattern that indicates adding additional precision to the title that is not necessary for disambiguation.
Titles about places should reflect "common usage" of the area they are about as reflected in reliable sources.
If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed
Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.
Please list which you agree with, and which you disagree with. If you disagree, please explain why. Not sure if I should go first or wait. Unless urged to do otherwise, I'll hold off for now. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: I responded to this request, immediately below, but Born2cycle separated my comments off from his by inserting a heading, "Comments unrelated to finding broad principles of agreement". Since my comments actually were intended to identify broad principles of agreement (just not HIS principles), I deleted the separating heading. He then restored it (giving it a somewhat more neutral name "Further discussion"), and accused me on my talk page of being "blatantly and purposefully disruptive" for removing the heading. I have said what I wanted to say and I am done, but I wanted the rest of you to understand how insistently Born2cycle tries to control and define the terms of this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I've done my best to reflect any relevant general principles from your comment below as 13-15. Please let me know if I missed anything important. Now, will you please indicate which ones you agree with so that you actually respond to the request above as you just claimed you already did? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Further discussion
I'm sick and tired of arguing with you about this, so I will state my case once and be done. I hold that "city, state" is an Americanism; it's such a common way of naming cities here that it should be treated as a regionalism, similar to the way articles defer to local usage in spelling (honour vs. honor, defense vs. defence). The rest of the world may not name cities that way, but we do, and that should be respected. Now that this discussion has alerted me to it, I have noticed how absolutely standard it is in American speech and writing. I noticed it, for instance, on the radio program "Wait, wait, don't tell me..." the other day. Every single contestant introduced himself/herself by saying "I am so-and-so from Des Moines, Iowa." "I am so-and-so from Flint, Michigan." It is absolutely and completely the way we name cities in this country. That is not just my opinion or original research; it is backed up by the authority of the AP Manual of Style. Here at Wikipedia we are supposed to give deference to Reliable Sources. That's my case: common usage (following the American pattern rather than artificially conforming to the way it is done in the rest of the world) and Reliable Sources (the Manual of Style). Not to mention the guidance from WP:NAME that I have quoted repeatedly because I think it absolutely describes this situation and your drive to change it: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed" and "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Melanie, I find it odd that in a section specifically created to find agreement on general principles, you post yet another comment of disagreement, most ironically starting with the statement that you're sick of arguing. Well, then, stop arguing, and show good faith by trying to find agreement on general principles. For example, how about distilling some general principles from your statement above, and offering those as potential points on which we can all agree. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
There you go again, insisting that only the principles YOU wish to discuss are valid, or that all comments here must be in response to what YOU wish to talk about. If you had read my statement you would see that I DID distill general principles, two of them. My general principles are just as valid as yours, and I stated them much more succinctly: Common Usage and Reliable Sources. Those should be potential points on which we can all agree.
BTW I find it interesting that you are still trying to control the discussion and respond to every post, after you were begged to cut it out by a number of people (including some on your side), and you responded less than a week ago, "Okay. For the duration of this RFC I plan to limit my posts here to only those comments that are discussing something with me personally, plus maybe a few per week, no more than 5, of the "unsolicited" variety. Will that help? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)"
In fact I had to try twice to even get this comment posted: edit conflict! You asked for my comments, but you won't stop posting long enough for me to get a word in edgewise. --MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I encourage you to propose any general principles you wish to the discussion, but your comment went so far beyond that, that no general principles were evident at all, at least not to me. Are you suggesting that "common usage" and "reliable sources" are general principles? Principles are usually stated as, well, statements.
I'm just trying to have a discussion with you about this. If you don't like it, don't participate. I took the "you" in your first sentence as a reference to me, so your comment as one discussing something with me personally, so these replies don't count as unsolicited comments. If you don't want me to respond, don't address me or respond directly to what I posted. When you made this argument previously, without referring to me, I did not respond. So then you repeat it, and I respond, and you complain about that. Odd. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
As to this argument, no one here has denied that city, state is a common way to refer to places in the United States, particularly when context is unknown. This is no revelation. Sure, in a national context, it is common to identify where one is from by city and state. No denying that. But if you ask any such person, "what is the name of the city you are from?" (as opposed to "where are you from?"), I suggest in most cases the state will not be mentioned, even if the name is ambiguous. Don't believe me? Try it yourself. Call your friends, try it at the office... and ask them this specific question: What is the NAME of the city you are from?, and write down the answers for each person you ask.
Anyway, yes, city, state is an Americanism, as you say, but it's an Americanism for identifying a name and general location, not just a name, and article titles are supposed to reflect names, whenever possible. It is not the job of a title to provide additional context, unless doing so is necessary for disambiguation with other uses of that name. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
A random survey of co-workers as guidance in preference to the Associated Press guidebook? Fascinating. James is from Paris, Texas, but he just said "Paris". Dell is from Italy, Texas, and he said "Italy, Texas". Bob is from West, Texas, and he said "West, Texas" but maybe he said "West Texas"--so hard to tell with Bob's accent. Robyn is from Jasper, Missouri, but she just said "Jasper" so let's pretend she's from Jasper, Texas, so she's not the only non-Texan (other than me) in the room. Say, this random surveying technique is so much easier than using reliable sources or actual research. I look forward to your moving Venus to Venus (planet) (over the redirect) since the guys (and Robyn) all thought of Venus, Texas, first when I said "Venus". (Or, we can agree that unscientific surveys of small groups of random people is no way to run an encyclopedia.) - Dravecky (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Some issues don't require scientific surveys to resolve. I doubt a scientific survey was ever used to resolve a WP naming issue.
The AP guidebook, by the way, addresses how to identify where a story occurred, not just the name of the city. The AP simply determined that the state in which some cities is located is so well known that there is no need to identify the state in the dateline. WP titles are not datelines. WP titles generally do not identify where the topic is located, but only how it is commonly called, unless extra precision is required for disambiguation which happens to identify where the topic is located. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
By the way, your equally strong preference for the neighborhood, city and/or neighborhood, city, state conventions for neighborhoods (which are not at all a common way to refer to those topics) strongly suggests that this whole Americanism argument in favor of the city, state naming convention because it is the "common way" for naming cities is just a rationalization conceived after you decided you liked it (as do your own words "Now that this discussion has alerted me to it"), not actually a reason that convinced you in the first place. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I do have a couple of observations on why we Americans are so attached to 'City, State'. Many years ago, when I was first in college, I would occasionally find a letter in my mailbox addressed to a girl who lived in North Hall, but in Gainesville, Georgia, rather than in Gainesville, Florida. I did not even know there was a Gainesville, Georgia until then. Of course, growing up in Florida, the only Jacksonville I'd ever heard of was Jacksonville, Florida, but when I was stationed in North Carolina, I noticed that people there assumed that Jacksonville meant Jacksonville, North Carolina. And when I worked in a bus station, I found that the only way I could get a package sent on to Gainesville, Texas, instead of having it repeatedly turn up in Gainesville, Florida, was to hide the Gainesville part of the address and send to Dallas, Texas, where I figured they would know to send it to Gainesville, Texas. In the U.S., what is meant by a plain city name is very strongly affected what city of that name is closest to the speaker/listener, even if that name also applies to a much larger city elsewhere. -- Donald Albury11:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Jacksonville would seem likely to be a primary topic. Jacksonville already redirects to Jacksonville, Florida, for example. Although Gainesville, Florida, is the best known Gainesville, I'd say that "Gainesville" has no primary topic, and would not be affected by the proposal to change the conventions. There are other cases more extreme than Jacksonville - I'd imagine that, in spite of the existence of a tiny unincorporated community in Georgia called "Tallahassee," that virtually anywhere except Jeff Davis County, Georgia (pop. 12,684), "Tallahassee" refers to the city in Florida. john k (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment I believe many here are pointing to the sentence "Be precise but only as precise as is needed" in WP:PRECISION. As I wrote above, that would not be a positive reason to change things due to the likelihood of further assumption, original research, argument, voting, and acrimony which would result with a change in guidance. It is not feasible or possible to state using reliable sources and verifiable documentation which way (with ", State" or not) a U.S. geographic location is described will be "as precise as is needed" to any given reader. Combine that with the fact that here in the U.S. it is customary (Ben MacDui cites WP:ENGVAR in agreeing with others) and considered polite to use the state when describing a location to people not living within a few hours drive of the place. I have avoided saying much here in part because it contains one of the more extreme examples of wikilawyering in arguments by some of the parties, especially Born2cycle, that I have ever witnessed. The quality of arguments in favor of the status quo greatly exceeds the ability of others to filibuster for a change. At this point, I think the end has been reached and mediation is not only not called for, but would represent a disruption. Please understand that the current three year old system represents customary and courteous usage, and that certain editors' own POV and tenacity in failing to see that should not be allowed to continue to distract from that fact. Sswonk (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I've questioned the basis for your prediction about further acrimony, etc. above.
Is this supposed to be an example of the "high quality" arguments in favor of keeping the status quo? I, for one, am not impressed. I concede that it may not be "feasible or possible to state using reliable sources and verifiable documentation which way (with ", State" or not) a U.S. geographic location is described will be 'as precise as is needed' to any given reader", but that's not relevant here. I suggest you take another look at WP:TITLE. "Only as precise as needed" is the abridged version. The full version is: "only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously". This determination is one of the most straight-forward and objective editorial decisions we ever have to make.
In short, if a there is no other use of a topic's undisambiguated name in Wikipedia, or the use of the name to refer to that topic meets primary topic criteria, then the name alone is "as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously", by definition. We need to do this for every title in Wikipedia, and it's no more challenging or difficult for U.S. cities than for any other topics. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It is customary and considered polite to say "I just got back from a trip to Boston, Massachusetts"? That sounds like something a hayseed would say. So does, for that matter, "I just got back from Sacramento, California," to give an example not covered by the AP list. Or "My parents moved to Fort Lauderdale, Florida." Nobody in the real world actually says any of those things. Obviously in cases of obvious ambiguity like "Portland, Oregon," or "Springfield, Missouri," one would typically include the state. It would, I think, also be reasonable to argue that for smaller places and little known suburbs (even ones that are relatively populous) one typically includes the state. "Chula Vista" is probably close to unique, but it would not be at all odd to hear somebody say they were in "Chula Vista, California." The same does not, however, apply to reasonably well known and historically important cities. To give another example, the phrase is not "will it play in Peoria, Illinois?" john k (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
No one is saying we always include the state name in every spoken or written instance, particularly local; many people are saying it is common to include the state name in at least one mention (usually the first) within a publication or even in speech that is directed at a broad audience. In speech, my experience most people will simply use the state name first. "Where are you from?" "Florida." "What part?" "Ft. Lauderdale." It's common because of how we write our addresses on mailings, the fact that it's far easier to remember 50 states instead of thousands of cities, and for the most part (as others have stated) we assume ambiguity of city names. I don't think the AP guideline set that standard, I think it was written to reflect the common practice of including the state name for all but a handful of cities; cities with large television markets and abundant media coverage. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Your "state name first" form is not at all the same thing as "City, state". One could just as easily say "Where are you from?" "Germany." "What part?" "Berlin." That doesn't mean we have to have Berlin, Germany. john k (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
After digging through the archives yesterday, it's pretty clear that the main focus at that time was getting all the city articles created with basic census information by using a bot, and having a fixed format like city, state was much easier than adding artificial intelligence to the bot so it could determine primary topic on the fly, or even whether a given name was unique or ambiguous ("There are a *lot* of cities. It was easiest to make every city into the format "City, State" for U.S. cities. This makes for standard naming for all cities (in the U.S.)."[12] ). That's the main reason all the articles were created like that... because they were created by a bot.
Once they were all created like that, there was something naturally appealing and aesthetic about the consistency, but it was also clear from the archives that no consideration was given to the fact that this makes how U.S. cities are named inconsistent with how other articles, including other city articles, are named. It's important to realize that back then they had no general naming principles, nor any effort to achieve consistency and stability in naming across Wikipedia. Even today there aren't too many of us yet looking from that high of an altitude, but there are more and more every year. Never-the-less, the consistency problem was so acute and obvious with the cities on the AP list -- why Paris, London and Berlin, but Chicago, Illinois and San Francisco, California, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania -- that they were allowed to change.
I was asked elsewhere to explain what i meant in saying that the Proposal A is vague. First, it is vague in what it says applies in every case, i.e. it is vague relative to, say, C and also vague relative to B. A is a proposal to vacate the convention, to have no convention. Second, it is vague in wording "Where possible, ...." meaning what? Anything is possible, given unlimited resources i suppose. I think i can infer what Born2cycle meant, but in a mild way it is poorly worded for a guideline. Please, Born2cycle, don't change the proposal and restart the survey; this is only a mild comment and basically your meaning with A is clear. Thirdly, the proposal A is vague in that it is not supported by an analysis of how many articles, and which ones, it would affect. Like an Environmental Impact study goes along with any nuclear bomb testing proposal, the proposers could support their proposal by providing a useful analysis, say of all the municipalities and CDPs and other affected articles within one U.S. state. They could tabulate the municipalities, what is the current name, what it should be by current guideline if different, what it would be changed to under their proposal. They could also tabulate neighborhood and other community names which would likely be affected secondarily. A comprehensive state-wide study would tend to show how extensive the impact of their change would be, which is a concern for most editors. I tend to think that if they actually looked at all the impacts it would cause, such as requiring very small places to be given short names and giving a generally unprofessional, random-looking appearance, they themselves would cancel their proposal. (If they were actually to do this and wanted it to be useful, i would ask they do it for any state but Hawaii, Louisiana, and Alaska, which are relative outliers in naming of places in their islands, parishes, and boroughs and in their native/other languages). Mainly by vague i meant that A is not precise like B and C.
I think proponents of some change oughta make a credible case that they would agree to some thing stable with good properties, like being clear as C and B are clear, and being something that would promote stability. I don't happen to think that the proponents of change could convince me that, if B were accepted, they would stick with that agreement, or that they could speak for other arriving editors. C is clearer, and more natural, tied to AP style, and does well with providing guidance and being accepted by arriving editors. B is clear also, but arbitrary, and has gotten no support in the survey, and I think it would not be accepted by future arriving editors either. As i've said, A is no convention at all, in my view. If they want something, they should create a credible B option.
I think I understand what you mean by "vague" now, but don't understand why you think it's a problem that needs addressing or avoiding.
Do you agree that your characterization of "vague" as it would apply to this guideline if A is adopted also applies to how almost all other articles are named in Wikipedia, including most non-U.S. cities, and those U.S. cities that are on the AP list? If not, how is A different from how all those other articles are named? If so, do you think there is a problem that needs addressing with how all those other articles are named? Why would this "vague" thing be a problem for non-AP U.S. cities with unambiguous names, but is not for all these other articles? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't really follow what those questions directed to me are driving at. I explained what i meant by vague, and I actually gave u a suggestion. Born2cycle, you could tabulate the municipality and other community names for a given state, and show the impact of your proposed change to the guideline. I think this suggestion has some chance of resolving the whole RFC. You and other A camp people, considering the impact laid out, might decide then to change your votes. Or, depending on what is shown in the analysis, possibly C camp people might conclude that the impact would not be so bad as they fear. Why not try it? It is your proposal to change the convention. And the analysis would perhaps help one state's editors towards cleaning up their community articles. --Doncram (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for making the table. But by listing what "you'd think should be done with them," you inadvertently emphasized the problem with the "A" position. Each city name would require an individual judgment call about whether to add the state name or whether the city is the "primary topic". Instead of one centralized discussion about a clearcut policy, we would have tens of thousands of individual discussions about how to name each particular city. What an enormous waste of editor time, when the current convention provides a straightforward method for determining an unambiguous name for every city from the largest to the smallest! --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Again this deep concern with "waste of editor time." Once again, if editors don't want to "waste their time" worrying about naming conventions, nobody is forcing them to do so. And we already "waste" countless hours dealing with these issues. There is of course also the option Born2cycle suggests of doing a mass move of all the articles where [[City]] redirects to [[City, State]], on the basis that wikipedia already considers those cities to be primary topics, and then moving to a normal RM situation for any future moves, which would make for fewer RM discussions, if that is so important. john k (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, somebody IS forcing us to do so. You are. If we give up in disgust over this endless discussion (as you are clearly hoping we will), you will force not just us here but all of Wikipedia into constant uncertainty about what to name an article, and constant battles and edit wars over something that used to be so simple and straightforward. Please stop trying to twist our exasperation over this debate into a claim that we "don't care about naming conventions" or "don't think that titles are important". We do care, or we wouldn't be here. We care about keeping the current naming convention, for reasons we have explained over and over. We also care about the time we are wasting here when we could be improving articles, and the vastly greater time that would be wasted on hundreds of similar individual discussions if you get your way. We would love to be able to end this discussion (which is basically only being kept alive by two of you) and get back to doing productive work on Wikipedia. But not if it's going to replace this one argument with hundreds of arguments in hundreds of places. (If you don't think that will happen, look again at your own words: when you listed "what I'd think" should be done with each city name, you basically admitted that many of them will be debatable judgment calls. There are NO debatable judgment calls under the current convention.) Once again I will point out the guidelines from WP:TITLE that could have been written with Born2cycle and John K in mind: "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia" and "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed".--MelanieN (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Melanie, the proposal is very straightforward and clear. It is that all U.S. cities with unambiguous names be treated the same as cities on the AP list with unambiguous names. None of them are in "constant uncertainty about what to name" them. Why do you expect that for these other cities? You're squeezing your own hands around your neck, and tell us to stop. You stop. Stop fighting. All the U.S. cities to which their concise name redirects can be easily, quickly and automatically swapped with the redirect and it will be all over. No more arguing. No uncertainty. Done. What would be the harm in that? Let. It. Go. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that one person's "unambiguous" is different from another person's "unambiguous". Which is why John K listed "what I'd think" the name would be - he recognized that others' opinions may differ. The current redirects would be just a beginning, we all know that. You are beginning to sound like a playground argument: "You stop." "No, YOU stop." This discussion will not be decided by what you say to me and what I say to you. This discussion is going to go your way only if you can demonstrate a clear, strong consensus in favor of change from the current stable convention. And currently you are not even close to demonstrating a clear, strong consensus in favor of change; you don't even have a bare majority, and such a major change in a longstanding convention would require a lot more than a bare majority. What is it going to take to get you to admit that your attempt to change the convention has not succeeded? --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
So you'd suggest dropping opposition to you, to save time here, and then cause much more editor time waste, for ourselves and many others, elsewhere? That would be really convenient for you! It seems really important for editors to oppose changing from the simple convention here, now.
Editor time waste is a valid concern. The proponents of A might not intend for there to be consequences, or they might not care, but it is valid for others to strongly oppose for the reason of the likely consequences. P.S. If u wanted to limit the likely consequences to gain agreement, u should develop a credible B-type option. --Doncram (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Either where an article is located is important, or it is not. If it is important, it's not a waste of time to hash out what the correct title for any given article is. If it's not important, there's no reason to "waste" your time worrying about it at all (which is, indeed, what most wikipedia editors do). I'm not saying that you should stop disagreeing with me, because I think that naming is important. My point is that your argument here is logically incoherent. You don't think that titles aren't important. You think they are important, but are irritated that other people disagree with you about what the most important factors to consider are, and wish they would stop arguing with you about it. john k (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, sort of. It is showing perhaps many of the ones where you might be itching most to make a change, assuming u r most interested in the biggest cities. It is not what i was asking for: it does not at all convey what would be the complications in any state, e.g. as to how all article naming of cities, municipalities, villages, and on to unincorporated communities and neighborhoods would unravel and/or would become unprofessional-looking and time-consuming to resolve and maintain. It doesn't allow me to estimate how much trouble would be caused. Those comments aside, thanks! I am not myself sure if this version helps, but others may like find it helpful somehow. --Doncram (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I presume it would be fairly straightforward to reconfigure Ram-bot (ironically, the original cause of this mess) to do the following:
For every U.S. city article with an article at [CityName, StateName], if [CityName] is a redirect to [CityName, StateName], delete the redirect and move [CityName, StateName] to [CityName] (thus creating a redirect from [CityName, StateName] to [CityName]), along with the associated talk page.
The impact/disruption of doing this would be negligible, and it would fully implement A with only minimal human time and effort. But I'm double-checking with the Ram-bot owner at User_talk:Ram-Man#Ram-bot_question.
By cities here I mean any city, municipality, village or unincorporated community named CityName with an article at [Cityname, StateName]. As to the impact to neighborhoods, not sure why that's even related. They would not be affected at all by an adoption of A, as the current wording does not address them, nor would it with a change adopting A. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
There are at least 2 incorrect suggestions in that. Fewer editors have had to pay attention to primaryusage arguments, because the naming requirement is clear. If articles were going to be moved, and links built up, and subject to future changes in primaryusage decisions, then there would be need for everyone to be concerned. It's not a matter of running a bot to make these moves. And, there are local editors arguing, e.g. in the RM for Sacramento, California, that they simply prefer the ", California" version. Your proposal is not to make all these moves by a bot, it is to open them all up to individual proposals and discussion ad nauseum. There is no way that a bot is going to be allowed to make moves anywhere near here, i suspect.
Second, you misstate the effect on neighborhoods, saying there is no effect because they are not explicitly part of the convention and not explicitly part of the proposal to change. AS YOU KNOW from other discussion, including at my Talk page i think, Born2cycle, there is direct impact in naming decisions on neighborhoods. With the convention in place, I and other editors argue that how cities are named makes neighborhood naming clear. With cities named including ", State", it is natural and it is argued convincingly that neighborhoods should also be named that way. I want you to to stop disregarding the perhaps-unintended consequences! I am a bit irritated because we discussed this elsewhere already. --Doncram (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair point about not using the bot to move pages, but we could use it to at least compile the list, and maybe seek consensus for a mass automated move later. In any case, the impact of moving the AP cities and Ann Arbor was negligible, and I don't have any reason to expect more issues with any other moves of cities with unambiguous names. Do you?
I'm not sure what you're referring to with respect to neighborhood naming that we've already discussed elsewhere (link please?), but I do know that while there was some momentum behind using the uber-idiosyncratic [Neighborhood, City, State], that seems to have dissipated. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The impact of moving Ann Arbor includes two requested move discussions, and cost of many editors time, to get it back to where most editors believe it should be. Multiply that times thousands and that's not negligible; it is a pretty huge call or requirement on editors time, actually. If only we could mobilize editors time in amounts like that for better purposes like addressing unreferenced BLPs.
I disagree about your assertion of which way momentum is on neighborhood naming. In the requested move you started in Connecticut for the Marion neighborhood, the pretty overwhelming decision was just now against you, for just one example. Let's just not make claims about trends that way. --Doncram (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Here's an analysis: There are 99 cities in Wyoming; 22 or (22%) currently redirect Cityname to Cityname, Wyoming, and are presumably the primary topic. There are 221 cities and towns in New Hampshire; 28 (or 13%) currently redirect. (As a possibly interesting aside, 35 of the 58 places in Rutland, England (60%) are the primary topic.) So, extrapolating from two small states, maybe 15-25% of cities/towns in the U.S. would be candidates for renaming under option A - maybe more, maybe fewer. For whatever it's worth.... Dohn joe (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Question about vagueness: is the proposal A meant to allow for different naming of a community, or is it meant to require a community be named without ", State", if there is not yet other usage for the community's name version without state included?
Thanks Dohn joe. For New Hampshire there actually seem to be 13 cities and 221 towns. Plus a whole lot of other unincorporated communities, in List of places in New Hampshire and Defunct placenames of New Hampshire. Plus i don't know what more. Say there are 2,000 communities in New Hampshire that would be affected fairly directly. Then there are also other articles that use the community names in disambiguation, as for "Adams Farm (Harrisville, New Hampshire)", "All Saints' Church (Peterborough, New Hampshire)", "Asbury United Methodist Church (Chesterfield, New Hampshire)", "Ash Street School (Manchester, New Hampshire)", for some letter "A" ones (see dabs Adams Farm, All Saints' Church, Asbury United Methodist Church, Ash Street School.) I don't want to go there, but i don't want to see future arguments about how the disambiguating phrase should appear; i just want it to be "(City, State)" and not have to follow disputes about whether Peterborough more primarily about some place in England or whether the New Hampshire one is primary. So say there are another 2,000 article titles secondarily affected. And say 25% involve possibly primary usage assertions, so it is 1,000 articles to be changed possibly. Again i am not sure if proposal A is a request for discretion, allowing local editors to debate and choose, or whether it is a requirement that all 1,000 articles must be changed. I am guesstimating some of these numbers, but the scale is large and I don't see it being of any benefit to putting these all into contention. I welcome other quantified estimates of impacts. --Doncram (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, if not about those, where the change wouldn't apply, then its about "Carroll County Court House (Ossipee, New Hampshire)" or "Colony House (Keene, New Hampshire)" (see Carroll County Court House and Colony House disambiguation pages). Keene currently is not accepted as primarily meaning Keene, New Hampshire, tho it should perhaps be. I don't care about that, i don't want to have to care. Ossipee seems to be uniquely in New Hampshire, but i don't want to argue whether it should be Carroll County Court House (Ossipee) or Carroll County Court House (New Hampshire); i just want to use (City, State) always as it always works well. --Doncram (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
John k, YOU don't see the problem with the other communities, as YOU don't have to deal with all the intended or unintended consequences of the proposed change. The existing convention has served well, and provides a great stable framework for names of the bigger cities and towns, and then, as SOME of us appreciate, that provides stability for reasoning about names of non-municipality places as well, which are far more numerous. --Doncram (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest it's pointless to argue about who sees what or why. What we can do is look at what happened when we moved the 25 or so major cities on the AP list 3 1/2 years ago. Everything disambiguated with (APcityName, State) was theoretically affected by the problem you're hand wringing about, if I understand you correctly. Some were moved, some were not, but there were no major issues as far as I know. You know, it's okay if Carroll County Court House (Ossipee, New Hampshire) isn't moved at all, or if it moves to Carroll County Court House (Ossipee), or if it moves to Carroll County Court House (New Hampshire). And it's okay if it stays where it is now for three years, and is moved three years from now. It's all good. [NOTE after preview: I see that this is not a real problem anyway, since it is at the last one and the first two choices are redlinks, so, again, this too would not even be affected by the proposed change to A].
From what I can tell almost all of the major headaches (if that's what you're really concerned with) involving title decisions are caused by factions insisting on compliance with certain specific fixed conventions (such as seems to be desired here for how county court houses with ambiguous names are disambiguated). This is particularly problematic when the convention desired indicates names that are contrary to what is indicated by our general naming criteria like favoring conciseness and avoiding any more precision than necessary. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes there have been factions in how to disambiguate historic buildings in the U.S., including one faction being "use the shortest possible" which sometimes settles on (City) and sometimes on (State). Either way that calls unfortunate attention to the disambiguation itself, and sometimes it causes ambiguity because it is not clear that a single name is in fact a city or town, rather than being an Orange or an Ossipee or whatever else, and it serves less well in conveying where the building is (hence which building it is). There has been more disagreement about disambiguation for buildings that are county courthouses than any other type of building, i suppose because the county name is in the title. Otherwise (City, State) is almost always accepted. I speak from hundreds of hours of experience.
So, Born2cycle, from your reasoning you would argue that "Greeley House (East Kingston, New Hampshire)" (see Greeley House dab) should be moved to "Greeley House (East Kingston)" instead. I don't recall ever having heard of either East Kingston, New York or East Kingston, New Hampshire but somehow the New Hampshire one possesses the primary usage name. I don't want to have any discussion about that whatsoever, I just want the (City, State) disambiguation to be used and never questioned. Having stability in the usage of (City, State) for all cities helps support having stability all the way down in communities, AND in related disambiguation such as here. --Doncram (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
But all of this is irrelevant to this proposal, except to explain why it's irrelevant. Some articles require disambiguation, others do not. I'm all for having conventions about how to disambiguate those articles that require disambiguation, and historical buildings with ambiguous names like this are no exception. But the point is that convention can and should be determined independent of whether the city that any building is in requires disambiguation. If there are two buildings named "XYZ Historical Shrine" and neither is primary, then both need disambiguation. Now if one is in Portland, Maine and the other in Portland, Oregon, then it makes sense to specify the state when disambiguating. But if one is Portland, Maine and the other is in Ossipee, then just the city name is fine. That is, what we use to disambiguate a given title should depend much more on the other uses of that ambiguous name then on mindless convention.
If keeping this naming convention encourages pointless moves like the one you just made, all the more reason to toss it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Born2cycle, you a) misunderstand, and b) prove my point. The widely accepted default for disambiguation of U.S. historic buildings has been to use (City, State) where that suffices, which is broadly consistent with the Naming Convention here. There has been past disagreement for the small but significant subset (several hundred i guess) which are of "Countyname County Courthouse" type; for these practice is mixed between using "(City, State)" vs. "(State)". It's a tangent relative to here, but i would be willing, though not too happy, to hash that out elsewhere. The stability in all the others is reinforced by the City, State convention here. Your proposal here would tend, i think, to undermine stability in actual practice and in the occasional correcting move towards the City, State standard of which my move is an example. I know it's wp:BEANS for me to have brought this up. But you want now to begin to butt in on the disambiguation of U.S. historic places, like you have butted in on Connecticut neighborhood names, to no gain (just cost, in the Requested Moves and discussion, all eventually returned to conventional naming). You would start proposing other moves to just (City) i suppose, and criticize any tidying up that i and a few others have occasionally done. In broad terms I think you feel that bringing conflict to these areas would support your main cause, which is to bring conflict to city and town naming. Au contraire, it proves my point that naming stability for cities and towns has good properties in these related areas. --Doncram (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The fallaciousness of the "'unambiguous' is a matter of opinion" argument
This is a reply to Melanie's comment above signed 7:18, 15 January 2011.
Melanie, you claim that "one person's "unambiguous" is different from another person's "unambiguous"" and inquire about what it's going to take for me to admit that my attempt to change this guideline has failed. Well, first of all, consensus changes, and as long as the arguments resisting change are based upon fallacious rationalizations of personal preference, like your point here about "unambiguous" being a matter of opinion, I will continue to have good reason to believe that resistance will break down and consensus will change.
The point about "unambiguous" being a matter of opinion is a rationalization because, while theoretically it's true, in practice all of that has been resolved with respect to U.S. city names. That is, for every U.S. city, the question of whether its concise name is unambiguous has already been resolved because in each case, without exception, we have exactly one of the following conditions:
the city's concise name is ambiguous and there is another article, or a dab page, at the city's concise name (e.g., Plymouth, Portland)
the city's concise name is unambiguous (unique or primary) and the article is already at the city's concise name (e.g., Cities on the AP list, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Ann Arbor).
the city's concise name is unambiguous and redirects to the article about the city (Tallahassee, Sioux City)
the city's concise name is unambiguous and there is nothing at the city's concise name (these are rare as they are made into redirects soon after they are identified, as was the case at the start of this RFC discussion for Amalga)
Of course, the question about whether a given use is primary and so falls into (2) or is ambiguous and so should be (1) is a matter of opinion, but the salient point here is that all of that has already been decided for U.S. cities. That is, every city article is already in either (1) or (2) (if not in 3 or 4). So, we know, as objectively as it is possible to know anything in WP, that cities in category (1) have ambiguous names, and the rest (those in categories 2, 3, 4) have unambiguous names. Even if you could find an exception here or there, it would be far, far from the magnitude of a potential problem that would reasonably support a resistance to this proposal. By moving all cities to which conditions (3) or (4) apply to their concise names so they are (2), nothing changes with respect to the consensus decisions that have already been made about whether each is unambiguous or not - we would be moving only those that are known to be unambiguous, and about which there is no question that they are unambiguous (except maybe in an insignificantly small number of cases - so small that you probably can't even find one such exception). All U.S. city names that are ambiguous are already in category (1) and would remain untouched by this proposal. The issue of the difficulties and disagreements sometimes encountered in determining whether a given name is unambiguous is irrelevant to this proposal, because all that has already been decisively resolved, in most cases years ago, for each and every U.S. city name.
As long as your arguments keep relying on unreasonable ideas, like the notion that the state of ambiguity is essentially unknown for significant numbers of U.S. city names, and could go either way (and, presumably, back-and-forth) based on who-knows-what, I am going to remain convinced that your position is ultimately based on a lack of understanding or a rationalization contrived to cover up just liking the consistency in city, state titles of U.S. city articles. Either way, these fallacies need to be exposed for what they are. If rationalization ceases being the basis for resistance to change, and there is still resistance based on reasonable grounds, then you may have a point. But these same excuses for resisting change have been repeated for years, and all the dire the sky is falling predictions never manifest themselves in those cases where resistance fails (like with the U.S. cities on the AP list), so I hope you can understand and appreciate why it's doubtful reasonable grounds will ever replace rationalization in opposition to change, and thus why I remain optimistic about consensus ultimately changing to favor the reasonable grounds given in support of change, as presented in this RFC proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
"I will continue to have good reason to believe that resistance will break down and consensus will change." I'm glad to see you admit that you don't have consensus for your version at this time. That should end the discussion right there. You believe that resistance "will" break down and consensus "will" change; fine. Give it up for now and let us close this discussion. Give it a rest for a few years and then try again (I know you'll never drop it entirely).
Listing Ann Arbor and Carmel-by-the-sea as examples is disingenuous in the extreme, because you know perfectly well that those two names were just changed from the "city, state" convention recently, and that the changes are still being hotly contested - also that those are pretty much the ONLY two examples you could have come up with.
Your repeated allegation that our objections are based on WP:JDLI and "personal preference" is false and it's getting annoying. Our objections are based on sound Wikipedia policy including local usage (Americanisms), Reliable Sourcing (we cite the AP Manual of Style which says "city, state" is the rule with certain named exceptions; I have yet to see YOU cite a Reliable Source that says the state should be left off), the "stable names should be left alone" guideline, and above all the guideline stating that this kind of argument is unproductive (read "a waste of editor time") and that we should find better ways to improve Wikipedia.
Re your claim that your arguments are "reasonable grounds" while mine are "rationalizations" and "unreasonable ideas", I think everyone can recognize the "I am simply right and you are just wrong" mentality that pervades your posts. It's one of the reason you have so much trouble converting any others to your view. You might want to read Wikipedia:Reasonableness. --MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is determined through discussion, not by voting. For example, perhaps I've persuaded some, maybe even you, that at least the "'unambiguous' is a matter of opinion" argument is fallacious. That in turn may contribute to changing opinions. Regardless of whether there is sufficient support to establish consensus to change the guideline, the fact remains the current guideline is not supported by consensus, and, looking at the history, has arguably never been supported by consensus. That still needs addressing.
First, I didn't list only Ann Arbor, and Carmel-by-the-Sea. I also wrote, "Cities on the AP list", which is over 20 cities that have been at their plain names for over 3 years without incident, despite all the predictions of peril that were made prior to those moves. Anyway, these are simply examples of what I meant by the phrase, "at the city's concise name". Just because those two were recently moved to their concise names, and those moves are still being discussed, doesn't make them inappropriate or disingenuous illustrative examples of what I was referring to... an article at the city's concise name.
We can discuss the merits of the Americanisms and Reliable Source arguments separately. At least you're not continuing to defend the "'unambiguous' is a matter of opinion" argument here, which is the point of this section.
This is not about you or me (or anyone else) being right or wrong. It's about which position is best supported by argument based on what consensus is - as reflected in policy, guidelines, conventions and practice - about how articles are titled in general in Wikipedia. Thanks for the WP:Reasonableness link, but I don't think you are being unreasonable. I think your arguments are unreasonable rationalizations. Big difference. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I am familiar with your attitude that if you get in the last word, that means you were right. It's childish and unworthy of you. If I refuse to waste my time disputing every point you bring up, that does not mean that I agree with the point. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Can we bring an end to this discussion?
QuarterMB: "RFC: United States cities" now contains (following this addition, greater than) 264,810 bytes of information. This includes ten subsections and one sub-subsection. Counterproductive wiki filibustering is propelling its growth at this point, and the current NC guidance is not being seriously challenged. What has just been assumed above is that everything written in direct rebuttal of these continued arguments is somehow an acquiescence to agreement with them. That is the illogical meta-thinking this giant stream of steadfast refusal to listen is apparently consuming in order to sustain itself. Further, the claim that support for the current guidance is a "fallacious rationalization of personal preference" is disputed specifically above and also throughout these thousands of bytes by the fact that among other things style guidelines of cited reliable sources are directly opposed to the proposed goal. The proposed concept of removing state names through case-by-case logic tree results that modern usage has nevertheless seen fit to find useless in the case of presenting names of locations in publications that are more than locally consumed has been rebuffed. Reasonableness is a true need here. The proposal "A" is unreasonable and has limited albeit long-winded support. Outside the voting, where it has not gained a bare majority, the argument for continued debate is essentially either "I will keep writing until everyone else loses interest in debating, and silence implies consent" or "Nobody believes X, behaves like Y or uses Z. Weasel words can and will sway consensus." Please, end and archive this discussion. Sswonk (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I have wished for a long time that some neutral third party could step in, evaluate the discussion here, and end it with a decision. How can that be achieved? Is there a way to bring in a "closing administrator" as there is with other discussions? Or maybe a panel of closing administrators? --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
edit warring on this guideline, regarding CDPs having any military association
Latest comment: 13 years ago70 comments8 people in discussion
Editor Polaron is edit warring on this guideline to add an exemption to the guideline so that CDPs which include a U.S. military base should not be included. I say edit warring because he made one Bold change, which i reverted, then he did it again with some edit summary. I gave more clear direction telling him to make a proper proposal, in this 2nd revert by me. And i commented in the other discussion. He's responded again not in discussion anywhere, but by now restoring his change. It would probably be perceived as edit warring by me too, to keep fighting him. But note i did bring up discussion in 2 places (including here now) and he has not responded.
This relates to discussion elsewhere in a Requested Move proposal, where consensus of a few there seems to be against what Polaron is doing here. This is an undiscussed, inappropriate change to make to this guideline. There's no reason why a CDP including part of the residential area of a military base should not conform to the guideline. The guideline is explicit. To change the guideline would be a major change.
Disclosure: I've been tangled in the past in long-running contentions with Polaron, leading to ANI discussions and blocks. Typically in discussions with Polaron he will make assertions based supposedly on sources which he has, and he will only slowly disclose bits of info about the sources. On this point, he was asked specifically what is his source and how many CDPs this would apply to, and it was suggested he bring up the topic here. All of which he declined, and just commences changing the guideline to what he wishes.
Could others please stop him. You may wish to ask him for his reasoning, his counts of what the impact is, etc. I don't want to play the begging-him-to-talk game; i would just prefer he be blocked, frankly. --Doncram (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that edit warring is problematic, but I don't understand the basis of your objection to the wording. Checking the categories of military bases indicates that it is indeed true that they are not disambiguated with ", state". For example: Category:Bases_of_the_United_States_Air_Force. So I support the inclusion of this exception as being an accurate reflection of reality. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This regards the CDPs which partly overlap residential portions of military bases, not the military bases themselves. It is about Fort Campbell North, Kentucky (named according to guideline), not about Fort Campbell (partly included in that CDP). It is about Conning Towers-Nautilus Park (under RM to be corrected to follow guideline), not about Naval Submarine Base New London (included, along with other residential areas, in that CDP). I don't think we need to carve out an exception for "Fort Campbell North, Kentucky". It is unhelpful and weird to carve out exceptions based on partial contents of a CDP. It's no better than proposing a different naming guideline for CDPs containing a school or containing a firehouse or containing anything else. If u can't tell, i am fed up with dealing with that one editor. --Doncram (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the wording to which you object (which is what is at issue here) says "(excluding military bases)". It does not say "(excluding those which partly overlap residential portions of military bases)", which is what you seem to be objecting to.
Perhaps your actual objection is to how you think this wording might be interpreted? In that case, I would suggest clarification instead of reverting, for example, saying "(excluding military bases, but not census areas which happen to overlap military bases)". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
About 1/3 of military base CDPs are indeed at the "placename, state" title. However, the other 2/3 is not. The text I inserted merely states that the use of "placename, state" is not strictly followed for military base CDPs. For example in, Category:Bases of the United States Air Force, there are 36 facilities which are also CDPs, with only one of the 36 using "placename , state" (Air Force Academy, Colorado). Most others such as Beale, Edwards, March, or Vandenberg (in Ca.) use plain "basename". --Polaron | Talk23:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no exception needed, no elaborate clarification of exception, either. I don't really care to explore, myself, the exact impact of a hypothetical exception, or to compose an exception that could make sense. I don't think the change put into the guideline is meant in some benign way. I believe it was inserted by Polaron in direct response to the RM covering, among other places, the Conning Towers-Nautilus Park case, where he has taken position (in the RM, and by his previously setting up a redirect from Conning Towers-Nautilus Park, Connecticut) against the current guideline. So, the spirit of the change was towards winning a local battle, about that specific place.
If there is not cogent proposal why an exception should be made, which i think should include a specific itemization of all articles (and i am not going to look up all the bases in that category and analyse the impacts), I will expect to remove the exception that was put into the guideline without discussion or support. Please note the above huge RFC about a different proposed change to this guideline in few days. I don't think this is worth asking other editors to even consider, given bigger issues to address. --Doncram (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I just listed three exceptions in California which you just disregarded. There are over 60 of them. This also has no bearing for the massive Conn. renaming you undertook. --Polaron | Talk23:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm now first learning about the concept of a "military base CDP", but what seems readily apparent to me is that there is a significant difference between a "military base" and a "military base CDP". For example, the military base Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton has no ", state" and is listed in Category:Military facilities in California, but the two related CDPs, Camp Pendleton North, California and Camp Pendleton South, California, which do have ", state", are not listed in that category. So I don't think we can look at categories of bases or categories of military facilities to determine if these CDPs usually have ", state", because the "military base CDPs" don't seem to be included in these categories.
Now, maybe there are some bases which are synonymous with a CDP? If so, what are some examples and what do we do in those cases?
At any rate, all this needs to be worked out, and you guys should know better than to edit-war about it until we do. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting Born2cycle. I just removed the last implementation of Polaron's change to the guideline. I think this status quo should be kept, because there is no obviously needed change so far supported. If the guideline is not broken, don't change it. If there is a consensus decision here involving some more editors who actually consider the supposed issues and ramifications, then of course i will abide by that. --Doncram (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
And Polaron restored his change, in this edit. I thot my removal was justified by discussion here. I think there is a distinction to be made: Polaron's repeated edit is EDIT WARRING. Mine, together with my opening and developing discussion here, clarifying there is no obvious change needed, has not been edit warring, although continued interactions with this editor would at some point become that. Born2cycle, I would appreciate if you would remove the change from the article. Or, need we open a wp:ANI incident, or what. This is tedious; I don't think the hundreds of editors watchlisting the naming convention page and this Talk page should have to keep seeing this stuff. --Doncram (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand Doncram's objection. This is just a description of current practice where a majority of CDPs with the same name as a military installation are described under the article "basename" and not under the article "basename, state". --Polaron | Talk01:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
First, both of you please focus HERE on the discussion, and not on the guideline itself. If the three of us can agree on something, then we can do that. 66% (2 out of 3) is a pretty weak consensus even if we get that, we should shoot for 100% here. Don't assume there is agreement while discussion is underway. Neither one of you is innocent here; perhaps Polaron has crossed the line more, but that's a distinction that seems to rarely matter in edit wars.
Those are not articles about CDPs, they're about military bases that also happen to be CDPs. I don't see any reason to mention them here at all. Will Bebacktalk01:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, those articles are about bases that are CDPs, so, logically, they are about CDPs. Without the mention, the guideline says that "The canonical form for ... census-designated places in the United States is Placename, State (the "comma convention")". But Beale Air Force Base (for example) is a CDP, and the article's scope encompasses the CDP (noted at Beale_Air_Force_Base#Demographics), and the title does not follow the comma convention. It should be noted that the convention could conceivably be to follow the comma convention when a military base is a CDP, so we should clarify it either way. Without the mention, it's misleading.
Beale Air Force Base is not an article about a CDP. It's about a base. It contains one section referring to the census information. "Beale Air Force Base (AFB) (IATA: BAB, ICAO: KBAB, FAA LID: BAB) is a United States Air Force base located approximately 8 miles (13 km) east of Marysville, California." It should be covered in the page on naming conventions for military bases. Will Bebacktalk02:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes, Will, you could make me scream.
In general, the fact that an article is about X does not mean it's not about Y. In particular, the fact that the article is about a base does not mean it's not about a CDP. Repeating the undisputed fact that the article is about a base is not an argument for the article not being about a CDP.
Like I said, logically, these articles are about CDPs. Either you're just being argumentative or you really need me to explain it; I'll assume the latter. The following are four logical tautologies presented in English sentence form. Each is equally true, for the same reasons.
Born2Cycle, if you really believe that these air force bases are primarily CfDs then please change the lead sentences to reflect that fact. Will Bebacktalk04:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Nothing I said even implied that that these bases are primarily CDPs. Why do you even bring this up?
The point is that if you look at a list of census designated places, these places that are bases do show up. They are CDPs. Presumably, once the categories for CDPs are fixed, they will be listed in those categories. However, despite the fact that they are CDPs, they are not named according to the convention that is supposed to provide guidance on how to name CDPs. They are exceptions to that rule. Exceptions because these bonafide CDPs also happen to be military bases, but valid exceptions never-the-less.
Are you really going to argue that listing a valid exception is making the guideline "more complicated than it needs to be"? Sorry, but you're being unreasonably argumentative, Will, and unless you come up with something serious and reasonable, I don't see what can be done with your objection. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I can't find a separate naming convention for military bases, so, since they are places, and some are even CDPs, I added a sentence about them to this guideline [14]:
Military bases, including those that are census-designated places, are at the plain name of the base (e.g., Beale Air Force Base), unless the name of the base requires disambiguation, in which case the comma-convention is used (e.g., Air Force Academy, Colorado).
I somewhat boldly but I think reasonably presume that no one will seriously dispute the obvious veracity of this statement, and therefore its inclusion. I also inserted the word "most" into the first sentence, to say that most CDPs use the comma-convention. Since the following sentence (the one I just inserted) explains that it is the CDPs that are bases that don't use the comma-convention, I figure no further explanation is required. I suppose we can still expand the first sentence to clarify "most" (those CDPs are not military bases that don't require disambiguation), but I suggest that complication is unnecessary. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, so we agree that these articles are not primarily about CDPs. A better explanation would be to say that article which are not primarily about geographic places may follow other naming conventions. Will Bebacktalk05:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The same sort of text could probably be added to all naming conventions. Naming conventions should apply to the primary topics of articles. Will Bebacktalk05:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Wait, are you suggesting that a military base is not a geographic place? Please explain that.
Also, while I know what you mean by "primary topics of articles", I suggest something like "main focuses of articles" instead, to avoid confusion with primary topicof names. Anyway, the topic of these articles is both a base and CDP - it's not like they are separate topics and the article covers both of them, and one is more important than the other. They are different characteristics of the topic, if you will, and I'll agree the military base characteristic is more important than the CDP characteristic.
Semantics aside, I'm still not exactly sure what you mean, however. Again, if the convention were the opposite of what it is, then we would remove the word "most" from the current wording, and the new sentence would say:
Military bases which are not census-designated places are at the plain name of the base (e.g., Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton), unless the name of the base requires disambiguation, in which case the comma-convention is used (e.g., Air Force Academy, Colorado).
In other words, there is nothing inherent about these topics that makes the military base characteristic trump the CDP characteristic with respect to deciding how to name them. It's just our convention to name them according to base rules, perhaps because they're better known for being military bases than for being CDPs. But we could decide by consensus to name them as the CDPs never-the-less, or apply the comma convention to military bases too. Thankfully, that's not the case! --Born2cycle (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
That may be so, but what happens when a military base is also a CDP? The exception wording is only to point out that CDPs that happen to be military facilities do not fall under this particular naming guideline. We all agree on that, right? --Polaron | Talk06:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Polaron, have you read our whole discussion? Right now we're talking about Will's suggested "better explanation" above: "...articles which are not primarily about geographic places may follow other naming conventions." --Born2cycle (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Will, aren't military bases "places with established communities" (settlements)? Certainly many are.
I think the notion you're trying to convey is simply, "places commonly referred to with the comma convention in reliable sources". Thus, I think your better explanation essentially can be stated as follows, "Places in the U.S. not commonly referred to with the comma-convention in reliable sources (like military bases including those that are CDPs) are simply named according to WP:TITLE and WP:D like most other geographic place name articles in Wikipedia, and don't use the comma convention unless it is required for disambiguation".
The problem with that is that these military bases are commonly referred to with comma convention in reliable sources. For example, consider the mailing address of Beale AFB Public Affairs office: 6000 C Street, Beale AFB, CA 95903 [15].
So even "commonly referred to with the comma convention in reliable sources" is not how we distinguish places with articles titled with and without the comma convention in our conventions. Maybe it's "commonly referred to with the comma convention in reliable sources and most of which have ambiguous names", but I say it's pretty arbitrary, and, in particular, the original decision to name cities per this convention was arbitrary. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the simplest thing would be to split off the CDPs, since a CDP is an essentially different thing than a military base. Will Bebacktalk07:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean have separate articles for each... like Beale Air Force Base (base) and Beale Air Force Base (CDP)? I presume you agree we can't put either at Beal Air Force Base, California because that name could refer to either (since we must assume that the reader does not know WP naming idiosyncrasies). That seems artificial to me. I mean, cities and counties are essentially different too, but we don't have separate articles for the county and city of San Francisco, because in that case it's the same place and entity. And so it is with these bases and CDPs, no? --Born2cycle (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
No, but so what? Did you miss my point about city and county being different in general, but the same in the case of San Francisco? Similarly, base and CDP are different in general, but the same in terms of Beale AFB (and a few other places). --Born2cycle (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that a census-designated place is different from a military base, even if they occupy the same ground. There's no particular need to have them covered in the same article and good reasons to separate them. Further, and more relevant here, it's not necessary to prominently document a possible exception that might apply to a few articles in a naming convention that applies to thousands of articles. More than anything this discussion represents the single-mindedness with which some people will fight over naming conventions. I'm not going to reply further, since I've already established that there is opposition to this unilateral addition. Will Bebacktalk09:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
IMO, military bases should not be mentioned in this guideline, except possibly in a final sentence that states that "this guideline does not apply to military bases or American Indian reservations" (I'm preemptively adding the reservations because their situation is similar). Those CDPs that are associated with military bases (but are not defined as equivalent to the base itself) are military housing areas, so there is a sound basis for treating them as populated places. --Orlady (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The objection based on the exception being proposed applying to only a few articles is novel, but at least you finally admit we are talking about an exception. This guideline is replete with exceptions which apply only to a small number of articles, from the AP list which applies to only about two dozen articles, to the NY City Borough convention which applies to exactly five places... from the few cities for which disambiguation by state is not enough (a dozen?), to those that span two states (four or five?)... I'm sorry, but if it wasn't for "Beale Air Force Base is not an article about a CDP" (an assertion shown to be false by simple tautology), this latest "objection" arguing that we should have exceptions in the guideline that apply to such a small number of articles might very well be the lamest of all. I've been very patient with hearing out your objections, and, frankly, they don't amount to anything beyond I just don't like it.
So all you have left is the idea that we should create separate articles for the CDPs that are military bases. Well, maybe, but today all we were trying to do is document how things currently are, and that's what the wording currently, and accurately, reflects. You have not disagreed with that.
Maybe you or someone else can come up with a sound objection later on, but for now there is nothing. But thanks for the time and effort to try to come with a serious objection. Your inability to do so indicates there probably isn't one. --Born2cycle (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
About having separate CDP articles from the article about the locality would be counterproductive. We have hundreds of CDP articles that have not been substantially expanded since 2004 from their geographic and demographic statistics. What if there is a ZIP code area, a school district, a special taxing district, a historic district, an unincorporated community, and a CDP, all with identical names but with slightly different boundaries. Are we now supposed to have individual articles for each of them rather than a single article discussing all aspects of the named locality? I think one way out of having to mention exceptions (if that is what is wanted) is to just remove any mention in the guideline of CDPs and just state that the guideline applies to municipalities and named populated places outside any municipality (i.e. those in unincorporated areas of a county). Since it is claimed that military bases are not populated places, then the guideline doesn't apply. As long as the guideline states that it applies to CDPs in general, there will always be some exceptions. --Polaron | Talk16:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Sarek. Update: In about 20 edits, Polaron has staked ownership claim over a number of apparently possible names for CDPs, in setting up new redirects such as from Dahlgren Center and Dahlgren Center, Virginia to a military base article, e.g.
Dahlgren Center, Virginia (←Redirected page to Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division) (top)
# 06:48, 3 January 2011 (diff | hist) N Dahlgren Center
Let me interpret this behavior as expanding a potential battleground for edit warring, in order to set up additional conflict and/or to channel other editors' development of Wikipedia according to this one editor's unstated, non-consensus vision. It's an expansion of the recent edit warring, just not yet disputed.
It's my educated guess that "Dahlgren Center" is a new CDP, having a GNIS entry. Polaron has some list of the new CDPs which he has so far been unwilling to disclose, and over recent months he has been changing articles nationwide (i believe always without providing any reference), to describe places differently (such as to replace lede statement in a community article that it is an unincorporated community, and to state instead that it is a CDP, when in fact there is no source he will share which supports that) or to set up redirects like these. I have no knowledge, myself, of whether the Dahlgren Center CDP would be defined to be exactly the same as the military base, or if it is a small fraction, or if it includes much area outside. I don't know if it eventually will make sense to describe it within the military base article, though I would tend not to want to do that, but rather keep the CDP info separate (especially if it is not the same geographic area). I do know that there is no mention whatsoever in the military base article of any CDP or of the term "Dahlgren Center". Indeed, yes, running a GNIS query turns up "Dahlgren Center Census Designated Place". And the only info i see for this CDP is that it has so far been given "Census Code" of 21016 and "Census Class Code" of M2, which means "Federal Facilities. A military or other defense installation entirely within a census designated place."
So from what i can see the new CDP could possibly be the same as the base, or it could be larger. There could be off-base residences and a commercial area, i dunno. In google i see that "University of Mary Washington" has a building/center with a term Dahlgren Center stated but not really defined. I don't know if Polaron actually has additional information. In similar cases he hasn't said so, and has not responded to my and others' requests, which is consistent with him not having any valid source in cases like this. But it is also consistent with him having valid source, but choosing not to share it. From past experience with this editor, I believe that he typically withholds his sources, then discloses his information only selectively, if it is in the direction he likes and if he has been forced by accumulated public pressure to reveal some justification. I believe he enjoys the game of seeking to cause suspicion on some matter, and withholding sources, then eventually coming forward with some proof that the other editor was "wrong" in questioning his judgment. So his not providing proof is not info at all. And when he does provide info, it is selectively withholding info running the other way, too. :)
Camping out on these terms is not just for edit warring with me, to be clear; i've mainly had conflict with Polaron on places in Connecticut alone. It's to enjoy bashing new/local editors everywhere, with brusque dismissals of new/local editors tentative edits. :) By establishing early ownership, he can position himself to make it difficult for anyone to create knowledge. For example, usual practice would be, if any other editor created an article at "Dahlgren Center, Virginia" beginning to describe it as a newly defined CDP, that he would interrupt to redirect it again, with terse edit summary "Not needed" or the like. It does not matter that his chosen redirect target does not define or even mention the redirected term. He is taking a position about how other editors will be allowed by him to develop articles, and, as redirects do not currently require sources, it is feasible for him to take his argumentative stance and defend it, making it costly for any other editor to do anything differently, in this battleground that is Wikipedia. --Doncram (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE: In response to discussion here, instead of discussing here, Polaron has increased his pace of redirect-warring and move-warring. He moved Hattertown, Connecticut to Hattertown, for example, an article under explicit discussion at wt:CONN. That's an article whose name has been contested before, rather than proposing a RM or discussing anywhere else (in Connecticut the sentiment in past/similar discussions is against him). His interpretation of naming guideline is extreme: if the naming guideline doesn't dictate, then he's justified in moving an article to any other term. Real mature, Polaron, way to prove your warring abilities!!!! --Doncram (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just left a reminder about controversial moves without discussion on his talk page.
Articles with titles under discussion should be listed at WP:RM. Any article being discussed at WT:CONN should at least have an announcement and link to the discussion on its talk page. You can use the announcement described here, but I would recommend going through WP:RM with the move template.
Doncram's two edits immediately above sound like unresolved objections to me; certainly nobody has answered them - and I don't see any reason for a special rule on military bases; note that military bases are quite often ambiguous (see Fort Hancock, New Jersey and Fort Hancock, Texas). --Pmanderson
Doncram is apparently just against anything I do and his complaints in this section are not directly related to how CDPs that are of the same name and scope as a military base are named. Note that military bases are not as a rule pre-disambiguated unlike U.S. populated places. They are dismabiguated if needed. How should CDPs that are basically the same as the military base they represent be named? The guideline says CDPs should be predisambiguated but a small subset of CDPs are not predisambiguated. Since CDPs can be both a populated place and a military facility, there is an inherent exception. That is why I think removal of the use of the term "CDP" from the guideline would solve the issue some people have with trying to hide the unwritten exception. Just say the guideline applies to municipalities and populated places in unincorporated areas. --Polaron | Talk03:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I object to any change to the guideline, relative to the status quo of several days ago, that would mention military-related CDPs. There is no need to discuss, especially early in the guideline, some hypothetical issue, which would only serve to prejudice normal Requested Move discussions. Polaron's first interest in changing the guideline, i believe, was to force his way in naming on Conning Towers-Nautilus Park in Connecticut, which is a CDP including part of a military base, but that is not the name of a military base. It is the subject of a current requested move. I am having trouble focussing any interest on what the currently proposed change would say, but i don't think it would apply.
Requested moves are the appropriate place to discuss conflicts between guidelines. Polaron is free to argue that the current naming guideline conflicts with reasonable naming for military base articles, if there ever was a proposed move for a military base article. The "solution" of changing the guideline here is a solution for no cases whatsoever, and just clutters up the guideline. This is a solution looking for a problem.
If there are multiple Requested Moves and the same issue seems to have to be discussed again and again, then that is the time to begin to consider changing the guideline here or any other guideline relating to military bases. What problem would any change to the guideline address? --Doncram (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not asking about your preference (none of personal preferences are relevant here). I'm asking if you have an objection against the current wording, not in terms of how it got there or why, but with respect to what it says. Is it inaccurate? Is it inappropriate? What is your objection, if anything, to the what it says? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Doncram, this has nothing to do with Conning Towers as that CDP does not have the same name as a military base and is not coextensive and so will not apply there. I am talking about military bases that are essentially identical to a CDP. Guidelines are also meant to reflect current practice and current practice is that majority of military bases that are CDPs are not following the guideline for CDPs. Either add the exception or lose the strict application to CDPs. Why are to trying to suppress a description of current practice? --Polaron | Talk15:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Why are you trying to insert "a description of current practice"? Lemme try to cut through this, by stating your proposal. Please restate it if i did not get it right. --Doncram (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I am more in favor of wording like this: "The canonical form for cities, towns, and populated places in unincorporated areas in the United States is [[Placename, State]] (the "comma convention")." No fundamental change is needed except to replace the term census-designated places. That way, the guideline also covers non-CDP unincorporated places. A strict reading of the current wording would say that non-CDP unincorporated places do not need to follow the guideline. As current practice already includes non-CDP unincorporated places in the comma convention, why not just formalize it? --Polaron | Talk20:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposed text (proposal by Born2cycle and Polaron):
The canonical form for cities, towns and most census-designated places in the United States is [[Placename, State]] (the "comma convention"). Military bases, including those that are census-designated places, are at the plain name of the base (e.g., Beale Air Force Base), unless the name of the base requires disambiguation, in which case the comma convention is used (e.g., Air Force Academy, Colorado).
Survey comments
Oppose change' I oppose proposed change for 4 reasons:
1) As an editorial matter, it is better to remove this clutter.
2) Military bases are not geographic names; they are something else. I think the naming convention likewise does not apply to individual real estate parcels (e.g. Chrysler Building, legislative districts, or fire districts, or historic districts listed on the U.S. national register, or other defined properties or district areas. Is there some other naming guideline about military bases? It seems out of place here to mention military bases.
3) No purpose has been explained for why the change is needed. The proposers have not provided a list of articles that might be impacted. Is there a single case, where the current name of a military base article would be changed, if this guideline change is implemented? The proposers have not done their homework to be worth larger consideration by the community, IMO.
4) It provides guidance for no Requested Move cases pending or past, as far as i know. Wikipedia editors considering some hypothetical future move request, about a military base article which is associated with a CDP, should be trusted to make reasonable judgments. They can figure out whether the article is highly/some/minimally the about the CDP as opposed to being about the military base. It serves no purpose to pre-judge, here, what are the complications of some future case (and no future case is anticipated). Basically, it has no practical usefulness. --Doncram (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose change. The guideline is clearly about names for populated places, so there should be no need for it to go into detail about the naming of military bases or other entities that are not populated places. However, seeing that the guideline concludes with the seemingly-out-of-place statement "U.S. highways should be listed as is found in Category:U.S. Highway System," I think it might be reasonable to supplement that sentence with an otherwise-seemingly-out-of-place disclaimer to the effect that the guideline doesn't apply to military bases and Indian reservations. --Orlady (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thoughts on CDPs
At the risk of getting us even further off topic, I'm trying to get a better handle on things. First, as far as new CDPs without a source, GNIS is the source. It's not a secret source. But any editor that makes changes to articles to reflect status as a CDP for the 2010 Census should at the very least use {{cite gnis}} to the GNIS record.
And CDPs are a purely statistical invention of the Census Bureau. We don't have articles on CDPs because of that status, but because of their status as a populated place which meets notability criteria (whether there should be an article is a topic for another conversation). The only benefit being designated a CDP provides us is that we know have detailed demographic data for the populated place. In the case of military installations, the CDP and the Air Base are the same entity, but since they aren't an incorporated city (being a federal instalation) the Census Bureau has to create the CDP to track the demographics. We should not have separate articles. The demographic census data should be included in the article on the base/installation, which should follow the military installation naming guideline. Rarely will you find a military-type CDP that includes an area larger than the base itself. For example, most off-base housing around Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota is part of Box Elder, South Dakota. Even if the military base has partial CDPs within its federal borders, such as Fort Campbell, we should include demographics for those CDPs within the military base article. Fort Campbell is unique because it has parts in two states, and the Census needs to delinate the two populations for purposes of congressional apportionment. Fort Campbell North is the only CDP, though. There is no CDP for the Tennessee site of the base. I doubt military bases located entirely within one state would be carved up in this fashion.
In the case of Dahlgren Center, the GNIS record indicates that it is a military instalation that is coextensive with a CDP. I see no issue with creating a redirect from Dahlgren Center, Virginia to Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division, since the military instalation is the primary topic. The CDP is just there to make it easier for the Census Bureau to tabulate census and other demographic data. The Census Bureau's 2010 naming guidelines for CDPs also states that the name "should be one that is recognized and used in daily
communication by the residents of the community" that "residents associate with a particular name and use it to
identify the place in which they live." Also, it recommends there should be "features in the landscape that use the name," such as higway exit signs, "businesses, schools, or other buildings that make use of the name." Finally, the states and local entities name the CDPs through the annual Boundary Survey that is submitted to the Census Bureau.
Some military designations for facilities are not sufficient to meet the "common use" criteria, so that's probably why we have Conning Towers-Nautilus Park instead of Naval Submarine Base New London CDP. Also, the fact that there's a New London, Connecticut preclude use of New London in the CDP name per the same guidelines. While I don't think we need to amend the guidlines to accomodate what already seems to be a defacto exemption, I just don't see the controversy. Either that or I'm completely misreading this debate.DCmacnut<>19:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
We don't have articles on CDPs because of that status, but because of their status as a populated place -- Indeed and that is why I think the best course of action is to simply remove the use of the term CDP in the guideline and state that the guideline applies to municipalities and other populated places in unincorporated areas. In this way, we don't have to worry about military bases at all. As long as the guideline states that it applies to CDPs, we should also state that military base CDPs are an exception. --Polaron | Talk20:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not necessary as the main article will be at the populated place name. The CDP aspect of a place (if the place is used as the basis of a CDP) can easily be discussed in the article about the place. There is no need for a separate CDP article when the locality article already exists. Now in cases where the CDP is totally artificial and does not correspond to any single place, that is not covered by the naming guideline on populated places anyhow. --Polaron | Talk23:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that assertion needs to be answered. I wonder if you mean it as a new tactic to get back to the article name for Conning Towers-Nautilus Park, Connecticut. You previously argued elsewhere that the naming guideline for CDPs doesn't apply because it is a military base. Then you tried to change this naming guideline. Now u want to say it's not a populated place? It's a CDP; of course it is a populated place! Of course the naming guideline, as written, applies. --Doncram (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
No, Doncram. That is demonstrably false. A CDP is not always associated one is to one with a populated place as defined by the USGS. Sometimes a CDP is urbanized left over outside the limits of an incorporated place. Sometimes, it is an artificial construct encompassing several distinct places. Sometimes a CDP is a military facility. Also, this discussion has nothing to do with Conning Towers-Nautilus Park as it is not coextensive with its associated base. I don't know why you're so obsessed about it. --Polaron | Talk03:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I rather expected u to come back with some hairsplitting distinction. This is off-topic, but I fail to see how an urbanized leftover or an artificial construct as u describe is not a populated place as defined in wikipedia following USGS's definition.
If by "cases where the CDP is totally artificial" you are not talking about the Conning Towers one, then what cases are you talking about? Now is your time to make some distinction, but I rather assume you won't share your private, superior knowledge. Suffice it to say, then, the naming guideline applies to an article about a CDP whether or not you think the CDP is "artificial". --Doncram (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Northwest Harwich is an example that I was involved in recently. It is a perfect example of a CDP not corresponding to a single populated place. It is not even clear to me why it was grouped this way because the villages within it are pretty distinct. An example of urbanized left-over is Northwest Ithaca. Most of it is part of the Ithaca urbanized area but is outside the city proper, and there is no populated place (as defined by USGS) known as Northwest Ithaca. If we insist that this specific guideline applies to CDPs in general, then we must list the current practice of exempting CDPs that are also military bases. --Polaron | Talk15:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for naming two examples of what you meant. Northwest Harwich, Massachusetts and Northwest Ithaca, New York articles are properly named, conforming to this guideline. I don't see why you mention these cases; the naming convention should especially apply to these articles as primarily being about places having population, and not at all about a military base or anything else. I also disagree with your last assertion, for reasons stated in my "Oppose" vote to your proposal, above. --Doncram (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
But Fort Drum, a CDP and military base, does not conform, i.e. it is an exception. It's under the guideline as written because it is a CDP but it does not follow the guideline. There are about 60 or so cases like that. This exception has a greater number of members than the AP style guide exception and should be documented as such. --Polaron | Talk15:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Since CDPs "exist" only for the purpose of Census data reporting, I'd prefer that newly designated CDPs not be identified as such until the Census has published data for them. Until then, there's little or no purpose in mentioning their existence. --Orlady (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with respect to new articles, but a lot of the 2010 CDPs already have articles, since they are either recently disincorporated cities or are an unincorporated community that previously had an article. States propose CDPs to the Census, not the otherway around. The information is backed up by the Boundary Annexation Survey perfomed every year. Census data for 2010 at the city/locality won't be released for several more months, but there should be no problem making mention in the article as long as it is properly sourced. Using {{cite gnis}} to the specific GNIS record should be sufficient, since it is an official federal government naming decision.DCmacnut<>21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
In either case, the article is about the community as a populated place, and it's status as a CDP should be secondary to the article with Census data filling in the demographic blanks. Most CDP articles I write have the lede as follows: "Village X is an unincorporated community and census-designated place in State Y." Be Bold and rewrite some of the articles to make them more community-focused. As I said, the bot only did the bare minimum and all city articles, CDPs included, need a lot of work.DCmacnut<>21:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that the places that are going to designated as CDPs should not have articles yet. Rather, the existing articles about places like Carolina, Rhode Island and Quonochontaug, Rhode Island (both of which apparently are new CDPs for the 2010 Census) should not identify those places as CDPs -- nor be inserted into CDP categories -- until such time as there is some actual demographic information about the CDP to be added to the article. --Orlady (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
As for whether and when CDPs should be the subject of separate articles:
For a long time, I had the impression that some Wikipedians consider CDP designations to be more real (and definitely more notable) than the communities that are the basis for the CDPs (this is based largely on the number of times I was summarily reverted for edits like this one). Although my edits like that one are no longer being reverted very often, there are still many articles about populated places whose lead sections supply no noun for the place other than "CDP" (examples include Central, Tennessee, Mascot, Tennessee, and Gray, Tennessee). There is no time like the present to establish the principle that Wikipedia should not treat a place's CDP designation as taking precedence over the place's real existence as a village, unincorporated community, resort development, military enclave, or whatever. --Orlady (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This is why we name the articles as City, State not City Census Designated Place, State. The CDP designation provides more reliably sourced demographic data to populate the article. The prevelence of CDPs in Wikipedia is the result of a bot that added articles for every populated place that had associated Census data, rather than notability criteria (hence the controversy).DCmacnut<>21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There are many articles about communities with distinct and established identities, such as Vineyard Haven, Massachusetts, that identify the community as nothing more than a CDP ("Vineyard Haven is a census-designated place (CDP) in the town of Tisbury on Martha's Vineyard in Dukes County, Massachusetts, United States"). Yes, the bot started it, but it was human editors who reverted me many times when I tried to edit article text to identify these places with nouns such as as "village" or "unincorporated community" -- for an example of what I am referring to, see the edit history for Seymour, Tennessee. I hope we can establish a principle that "CDP" should not displace "village settled in 1844" (or "unincorporated community" or the like) in lead sentences of articles. --Orlady (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Its status as a CDP shouldn't be ignored, and neither should its status as a bonafide village/community. It looks like the change you made at Seymore, Tennessee has held up, and there should be no reason why the same can't be done for Vineyard Haven.DCmacnut<>22:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
However, having said that, I must submit that it can be difficult to discern the existence of a real community behind a CDP (Central, Tennessee is an example of this -- Wikipedia and the Census database are the only places where I've ever seen this alleged community documented) -- and some CDPs are chimeras that may use local names but don't correspond to actual specific places in the real world (Wakefield-Peacedale, Rhode Island is one such -- it consists of two distinct villages, and one of the names isn't even spelled right). As a result of these and other oddball circumstances (Fort Campbell North, Kentucky and Conning Towers-Nautilus Park being others), I think it is inevitable that there are going to continue to be a lot of articles about CDPs that are separate from the articles about the real places with which the CDPs are associated. --Orlady (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The Census guidelines make it clear that a CDP must have "some population and housing" to qualify, and some sense of community and locally. Otherwise it's excluded. With the 2010 changes, hopefully some of the chaffe can be removed. There was also a proposal to eliminate the use of CDPs in states like Connecticut, but local objections caused the Census Bureau to withdraw that proposal. The Census also disallowed the use of hyphenated names in all but the most rare of circumstances, where two separate communities are more readily known locally as hyphens, "for instance, when two communities have grown together to the extent that it is difficult to discern where one ends and the other begin." For Conning Towers-Nautilus Park to exist it had to at least meat that guideline for the Census to allow it. Wakefield-Peacedale, Rhode Island falls into that category too (and is the official spelling per GNIS), as does Manderson-White Horse Creek Census Designated Place, an Indian reservation community in South Dakota. The populated place is Manderson, but the tribe apparently felt the hyphenated name was more appropriated and descriptive and it was approved by the Census Bureau.DCmacnut<>21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
True. The 2010 guidelines are a departure from past guidelines, most likely in an attempt to minimize the variances we've seen in the past. But just like on WP, many localities objected to some of the changes because it was changing the status quo, so it isn't as complete a change as it could be. Ultimately, it's the states that make the call on what gets submitted as a CDP, and more often than not the Census Bureau accepts them. CDPs have been around for nearly 60 years, and communities have grown accustomed to them.DCmacnut<>04:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Dispute over disputed tag... sigh
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
I am starting this discussion in lieu of engaging in the revert battle apparently starting up on this guideline page again. Please engage in this discussion instead of editing the guideline page so that this issue can be resolved through discussion.
Short of starting this section for the purpose of hopefully preventing yet another edit war, and explaining what I know about the situation, I will stay out of this. I trust the rest of you to allow fairness, reason and common sense to prevail.
As I have documented in detail here[16], this guideline page was free of any edit warring throughout December, until 12/31. As anyone can see from the history, prior to 12/31 there were only seven edits in December, and none of them were reverts at all. On 12/31, there was an edit war regarding the military base/CDP issue discussed above, but it lasted only a few edits, and there was an undisputed and unrelated edit as well (to the Philippines section)[17]. As a result of the edit war, the page was put under edit protection. For reasons that have not been explained, despite the page protection, the page was reverted again[18], all the way back to the 12/6 version. That disruptive revert undid not only the 12/31 edit war edits, but also the unchallenged edits that occurred before and after that edit war without any dispute or objections. Despite queries from another editor in addition to me on the talk page of the admin who did this revert, no explanation has been provided, beyond a vague and unsubstantiated claim (false claims cannot be substantiated) that edit warring was going on "in earnest" on 12/6[19]. It might have been an innocent mistake, but I consider the continued defense of this disruptive revert based on the untenable position that there was edit warring going on throughout December indicates this revert was an act of abuse of admin powers.
That aside, soon after this page was recently unprotected, most if not all of the edits that were not part of the edit were restored[20]. However, this has been reverted[21], with the edit summary of, "further revert back to stable content prior to start of non-consensus changes". What non-consensus changes?Can someone who claims any of the edits reverted in this diff please indicate exactly which change had no consensus, and provide evidence of that, please?
Central to all this of course is the disputed tag which I added to the U.S. section on 12/22 [22] to indicate that indeed that section is disputed, and there is an ongoing and active discussion going on about it (which is the requirement for adding this tag per Template:disputedtag). A week later, on 12/30, I added some "dubious" tags to be specific about which parts of the guideline are disputed [23]. At the time I added these tags there was no objection, and no revert, even though I mentioned them in the discussion several times. And it's not like this is a guideline change that requires consensus approval anyway - it's the addition of a disputed tag! The insertion of a disputed tag is evidence of the dispute!
Anyway, I've been far too active here to be the one to reinsert these tags, but somebody should, and Polaron is probably not the best person either, since he was one of the participants in the actual edit war.
If nobody provides evidence (any variant of I don't like it is not evidence) of any edit war occurring in December prior to 12/31 (the claimed justification for reverting to the 12/6 version), in, say, the next 24 hours, then I suggest the page be reverted to the last 12/30 version, plus Jianjan's change from 12/2 [24].
If people continue to hold the untenable position that the U.S. section of this guideline is not in dispute despite the ongoing and active discussion about it going on on this talk page, I suggest someone file a report at WP:ANI about this (I sincerely hope it won't get to that, but if it does, I would suggest linking to this section in the incident report if not copy/pasting from it). I mean, if the dispute tag is not appropriate here, where can it be used? Of course those who support the current wording will dispute the dispute tag - but that is just more evidence of how much dispute there is about it!
The Australian discussion links to an entry on the Australian WP page, which seems to have been archived. In any case, the discussion appears to have resolved.
The American discussion appears to have divided into two. The recent quarrel over base articles seems to have lapsed; three editors expressed divergent views, and there seems no prospect of agreement. Where there is no agreement, we should say nothing.
The older issue does not appear to have a majority, much less consensus, for change. We have a compromise, and several current discussions which are supporting more or less that compromise.
In this edit's edit summary, Born2cycle asserts "Not sure about Australia, but the guidelines for U.S. cities is definitely disputed (and no, not just by me, but by 40-45% of those participating)...". That's misleading. The correctness of the guideline is disputed by Born2cycle and some others, and they feel it is worth creating a dispute. I and many others do not want a change at all, in part because we don't want to have dispute everywhere (in many city articles, in many more neighborhood articles whose naming will possibly be destabilized by city article name changes, and so on). But many who might vote for some change, if there is going to be a change, do not wish for the guideline to be under dispute. Their comments may mean just what they say, that they would prefer something different (without disputing). It's not fair for Born2cycle to claim all voters in a civilized RFC are calling for dispute, or to agreeing with dispute, or anything like that.
Different point: How about a survey on whether editors want dispute here, and want dispute on some list of a few hundred city articles, and want dispute on several hundred more neighborhood articles, and throw in military bases which a handful might want to have disputed too? --Doncram (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You make a good point Don, and raise questions that deserves a response. First, as I've now explained on my talk page in more detail than anyone in favor of mandatory disambiguation has explained the opposite position, I sincerely believe enforcement of the current wording is the root cause of the instability related to U.S. city names. That is, if people stopped favoring articles to be named in order to comply with this idiosyncratic comma convention, the conflict would end, immediately, just as it did for the unambiguous cities on the AP list. From practically the moment three (or so) people decided almost 10 years ago to run a bot to create and/or rename all U.S. cities per the city, state format, there has been dispute about it. I don't want the dispute. I don't wish for the dispute. I seek the end of the dispute.
As to whether it's fair to count all of those in favor of the proposed change in the RFC as disputing the guideline, maybe not. Fair enough. But I think it's pretty clear from the comments that quite a few do dispute it, and it technically requires only one person to dispute a guideline, and an active discussion, to justify the tag.
What is supposed to happen in a discussion about a disputed guideline [i.e., a guideline that is fundamentally disputed --Born2cycle (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)] is one of the following:
consensus support for the guideline section in question is shown to exist, and the tag is removed without modifying the wording, or
compromise wording that does have consensus support is worked out, or
Following this logic, I could start a discussion at WT:NPOV asking whether it should be A) made more detailed B) made less detailed C) kept the same. If A & B got a significant percentage of votes I could then declare the policy to be disputed. I don't think it's a valid way of measuring consensus or writing guidelines Will Bebacktalk04:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the article naming convention is fundamentally an editorial judgment, which a chief editor or an editorial board in a real magazine or real encyclopedia would just make. Like what color font is used, or whether to use bolding in the stated name in the lede of an article. I think most editors would agree to that (maybe a smaller percentage of the editors attracted to discussion here). There may be disagreement about what is the best convention to set, but a lot less disagreement about whether there should be a convention.
There are better decision-making process models to use for decisions like this. For example, in designed communities, the best practice is for a community to delegate exterior color choices to the architect, who can possibly choose a warm or bold or other color that a large committee or a whole community could not possibly choose (they would always choose a blah color). For example, in politicians choosing to close military bases when 10% are no longer needed, they together agree to a process of defining a very small committee to make the decision, and free all the rest of the politicians to posture publicly that they strenuously oppose their local base being closed. These are in fact better ways to make those kind of decisions, rather than majority vote or mob-of-most-angry-editors ruling.
Given the nature of this decision, I think the RFC should be interpreted as: No consensus to choose a different convention. --Doncram (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
How remarkable. Those who favor the current convention believe that a lack of consensus means that we need to keep it! john k (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Good one. Seriously though, what is remarkable here is the frequency with which rationalizing is used to defend the comma convention that would never be used any in any other context, and with which logic which would be considered reasonable elsewhere is inexplicably considered inapplicable with respect to the comma convention.
For example, in PMA's 2nd bullet, he argues "Where there is no agreement, we should say nothing. ". But he applies that reasonable logic only to the lack of agreement regarding the base/CDP issue, not to the equally obvious lack of agreement regarding how U.S. cities with unambiguous names should be titled. It really is remarkable. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Will, I thought it was clear without explicitly saying so, but I suppose I should have pointed out that the logic I outlined above applies only when the discussion/survey in question indicates a fundamental objection to the guideline in question, as favoring [[Placename]] when possible (A) over mandatory comma convention (C) in the RFC survey here clearly does. Need I point out that favoring more or less detail in the current wording of a guideline, as per your hypothetical WT:NPOV survey, is not an indication of a fundamental objection to that guideline? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion
Please rename section "Administrative subdivisions" to "Country subdivisions" and change in text "administrative subdivisions" to "country subdivisions". Not all entities are administrative, e.g. regions of Brazil are statistical. Country subdivision is the broader term. TopoChecker (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the distinction is sufficiently important to warrant renaming the section - and I suspect the "Administrative subdivisions" usage is pretty widespread in national articles. You may be better of suggesting a short addition to the effect that non-administrative subdivisions should be treated in the same way unless otherwise stated, if you think it's important. BenMacDui14:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe country subdivision; it has no sources for its neologism. And even it says Country subdivision refers to the division of a sovereign state's territory for the sake of its administration, description or other such purpose. Collecting statistics is an administrative function.
But simply substituting country for administrative in the existing section makes it repeat country three times in different senses. Guidelines should be readable. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a dog in this race, however, I am not convinced that "Administrative subdivisions" is an entirely appropriate term either. For example, the states in Australia are separately sovereign entities within the Federation. The states here make their own laws for most thigs and the Federal Government may only make laws on things which have a head of power in the Constitution or for things which are ceded to the Commonwealth by the states. I am sure that similar situations exist in other countries, for example as I understand the US, the states there are also separately sovereign entities. The divisions in both cases are far more than merely "administrative". Just what terminology we should use in this guideline, however I am not sure. I suspect that given the variety of legal structures across the world whatever term we use may well turn out to be a neologism for the simple reason that no existing term actually encompasses all the existing entities that we may wish to apply it to. - Nick Thornetalk03:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I would second this as well. "Administrative subdivisions" simply does not work. Nick explained why it does not work for Australia and the US, and I would confirm that it also does not work for Russia, and probably for quite a few other countries (especially the federations). Just because a division facilitates some administrative functions does not automatically make it "an administrative division". My little dictionary of constitutional terminology, for example, contains only a line or two for most term definitions, but it goes into great lengths (two paragraphs at least) to explain just why the federal subjects of Russia are not "administrative divisions", and federal subjects of Russia is definitely a concept falling within the scope of WP:NCCS.
If the term "country subdivisions" does not work, we should seek another alternative. The existing section title should most definitely be replaced with something more sensible. Guidelines should not only be readable, but they should also make sense. Generalization is jolly good, but in this case we are using a term with a specific meaning to refer to a much broader concept.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2011; 15:56 (UTC)
Both these comments are to the effect that States of Australia and two other continental countries are not administrative subdivisions. If so, the section does not apply to them. I never thought it did; the only controversial titles among them are Georgia (U.S. state), Washington (state) and Victoria (Australia) (is this last really idiom? isn't Victoria, Australia the natural disambiguation? not my dialect) - unless I am failing to think of a Russian example. Those cannot be decided by title like others of the same class - and all the others are primary usage, independently of this guideline. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
If the rule does not apply to the US/Australian states, Russian federal subjects, and other entities of a similar nature, then why does most of the first paragraph discuss the oblasts and uses Moscow Oblast as a specific example? Oblasts of Russia haven't been classified as "administrative divisions" since 1993... along with the rest of the federal subjects. If, according to you, the title of the section is OK, then the first paragraph should be re-written completely; using an example of a real administrative division (not necessarily in Russia).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2011; 20:00 (UTC)
I think the principles written in the section can equally apply to all subdivisions, whether or not they're strictly administrative, though I don't think the title will mislead anyone (people looking for advice on what to call not-strictly-administrative-according-to-some-definitions subdivisions are still going to consult that section).--Kotniski (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it did mislead both me and Nick, so I guess it is misleading to at least some people (and especially those who know about the countries for which the distinction is important). So, if the section is to cover all, including not-strictly-administrative divisions (as per you), then why not change the title to something more appropriate? And if it is to cover only administrative divisions (as per PMA), then why not re-write the text to say so? What's the point of having it neither way?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2011; 20:19 (UTC)
Did it really mislead you to the extent that you didn't bother reading that section because you genuinely didn't expect it to cover your kind of subdivision? But I'm not sure what to change it to anyway - "country subdivisions" isn't clear, maybe "subdivisions of countries", but then many of them are subdivisions of entities within countries rather than of the actual countries... perhaps "administrative subdivisions and similar" if we want to be both clear and pedantic.--Kotniski (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
It did mislead me enough to bother to change the title of the section... only to be promptly reverted. When I see oblasts discussed in a section titled "administrative divisions", it either means the title is wrong, or someone didn't know that oblasts are not administrative divisions. My assumption was that the title is wrong, and this thread confirmed it. "Subdivisions of countries" would be fine by me, by the way (if only per this), and so would be "administrative and other divisions", or whatever other wording that's sufficiently tight but not overly broad. PMA, what's your take on this?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2011; 20:46 (UTC)
I thought you were talking about the Russian republics (which have had the same somewhat questionable claim to sovereignty since Soviet times), not the provinces (when did they claim sovereignty? There was a house in Peter which claimed sovereignty in 1917, but nobody accepted it); I will admit that I haven't kept up with Russian federal theory. I have no objection to adding and other, and will do so; I doubt it will confuse anybody. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
They did not claim sovereignty, but when the Constitution of Russia was adopted in 1993—almost twenty years ago—all former administrative divisions of the RSFSR (which included both republics and oblasts, along with other types) became equal members of the Federation (pretty much the same way the US states are equal members of the Union, even though they are a lot more uniform than Russia's federal subjects). As for the change, it's a good start, but I am still having a problem with the section header. Can't we change it to just "Subdivisions" or something?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2011; 21:25 (UTC)
I see no signs of equality or sovereignty; according to this translation, there are no areas of exclusive jurisdiction by "subjects" - a well-chosen name - and subject legislation yields to federal law in all cases whatsoever. Municipalities in all English-speaking countries have the right to pass by-laws too; that doesn't change their status. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson03:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
You should read the entire Constitution then; it's all in there. While some types of the federal subjects have slightly more (or, should I say, slightly different) rights than the other, they are all equal members of the Federation; with equal representation in the Federation Council, just like each US state, for example, has equal representation in the United States Senate (and has the right to pass its own laws).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 31, 2011; 17:04 (UTC)
Why is there so much pedantry over the exact meaning of administrative division? Prima facie it means an established smaller unit used to legislate local laws. I don't think it matters whether the division was top-down or bottom-up (federation), it's still a division of a country. The CIA agrees with me. Probably a good idea to change it to subdivisions though, in case there is some random outlier. Subdivisions is an all-encompassing term anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Because we are an encyclopedia (with the goals quite different from those of the CIA), and we should be paying attention to this kind of things. The CIA list simply assigns the "administrative divisions" label to all top-level divisions of all countries; including the United States. That's convenient and serves their purpose, but academically it is just not right. The exact definition of an "administrative division" is very country-specific; heck, in Russia alone administrative divisions are handled differently and tracked separately from the municipal divisions, even though in 98% of cases they occupy the exact same territory. Other countries may have their own idiosyncrasies. This is precisely why "administrative divisions" is such a poor choice in our guidelines. "Subdivisions", on the other hand, is sufficiently vague to avoid this kind of complication, yet not so vague as to make the editors wonder just what the heck the guideline covers, exactly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 31, 2011; 17:04 (UTC)
A third alternative
How about the term National subdivision? This makes better English than "Country subdivision" and avoids to issues identified above with "Administrative subdivision". - Nick Thornetalk21:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I've supplied a few sources supporting the use of the term "country subdivision" in English here (Nick, if you could comment regarding what you think about those sources, I'd appreciate it). As for "national subdivision", I myself am indifferent—I think it's neither much better nor much worse that "country subdivision", and also enjoys its share of use in English (as these gbooks hits would attest). The problem is that "country subdivision" is already used in many areas in Wikipedia, and changing it to another term would require quite a bit of extra work with hardly any additional benefits.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 31, 2011; 21:21 (UTC)
I'm not sure people are necessarily going to understand "national subdivision" any better than "country subdivision". Are divisions within a city, say, felt to be divisions of a nation or country? I would think it more likely that someone scanning the page or the table of contents to find this guidance would overlook the section if it were renamed to something like this (and I don't see much other reason to be concerned about this point - as I say, to avoid perceived inaccuracy we could add "and similar" to the present title).--Kotniski (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
You've got a point there. What do you think about changing the section to just "Subdivisions"? Nick, I'd appreciate your thoughts as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 1, 2011; 20:55 (UTC)
I'm not particularly wedded to any alternative, I just proposed "National subdivision" to see whether it might satisfy both sides of the debate. As for just "subdivisions" it avoids my main objection to "country subdivision" - that the word "country" is not an adjective. I have just re-read the section in question and I wonder whether it is clear what we are talking about to anyone visiting this guidline for the first time. Would we be better to expand the heading a little, perhaps to something like "States, Provinces and similar regional subdivision". Just a thought. - Nick Thornetalk21:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Exactly - after all, this is not an article title and as I think about it, clarity would seem to be more desirable than brevity in this case to avoid confusion. - Nick Thornetalk23:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
National subdivision can have the connotation that an entity exists to group people from a certain ethnicity, see Administrative divisions of China, or in Russia JAO, U.S. Cherokee Nation, Canada List of First Nations governments. How about Territorial division/Territorial entity? I would prefer entity since it does not have the connotation of an act. The term would avoid reference to the country level, thus can include euroregions like Meuse-Rhine Euroregion. Since the sections are labeled in plural, it would be Territorial entities. Subdivision and administrative division are too vague, they have no reference to any territorial extension. A company can have a subdivision for trucks and one for motorcycles. Maybe also territorial subdivisions. I would prefer to choose a term over description since people in discussions can then easier refer to the topic. Territorial entity would also include physical geography objects like the Amazon Basin, so that would be one guideline for human and physical geography resulting in more consistency. NCGN (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Request for new section: Federated States of Micronesia
Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
Would this be the place to propose a quick guideline for the Federated States of Micronesia? I know it's a very small country, with hardly any articles on it, but in the various Lists of countries there seems to be an trend of incorrectly naming, most likely due to lack of awareness.
Because Micronesia is a region, there is no official short form name for the FSM, apart from the acronym. It is not called "Micronesia" but this appears to be the trend in these lists. But this is similar to calling the United States "America". It's not very encyclopaedic, especially seeing as the name carries heavy a political connotation when used to refer to only one part of a very wide region. It would be in line with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV to add a quick message such as:
"When referring to the Federated States of Micronesia, the long-form should be used. There is no official short-form name, and the use of simply "Micronesia" can ambiguous. It is also often seen as disassociating to other parts of the region."
Based on usage in the NY Times [25], it appears that the official name is the long name, but is commonly referred to as just "Micronesia". I mean, the formal name of the United States is "United States of America", but we still refer to it as the "United States" for short. This seems like the same thing. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it's worth setting up something similar to the Ireland style, with Micronesia able to be used when the context is unambiguously the state and not the region? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
There's no comparison to the useage of "United States" for the U.S., or "Ireland" for the Republic of Ireland, because they are the official short form names for those countries. A better analogy would be with the useage of "America" for the U.S., or "Central Africa" for the Central African Republic. The FSM doesn't have a short-form name, and it's never referred to as "Micronesia" in official contexts. Rennell435 (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a comparison, if not a direct analogy, and "Ireland" is also the official long name ;) Anyway, there seems to be some idea on english wikipedia where official names sometimes aren'tused, but common names are. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, the flaws of a consensus encyclopaedia. If only we could use {{flag|Federated States}} for FSM!(Per United States, of course) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
But "Ireland" is also a common name for the state; Using "Micronesia" for the FSM is not very common outside Wikipedia, and it's never referred to as such in official documents and reliable publications. So, if the redirect is the problem in the lists, how do I go about getting that redirect deleted? It's against WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV to have it in the first place. Can we add a brief statement on this page for clarification with editing? Rennell435 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
But these aren't official documents. The FSM does not claim it as its shortform name. And using "Micronesia" is ambiguous, as the common definition refers to the region. Rennell435 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia (for better or worse) doesn't depend on the official status for names, hence titles such as North Korea and South Korea. Additionally, I disagree that the common definition is the region, based on a few google searches I've been running through, although if you got that from somewhere that'd be useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The original proposer has made an entirely clear and reasonable suggestion. "Micronesia" is problematic for many reasons, and in the absence of a short title the full title should be used unless there are clear and compelling reasons in a particular instance why this is not appropriate. It is like using America as a short form of United States of America - just because the Federated States of Micronesia is a small country doesn't make it any more appropriate. And, unlike the China dispute (or, arguably the Timor Leste dispute), there is not a clear and widespread use of the incorrect name. As an encyclopedia, accuracy trumps common usage. It especially trumps uncommon usage. 203.219.241.110 (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I agree with this. The term doesn't read quite right in an encyclopaedic context, and I can't shake the analogy to "America", which I'd also object to unless there was a good reason for. The most compelling reason, however, given the country's lack of notability, is ambiguity. I think that most of the problem would be fixed if that redirect template was deleted. I mean, I'd definitely object to America in any list of countries. It doesn't look very academic. Nightw10:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago83 comments15 people in discussion
I would like to rise the issue of naming the settlements within de-facto independent countries.
My example is a small town Drmbon located in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The later is an unrecognized republic (recognized only by Transnistria, a non-UN member state) and is claimed by Azerbaijan to be part of it. The settlements of this republic have both de-jure Azerbaijani names and de-facto local names. Currently the de-jure names are listed in Wikipedia as default ones, so the default name of the mentioned above village Drmbon is the Azerbaijani version: Heyvali.
In my opinion this is a wrong attitude to the issue since it misleads Wikipedia readers. My arguments are as follows:
People who live there, call it with de-facto name Drmbon.
If one decides to contact someone in the village, he/she should mail to de-facto address in Drmbon (not Heyvali).
If a tourist visits the village, he/she will need the de-facto name.
Businesses that would decide to operate in the village or cooperate with companies operating there will need the de-facto name.
Like for many similar cases, statements about internationally not recognized status of the name have no practical value as long as the negotiations on conflict resolution are in progress.
That seems to be more of a language issue, with two names in different languages. Probably should be done casebycase by demographics of the town. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Not necessarily a language issue. Not always the issue is about the same name expressed differently in different languages. Like in the mentioned case, both names have nothing in common. --Ashot(talk)15:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Well it's still two languages with different names, so in this case at least you could probably go using Drmbon, as Armenian is the language spoken in the town I suppose. It'd be more tricky if say there were two names in the same language. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not purely a language issue, because of the geopolitical issues involved. If we pick the Azeri name, the Armenians will complain about the people who actually live there not being represented; if we pick the Armenian name, the Azeris will complain that the NKR doesn't actually exist and the people there don't have the right to make up names for their towns. (Honestly, I'm more neutral than this statement suggests, I just find much more annoyance with the Azeri POV) And sadly, this town is so tiny and insignificant as to never have had any English press on it, let alone significant press, but then again, the problem extends to the rest of the towns in Nagorno-Karabakh as well. --Golbez (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand the geopolitical issues, but I think the best way to be NPOV is to make it a simpler, leaving both POV's aside and choosing a better standard. It doesn't matter what it is, but the name shouldn't be determined by comparing POV's. That is just begging for problems. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to my world. And I already know what their argument will be: "What if an Armenian-majority population of Glendale, California, decided to start calling it something different? Would we have to rename the article?" You might say, "only if the city government changes it," but then we run into a similar de facto vs de jure issue. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong at all; I'm just familiar with the arguments and tactics. --Golbez (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, the Azeri side will simply say that it's POV to use the Armenian name because the world inexplicably recognizes the area as belonging to Azerbaijan, so we're basically picking the name a few rebels use over the name the rest of the world uses. Sort of. --Golbez (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, interesting counterargument Golbez. I'll have to think that one over. Best not to mention US city names here, their use seems disputed!
1. People who were expelled from the region only because of their nationality use official names not Armenian.
2. If one decides to contact someone in the village, he/she cannot do it as there is no international mailing with this illegal "state" and he/she will not find postal code of any Drmbon.
3. If a tourist wants to visit the village, he/she will need to have permission from Azerbaijani government in order not to violate the law and he will need to know the official name to get the permission.
4. Businesses that would decide to operate in the village or cooperate with companies operating there will need to have permission from Azerbaijani government in order not to violate the law and will need to know the official name to get the permission.
5. And the international recognition is very important since the negotiations are in progress and there is no final decision which could abolish the recognition and present status of the region. You cannot oppose the self-proclaimation of the illegal regime to the law of the legal authorities of Azerbaijan and the international community.
6. And finally: saying "de-facto and de-jure name" is not correct. There are legal names (recognized by Azerbaijan and international community) and names used by illegal authorities controlling the region and their supporters in Armenia. De-jure and de-facto are only used to separate authorities.
P.S. Golbez, I appreciate your help but please do not say "I already know what their argument will be". At least it is not polite. --Quantum666 (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not impolite in the least to predict what arguments will be used. Especially when the prediction is entirely accurate. --Golbez (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Please see my comments on your note below:
1. Expelled people do not live there now. This is the reality. Once they come back, new consensus for the name may be challenged. Besides, this cannot be a decisive argument for there is a substantial number of Armenians expelled from current Azerbaijan controlled territory. Should they claim other names for those towns?
2. To your knowledge, to send a mail to Drmbon, one should mention the following on the envelope: [Street, apt, etc.], Drmbon, Martakert Province, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Armenia. Armenia is mentioned here, since the mail can be delivered to Nagorno-Karabakh Republic via Armenia only.
3. You obviously have never traveled to Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Requesting permission from Azerbaijan to visit NKR is nonsense. See, say [26] and [27] for further details.
4. Again it sounds nonsense that any business currently operating in NKR has ever requested permission from Azerbaijan. E.g. one of the largest NKR taxpayers, Base Metals CJSC operates in Drmbon ([28]) and has never needed and hopefully will not ever need any permission from Azerbaijan.
5. Nations' right to self-determination is not inferior to territorial integrity. Otherwise there would be multiple times less UN members. In the meanwhile I simply oppose reality to Azeri dreams - de-facto reality to de-jure dreams.
6. Term illegal is not appropriate here. Should NKR be illegal, no negotiations on its status would be in progress.
Sorry, do you mind if we skip the political debate here and just stick with discussion of WP protocol? Use the name used most often by English sources. On this particular example: from Google hits, seeing as Heyvali gets none whatsoever, the page should be at Drmbon. That's my opinion. Nightw18:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Except that the U.S. military GEONet database, I believe it is, uses "Heyvali", and that's a pretty big and neutral source on the matter. The problem with a Google search is that the sample size is too small. --Golbez (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Quantum666 is right on the above issues. As mentioned by Ashot, the address does need to mention Armenia if anything is being sent to Nagorno-Karabakh because the entity is non-existent on paper and is unrecognized by any state. Anyone travelling to Karabakh without Azerbaijan's permission gets blacklisted. The Polish government, for example, recently issued a memo for those travelling to the region [29]. To recap, why would several Wikipedia editors change the name of a village to Drmbon if the international recognition is Heyvali? The name Goycha Azerbaijanis have for Sevan gets thousands of hits [30] but that shouldn't mean anything, should it? Or should we change the name? By the way Ashot, Karabakh is not "claimed" by Azerbaijan. It is an internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan which has an Armenian minority, just like the United States has an Armenian minority in Glendale, California. So, it is on contrary, it's Armenia's claim to Karabakh and as long as the negotiations go on, the legal name of Heyvali should be retained. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
If you want to be pedantic about "claims", then don't erroneously state that Armenia has claimed any portion of Azerbaijan or Nagorno-Karabakh. --Golbez (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
And here Glendale argument comes :) There is an important difference between Sevan and Drmbon. Sevan is controlled by Armenia and reflects reality, Drmbon is not controlled by Azerbaijan and hence Heyvali reflects merely Azeri dreams. Re-read my 5th and 6th comments for the rest. --Ashot(talk)20:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
That's the thing, if its Azerbaijani population was not deported in 1940-1950's they would have a chance for an autonomy or similar claims as well. Instead, they were deported and denied any rights for autonomy.
Golbez, why don't you just study the conflict first? Will you? Being affectionate to an Armenian cause is not enough. Armenian SSR claimed Karabakh with its demands to annex the territory of a neighboring state. It abandoned its claims only because it realized what the international law is. That's why they switched to "self-determination". When one entity claims a part of another entity it's called a claim. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Folks, could you please take this discussion to the article talkpage? If anyone has anything to say generally about de jure versus de facto naming conventions, that could be a worthy topic to discuss. But this is not the forum to discuss Azeri-Armenian relations. Dohn joe (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
You're of course right, and I apologize for letting my emotions get the better of me. The problem isn't just de jure vs de facto, but what to do in the absence of English sources whatsoever? I don't consider < 10 sources a proper enough sample set to say, "See? This name is used more in English!" And as you can see, POV issues (be they sensical or non) prevent a simple "well who lives there?" count. The most neutral source appears to be the GEONet database, which uses the de jure name. So I guess the question is: When all else fails, do we fall back on the U.S. government? :) --Golbez (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why it's so hard to see the point. Regardless of who lives in that village, how much of importance it is to Armenian users, and what name will be used when someone takes tourists there, the village has a name Heyvali given by the legitimate government. The name Drmbon is given by the illegitimate government. If the illegimate government was legitimate in the first place, it would have been recognized by the rest of the world and you would see the name appear as Drmbon. I'll even give you a Wiki-related example. When adding information in Wikipedia articles, users have to properly source their additions. What happens when sources are forum or angelfire-type amateurish websites? Other editors or administrators will come in and remove the text since the sources are not recognized. It's within the Wiki laws. Same with illegitimate governments which are unrecognized. If they are used as a source for names, the names are not recognized by the international community. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Golbez, I think neutrality of the source is secondary. The primary goal is to have coverage of real life about the settlement. Then comes the question "how?". Well, if there are neutral sources which can serve the goal, then fine. Otherwise, those sources have no value. In this case GEONet database entry does not help a Wikipedia reader with coverage of reality and sources from de-facto inhabitants of the settlement have much more significant practical value.
I think that decisive factor in this debate is not neutrality as it is understood above, but the ability to reflect the reality. --Ashot(talk)21:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The reality is, Azerbaijan says the name of the town is Heyvali. The thing is, if we go with what Azerbaijan says on this matter, why not go with them on all matters? Should we even have articles on the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which Azerbaijan wishes didn't exist, and which countless of Azeri editors have included in quotes, lest the mere mention of its name confer legitimacy? Slippery slope arguments aren't great, but there's one to be made here. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think, the question is not which government is legitimate which not. The question is, which name is more common in English language sources. The purpose of wikipedia is to use a common and widely accepted language, not to decide which party of a conflict is "right". And yes, if Goycha would be more common in English language, we should use it as article name regardless of its current political status (however Sevan gets over a million hits in google, thus hundred times more than Goycha). After all, that's what WP:AT clearly states: common names are preferable to official names. I have the impression that Azeri users misuse the argument about "de jure status" and other nationalistic allegations to suppress English common names of many Armenian places in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. --vacio21:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
However, there's the issue that very few places in Nagorno-Karabakh have common English names. It's not exactly a well-known place. So, in the absence of such, what should be used? I think that's the main question here. --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
By common English names, we mean the version of the place name that is more common in English language sources, the way English sources more often mention it. --vacio22:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
But Heyvali and Drmbon have, combined, been mentioned in, what, 20 English sources? Ever? At least as far as Google sees them? That's not a large enough sample set to derive a conclusion as to which is 'more common'. --Golbez (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand, since when De-facto name is higher than de-jure? De-jure must come as primary, then de-facto as secondary in this articles. --NovaSkola (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, Novaskola. In most articles de-facto takes precedence, but in some articles the weight of sustained edit warring causes alternative outcomes. The main advantage of using a de-facto name is that, in almost all cases, deciding what the de-facto name is is not going to start an argument. De-jure is always going to be a matter of editors' opinion and the cause of endless arguments, de-facto is not going to cause anythign like the same amount of hassle since the name would just reflect the reality on the ground. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for mix up. All I want to say is Wikipedia should focus on UN regulations and international observance, which puts de-jure ahead of de-facto. Therefore Karabakh articles, should be named in Azerbaijani language not de-jure as UN does not recognise any of this make up stories.--NovaSkola (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
If you buy a road map, you would expect it to accurately show a region's roads, its current borders, and the names of places that appear on the road signs along those roads. What would you think of a map that did not show a new road because that road had been constructed by an "unrecognised" civic administration? What would you think of a map that did not show an international border (a border which, if crossed, would probably result in your death) just because that border defines a country that is politically unrecognised? An accurate map should show objective reality, not subjective reality. The same must be true for Wikipedia articles if they are to be accurate and credible.
Wikipedia articles exist to inform those reading its articles. They should contain verifiable reality, not partisan propaganda, fantasy, or wish-fulfilment. For an article about a place, THE key piece of information is the name and location of that place. Unless a very good alternative reason exists, the place name used for the article title should be the name that those currently living in or administering that place call it. And the location should be the location in which an inhabitant of (or visitor to) that place would find himself in.
Move away from that position and we risk Wikipedia articles becoming laughing stocks when they become owned by partisan groups. Some of the worst examples are found in articles connected to Northern Cyprus. For example, the northern half of Cyprus is still described with its pre-1974 administrative divisions even though they ceased to administer ANYTHING almost 40 years ago! And all the articles for places located in Northern Cyprus seem to use as their article title names that haven’t been in use for almost 40 years. In what way is living a fantasy that the last 40 years have not happened properly informing a reader? What use are such articles to someone perhaps using Wikipedia to plan out a visit to Cyprus? These articles have thrown out objective reality and the requirement to inform and have replaced them with POV dogma.
What justifies the use of the phrase "de-jure" in relation to place names? There is no such thing as "international law" in relation to place names, names are not "legal" or "illegal" in an international context. Would editors using these phrases in a legal context please quote one line in ANY international law or treaty or convention that legislates what people can or cannot call the villages, towns, or cities they live in or administer. Would editors using de-jure in a colloquial context explain why places should de-jure (i.e. "in principle") be called something different from what their inhabitants and administrators call them? Surely, in principle they should be called the same name that their inhabitants and administrators call them! Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
@Novaskola: Actually, no, Wikipedia does not and cannot look to the UN for answers. For one, the UN very often doesn't take a stand on local names. Sometimes when they choose a name, they even explicitly say "Hey, we're not saying this is the right name, we're just saying that we need to pick something, so we're picking this one." Our only goal must be to pick the name most commonly used in English. This actually makes me think a little more about the point below--it's a smokescreen obscuring our only requirement: What is the name in English? Technically, that means if the place has been mentioned only a dozen times in English sources, we look for the most commonly used names in those dozen sources. Choosing the UN as the primary source is a political decision, which is not appropriate. Just like, in general, we don't try to figure out what is "true" in the world--instead, just trying to write down what other reliable sources have already verified, we shouldn't be trying to figure out the "correct" name for a place. We have to follow the sources, not a governmental body. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
UN and other international organizations as well as international community, governments are the primary sources for reference. What de-facto separatist authorities name the village is irrelevant because it's their word and position against the whole world. The argument that we should avoid UN or any other international organization is not strong at all. Those organizations represent the world and they were created to voice the international community. Otherwise you would have total chaos if every other ethnic group wanted to call villages what they wanted. With the logic above then it is OK for a group of separatists to occupy a sovereign territory, force hundreds of thousands of its people out, rename the villages and have the international community to go along with it? No, I'm sorry. It doesn't work that way. If it ever did, you would other governments, organizations and so forth recognize the separatist authorities and entity. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Map of the UN member states by their dates of admission Those separatist regimes, as some call them, become independent and recognized states with the course of time. If you look over the history of the UN, you'll notice that the number of UN members grew from 50 to 192. Recent recognition of Kosovo, Abkhazia, and South Osetia by some UN member states, as well as referendum in Sudan just confirm the history course. As for primary source of reference, there is nothing more primary than practical usefulness. In this regard, Dohn joe's proposal seems to very well fit with the real state of things. --Ashot(talk)16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
All those cases differ, especially the Sudan case, where as per Naivasha Agreement, the central government agreed to hold a referendum. In case of Nagorno-Karabakh, neither the central government of Azerbaijan SSR nor the central Soviet government did not agree to hold any referendums or allow an outright annexation of Azerbaijani territory to Armenia. The best example of how two nations resolve a conflict is that of Åland Islands, where one nation provide a high degree autonomy to another ethnicity. That is also the case with Azerbaijan which has already repeatedly offered and offers that kind of autonomy to Armenians. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Please be reminded that this page is for general guidelines. Even if what you say was NPOV, that wouldn't mean that 20 year old Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is going to be an exception of the worldwide trend of self-determination of nations. More and more nations worldwide become independent and usually they strike a difficult route before that. However it is the de-facto governments that administer the settlements they control, they accept visitors and validate businesses there, only them deal with real life there. --Ashot(talk)18:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You bet it is an exception. Otherwise, we would see state leaders and international organizations recognize the independence of the entity. On the contrary, within the last 20 years, we see quite the opposite with world leaders declaring Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is different than the other conflicts, including presidents of Russia and United States, the countries that recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Kosovo, respectively. Understandably, nations can become independent based on self-determination principle but within the concept of inviolability of territorial integrity, or with legal referendums, consent of central governments. This was not the case with Karabakh. By the way, not every state ends up with independence they wish for. You can review both the case of Åland Islands, which ended up in peaceful agreement with retaining a high degree of autonomy and the territorial integrity of the state and the case of Srpska Krajina which was re-taken during Operation Storm due to its unwillingness to compromise. Both options are still considered within the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, then stop discussing recognitions of states, "trend of self-determination", "a difficult route before that", "validating businesses there". As much as this is your business interest since you own the business User:Psalm Tours, Wikipedia relies on valid neutral sources where Heyvali is the name of the village. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not going to stop discussing obvious reality just because it is painful to some people (you among them). And before saying "Exactly,.." would be great of you to reread your previous posts. --Ashot(talk)20:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Look Ashot, do you have nothing better to do than to keep this exchange here? Qwyrxian touched on the issues of international organizations like UN and I replied elaborating on the issue. Then comes Ashot with the line of argument used by Armenian Republic of recognition of "NKR" because Kosovo, S. Ossetia, Abkhazia were recognized by several countries and even mentions Sudan referendum without realizing that it is held based on bilateral agreement, not outright secession. And I replied to you explaining why Karabakh conflict is different than those you mentioned and that not every separatist state ends up being independent be it in 20, 30 or 100 years. Without a substantial argument, you change the subject to "this is not a discussion on Nagorno-Karabakh Republic status". Well, OK, I thought it should be you who needs to be reminded of that. So, please stop wasting everyone's time and wait for others to comment. Your business interest here should not be represented by questioning legality of the names of village or the whole region. As a courtesy, please wait until someone else comments. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Tuscumbia - I think you have gone well over the edge of acceptability and into incivility by making insinuations that an editor's edits and arguments are done for financial gain. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposal on de jure vs. de facto names
It seems to me that this de jure versus de facto naming issue is most closely related to the Multiple local names section of the existing guideline. I would thus propose either a subsection 5.1 Disputed territories, or simply add the following to section 5:
Territories under disputed sovereignty often have different names given to them by de facto and de jure authorities. In choosing titles for articles related to disputed territories, always look first to see if there is an accepted English name to describe the subject of the article. If the subject does not appear often enough in English-language sources to establish an accepted English name, choose the name used by a clear majority of current residents of the subject of the article. If no majority exists, or it cannot be proven, use a neutral source, such as the GEOnet Names Server. In every case, both de facto and de jure names should appear in the lead of the article, with an explanation of their status.
This is just a rough draft; any comments or changes are welcome - especially from editors not involved in the specific naming dispute that began this debate. Dohn joe (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm unsure of how appropriate it would be for me to present this but considering its relevance, I figure it wouldn't hurt much. Following the Armenian Genocide, a lot of towns, cities, monuments and other place names were changed in a really poorly-devised attempt to conceal the notion that the Armenians had ever lived in the lands now comprising eastern Turkey. Some of these name changes consisted in changing the spellings, while others resorted to direct translations from Armenian into Turkish or some other inventions. Without wishing to even begin a question on the legitimacy of a genocide and wiping out every trace of a people who once lived there, it only makes sense that in creating articles about those places that we use whatever is now used by the Turkish government and that's why we have examples like Akdamar Island (instead of Aght'amar), Kahramanmaraş (for Marash), and so on. Of course, in accordance with the above rule, the former names of these places are mentioned and, as much as it pains me to say it, there seems to be little other recourse to follow. Food for thought? Perhaps? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
No, it is an unimportant issue, except to those who wish to use Wikipedia as a tool to proclaim an ethnic cause. Similarly, some of the Italian names of the South Tyrol were invented to support the Italian frontier of 1918, which was chosen to include all genuinely Italian populations and to secure Italy a strategic frontier; the latter meant including substantial German-speaking and Italian-speaking minorities within Italy. If there is consensus on the ethnic majority and the population balance is not the result of population transfer, we can consider this; on the other hand, such cases probably will bear the name of the local majority in English reliable sources - and if they do not, we should stop and consider why. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This solution seems beautiful to me. As far as I can see right now it is the best one to serve the major goal of reflecting real-life situation in Wikipedia and avoiding imposition of de-jure dreams on readers. --Ashot(talk)07:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This is already essentially covered in the Multiple local names section. Your proposal doesn't really fix most problems, because for most disputed places you'll be unable to determine a preferred English name--both names may well appear in English sources--and you'll certainly have no way to reliably determine the name used by residents. Having dealt with this issue for a several disputed areas in East Asia, I'm doubtful that what you've added will actually stop many potential disputes.
And you have reliable sources that demonstrate that, along with a reliable source that demonstrates that the local name is Drmbon? And there aren't contradictory sources that claim that, in fact, the name is something else, or that the ethnic distribution is something else? And even if all of this is true, just how many problems will this solve? My guess is that the vast majority of situations are nowhere near as clear-cut as this, and will have to default back to the more general process of consensus building. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment 1) As stated in the proposal just above, we really need to find a solution applicable to all towns in states with limited recognition, which almost invariably have multiple names. I also would limit the scope of any convention we develop here specifically to these entities or we'll have more debates coming in respect to the many ethnic minority areas around the world.
2)As also stated above, if a name exists that is in widespread use in English language text sources, then that name should be used: be that either a proper exonym (e.g. Kyrenia, not Keryneia or Girne or Lachin, not Berdzor or Laçın) or one of the endonyms (e.g. Stepanakert which is much more commonly used than Khankendi).
3) If none of the names is the widespread use - which will be the case with the vast majority of smaller villages and towns - then we have to decide on whether we fundamentally prefer to use the the new local name or the name recognized by the majority of governments.
What we shouldn't do is decide case-to-case based on Google hits for individual towns, as this will invariably lead to endless disputes and frequent page moves due to varying search results.
The decision between the local and the de jure one is a difficult one. Generally we have in the past used the de jure name on the English language Wikipedia. Cf: Dikomo, not Dikmen; Uroševac, not Ferizaj or Rîbniţa not Rybnitsa. In any case - if we do opt for the "local" name it will have to be the name used by the government that has actual control over the territory, we cannot do OR into the actual use of a name in individual towns.
Other Wikipedias have varying policies. Some use the de jure name, others (e.g. German/Dutch) have opted for the local name instead. Cf e.g. de:Ferizaj or nl:Martoeni (Dutch transliteration for Մարտունի)
In a stabilized de facto country, the (new) local name is likely to be used more and more over time, as travellers and journalists travelling to these areas only encounter only the local name. Currently however, for most names in these countries the old names are still used by the majority of gazetteers and databases; largely due to the fact that official publications by outside governments and the UN, will use the old name for political & diplomatic reasons.
The main argument for using the new name is that up-to-date, current information will more likely than not use the new name due to the fact thatz statistics and data is compiled by the de facto government and not the de jure one, which has no control over the territory and thus cannot provide accurate data.
As editors of a dictionary such as Wikipedia we have to decide whether we want to stick with what is more popular with English language governments and institutions or whether we want to use what is more common in recent local sources, which may have more recent and reliable information albeit not in English. There are good arguments for both. Travelbird (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no problem with transliteration of the current names of villages although having them in Latin alphabet is quite normal. They were all created by an expert on the issue Carlossuarez. But to go ahead and chnage the name of a village as per will of some users based on unrecognized data issued by illegitimate authorities is wrong. I understand the people currently living in the village want their own name, and it has been already inserted into the article as an alternative name and the name Drmbon redirects to Heyvali anyway, but to move the article to Drmbon is really not a good solution. This will create a mass precedent and conflicts all over Wikipedia. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Term illegal is not appropriate for most cases, including NKR. Should those governments be illegal, there would be no negotiations over their status. --Ashot(talk)16:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Nor would Azerbaijan have acknowledged their existence by signing the Bishkek Protocol. After all, you tend not to make cease fire agreements with people breaking the law. --Golbez (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, Golbez, you're not informed enough. The Bishkek Protocol was a result of Russian mediation and terms laid out by Russia, not even Armenia. If the "NKR" was recognized by the parties, it would have been a party to negotiations. I don't think you Gukasyan or Sahakian anywhere or in between the meetings mediated by OSCE Minsk group. This war is between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and there are two other interested parties: the Armenian community of Nagorno-Karabakh and the Azerbaijani community of Nagorno Karabakh. The former has an illegal government installed by Armenia, the latter is represented by an agency in Azerbaijan. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I read it on Wikipedia. I hear that's an encyclopedia you can change in case it's wrong; maybe you should change the part that reads, "signed by representatives of Republic of Armenia, unrecognized Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic of Azerbaijan, and Russia's representative"? Sounds like if the NKR representative signed a document that the Azeri representative signed, then they were all copacetic on the matter. --Golbez (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Nobody disputes somebody representing Armenians of Karabakh signed the document, but that doesn't mean it's recognized. If separatist authorities were recognized they would be in the negotiation process. As of 1992 when OSCE mediation started, the negotiation process included only Azerbaijan and Armenia and the two communities of Karabakh (Azeri and Armenian) have been recognized as interested parties. It's called Baker Rules, laid out by US Secretary of State at the time James Baker. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Last week, I drafted a proposed addition to the naming guideline, dealing with situations where there are conflicting de jure and de facto names for places where sovereignity is disputed. After getting the initial feedback, I've revised the proposal and opened it up to the wider RfC community to see what folks have to say. In making the draft, my goal was to follow WP precepts such as neutrality and verifiability as much as possible. Dohn joe (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Here's the revision, which I propose to add to the Multiple local names section of the guideline (possibly as a subsection 5.1 Disputed territories):
Places in states with limited recognition often have different names given to them by de facto and de jure authorities. It is not the role of Wikipedia to rule on the legality or illegality of these authorities, but rather to reflect reality, to the extent it is verifiable. With that in mind, in choosing titles for articles related to disputed territories, always look first to see if there is an accepted English name to describe the subject of the article. If the subject does not appear often enough in English-language sources to establish an accepted English name, choose the name used by a clear majority of current residents of the subject of the article. If no majority exists, or it cannot be proven, use a neutral source, such as the GEOnet Names Server. In every case, both de facto and de jure names should appear in the lead of the article, with an explanation of their status.
As should be clear, this proposal prefers de facto names over de jure names but only for the article title. The body of the article should present the entire picture, as neutrally as possible. Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I was going for unexceptional, actually - just applying existing WP policy specifically to disputed territories, as that seems to be an issue. And I also explicitly said WP's goal is "to reflect reality, to the extent it is verifiable". Does that address your objection? Dohn joe (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Septentrionalis is right. The names are to be based on reliable sources and neutral sources includingGEOnet Names Server, you mentioned state that the name of the village is Heyvali, i.e. it's legitimate and recognized name. That's the only reason the neutral sources indicate the correct legitimate names. Same applies to every single village and town in the breakaway unrecognized territory. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
An entity with limited recognition usually means that it doesn't enjoy a considerable, wide-spread recognition, which in turn means that the local toponyms of the entity have little, if no power over the commonly utilized ones. This is why the majority of geographical maps actually use de-jure names. In my view the usage of de-facto names in disputed territories may be justified only if they are used by the majority of reliable, unaffiliated sources. In all other cases de-jure names should enjoy the preference. Twilightchillt21:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Should any effort be made towards standardizing within a region? Stepanakert appears, in my simple Googling, to have a heavy lead over the various Azeri transliterations for the city, so if we're going purely off what is commonly used, we have a problem, because, of the most important city in the area, one language's name is used, but for all of the other minor, globally insignificant, towns, the other language is used. It seems odd for us to have towns in a region split like this; we should pick one or the other. In some articles, people will be told "this place is named [Armenian] and is in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and called [Azeri] by Azerbaijan", and for other articles, "this place is named [Azeri] and is in Azerbaijan, and called [Armenian] by the local population." That kind of inconsistency lends a low quality to the subject, IMO. Pick one or the other, region-wide. --Golbez (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I actually see no inconsistency. Wikipedia is consistent when it says to use the common name, whatever it may be. So if that means using Stepanakert and Heyvali if editors decide those are the common names, then that is consistent with WP policy. Both names will be explained in the article itself in any event. Dohn joe (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
At first look I see a few problems in the proposal:
1. It reflects opinion of the residents currently living in towns. Opinion of people who had to leave a place but consider themselves residents as well is forgotten. And don't forget that those expelled have rights according to the international and national laws to live there.
2. There are some places which were inhabited (before deportation) by one nationality but were later inhabited by 1 or 2 families of other nationality. So according to the proposal the name used by these 1-2 families should be used. It is unacceptable.
3. The main problem of the proposal is that it prefers name used by current residents to the legal name accepted by the international community. It is unacceptable since the international community acceptance and usage is wider than local usage. --Quantum666 (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I was trying avoid assessments of the "correctness", "legality", or "legitimacy" of names, as these are not issues that Wikipedia decides. I'm more interested in current, verifiable usage. I like Twilight Chill's suggestion, though. How about changing
"If the subject does not appear often enough in English-language sources to establish an accepted English name, choose the name used by a clear majority of current residents of the subject of the article. If no majority exists..."
to read
"If the subject does not appear often enough in English-language sources to establish an accepted English name, choose the de facto name if it is used by the majority of reliable sources. If no majority exists..."?
Dohn Joe, the change you propose would be fine, but it somewhat contradicts itself. Let me explain on the example of Heyvali. You're saying that if the name does not appear often enough in English-language sources, choose the de-facto name. In the example of Heyvali which is the legitimate name, the name is recognized by neutral sources including GEOnet Names Server, but Drmbon is mentioned more by, say, Armenian news agencies (including ones publishing in English), thus leaving traces in google and misleading many neutral editors who think that if the name gets more hits, then it should be applied. The very reason that the name "Drmbon" gets more hits is because there is a mining activity and some Armenian companies are exploiting the natural resources. The name Heyvali is not going to be mentioned as much, just because the same kind of business activity is not conducted by Azerbaijan in the village because it's behind the front line. So, the question is how and why use the de-facto name if the reliable (that is neutral) sources in this case all pinpoint to Heyvali, not Drmbon? Tuscumbia (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I consistently see this argument; please tell me where anyone in the international community has ever opined on the matter of "Heyvali" vs "Drmbon". Azerbaijan may be recognized globally as the owner of the land, but countries and international organizations usually make it very clear that they have no opinions on internal borders or names. --Golbez (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The question is which source we consider reliable, and which one we do not. E.g. GEOnet of the US National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency may be reliable for non-disputed territories but I argue that it cannot be regarded as neutral and reliable for the cases being discussed. If we write it this way, we should identify what the reliable source looks like. This becomes a real problem if there is no large media coverage.
In this regard, verifiable sounds more straightforward. E.g. if local media and authorities tell that the village name is [this] then for most cases this will be the verification (unless one can prove that the sources are not reliable to identify the "clear majority"). However if we keep it as reliable, some editors may start arguing that GEOnet is more reliable than the local sources and hence de-jure name should be left. --Ashot(talk)22:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
That's the whole argument. Why should the local media be used as the "reliable" source over a neutral one? The word reliable by itself means that it's impartial, i.e. not Armenian local source. If local Armenian sources were to be recognized as reliable, why would we have all this debate in the first place? Tuscumbia (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Because no source can tell you neutrally that the village name is [this]. Reliable GEOnet will tell you that the de-jure name is [something], but it will not tell you what the de-facto name is. And who on earth can tell you this if not the local authorities and residents with their sources (given that there is limited media coverage). --Ashot(talk)22:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes it does. If you look through village articles, you will notice that GEONet has a primary name for every village and then in parenthesis it has alternative names. That's why it is a reliable and neutral source. How would the local source, as mentioned by you, be more reliable than a neutral source? Tuscumbia (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for this info. I checked and found out that GEOnet provides also with alternative (de-facto) name, so it can be a source to confirm the de-facto name or at least to verify the local sources. --Ashot(talk)23:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
GEOnet is a U.S. government website. It may be reliable, but it is not "neutral", since the U.S. does not recognise the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Nightw23:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Right, neither does any other country. So, what exactly would you call neutral? Any government, any international organization and institution will give you the legitimate recognized name because the entity called "NKR" is not recognized. Therefore, any alternative names (including the de-facto names used by separatist authorities) will be given in parenthesis, as is the case with GEONet information. Tuscumbia (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
For me the proposal is a no go from the start. It says "It is not the role of Wikipedia to rule on the legality or illegality of these authorities, but rather to reflect reality, to the extent it is verifiable." Actually, that's not at all what Wikipedia's role is, at least not the way you mean. Our only goal on place names is to pick the name that is the most common and natural name in English, along with certain factors we need to handle disambiguations. Plus, it asks for us to do the impossible--to somehow know what the current residents think. No matter what method you propose above, we couldn't possibly determine with anything even close to certainty what that name is. Furthermore, it singles out special category of places which is, in and of itself, hard to define. All you'll do is shift the debate--is, for example the NKR, a "state of limited recognition," or is it, in fact, less than that? Also, why should states of limited recognition get treatment that places of disputed ownership do not? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment This discussion seems to be going nowhere fast. Editors are focusing too heavily on issues such as the legitimacy of the independence of Karabakh. That is not something we will ever find agreement on and thus is a futile argument to have. Instead we need to broaden this discussion to include all states with partial recognition.
The issue about reliability and sources seems to be a further smoke-screen, as no-one can really argue that there would be no reliable way to source both local and de-jure names.
We cannot research local preferences for one or the other name as that is always going to be non-NPOV and OR. Thus we have to decide this on a more fundemental basis:
The de-facto authorities invariably represent the majority local ethnic group of the partially-recognized state and uses their language. This means that the name of the town in that language will by default be the most commonly used one in the area as a whole.
99% of the towns and villages in partially-recognized countries will not be frequently used in English language sources and thus will not have a commonly used form. Whether we use the local form of the (politically) more accepted form is really a matter of preference. By choosing one or the other we either put more emphasis on the political situation or on the description of the situation on the ground. Both have their legitimacy but we really need to find a solution that applies to all PCS and not jut to individual countries or towns.
To further illustrate my point: Imagine for a moment that Karabakh (or Kosovo, Northern Cyprus) became a member of the UN. According to current precedent that would now mean that - in the absence of commonly used names in English - Uroševac would now be moved to Ferizaj as that is now the "legal" name - even though locally nothing really changed. The question is whether we should be basing out decisions purely on political recognition of whether we should take into account the situation on the ground. Travelbird (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Current discussions?
Latest comment: 13 years ago39 comments11 people in discussion
I observe that the Australia section has not been discussed for weeks. Why does it need a {{underdiscussion}} tag?
Similarly, does anyone other than Born2Cycle have anything more to say about the American section? Is his discontent enough?
Incidently, the Australian experience does show how consensus can change in these matters. It shows that change will not lead to mass outbreaks of confusion among editors and readers. It also shows that change can be implemented gradually without huge numbers of RM discussions or "move wars" and at a pace that allows everyone to become comfortable with the process. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Any suggestions on how to word the Australian guideline that accurately reflects reality and does have consensus support? Well, I'll give it a shot...
Current wording:
Most Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is. Capital cities (such as Adelaide) and certain other places (such as Toowoomba) do not follow this pattern, and are titled just City. Mungindi, as a town crossing a state border, is also not disambiguated. Local government areas are at their official name.
Where further disambiguation is required, then the local government area name is used, in parentheses following the state name: Town, State (Local Government Area) (such as Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges)).
Proposed wording:
Where disambiguation is required, use [City, State]. Where further disambiguation is required, then the local government area name is used, in parentheses following the state name: [Town, State (Local Government Area)] (such as Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges)).
While many Australian town/city/suburb articles are at [Town, State] even when Town is unambiguous, the trend is to avoid unnecessary precision, and this is encouraged. Capital cities (such as Adelaide) and many other places with unambiguous names (such as Toowoomba) are already at [City].
While I certainly agree with the sentiment (and notwithstanding what I have written above), it may be a little premature to reword the convention just now. My concern is that a rewording of the convention will lead to editors going out and moving articles en masse, which certainly would not have support amongst those people who work on Australian articles at least, including me.
The current approach of seeking consensus for specific places and building confidence in the idea of undisambiguated article titles as a whole has so far avoided much of the tension that has been a feature on this page and elsewhere (and I am guilty of some less than temperate comments myself) and allowed the focus to be on finding things that editors agree on, rather than arguing about the areas where we don't agree. I would be loathe to start a discussion here where there is unlikely to be consensus for any view—and much heat reflected from editors using the discussion on the Australian convention as a proxy battle on the US convention— but would rather continue the confidence building on carefully selected articles and newly created articles. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The present text is a matter of fact:
Most Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is. Capital cities (such as Adelaide) and certain other places (such as Toowoomba) do not follow this pattern, and are titled just City. Mungindi, as a town crossing a state border, is also not disambiguated. Local government areas are at their official name.
Where further disambiguation is required, then the local government area name is used, in parentheses following the state name: Town, State (Local Government Area) (such as Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges)).
If this gradual process makes that statement untrue, we can rephrase it to what is then true. If there is no consensus to impose a rule which does not describe what does exist but what should exist, the solution is not to say what should exist. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I presumed that the dispute was about whether the guideline should provide more guidance, as opposed to merely reflecting the current situation. But since apparently there is no discussion or dispute regarding the wording as it currently is, then I agree the tag removal was not premature. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Then, following your interpretation, there is nothing in that guidelinethat prohibits that Australian place name articles being at their plain name. In fact, by your interpretation, the existing guideline does not even recommend that Australian place names be mandatorily and unnecessarily disambiguated. This sounds fair and reasonable to me. Mattinbgn (talk) -- 22:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess it could work but I personally would prefer a more conservative change in the first instance. For the sake of the half dozen articles that would be affected, I would be tempted to leave it alone. -- Mattinbgn (talk)
I just came to my question when seeing that the LGA which is a lower level than the state goes to the right in the proposal. Here it is done different: Category:Villages in New York, Lincoln, Wisconsin (disambiguation). Also, if the disambiguation term shall clarify where in the world something is located, then some people might need to have "Australia" added and that should be added to the NC. It could then also be Springfield (Macedon Ranges), Victoria? My main concern would be the order of the elements. I think that should be codified. TopoChecker (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Banned sockpuppet
@PManderson. Good point re: knowing where a place is. If an article needs disambiguation, the disambiguation term should be something recognisable to the person looking for it. In Australia, knowledge about what state a place is in is widespread but knowledge of specific local government areas is limited. I think Springfield, Victoria (Macedon Ranges) is clearer for people trying to find the article. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed for aesthetics. Maybe aesthetics and logic don't go together well here, because the system has a flaw: Why have ", Victoria" if that is a dab term, but it is not a sufficient dab term. Also, why use two dab delimiters, "," and "()". And WP:PRECISION fails too.
use a state name if it's necessary and sufficient to disambiguate
if it's insufficient, follow the ABS State Suburb name—usually there'll be a link for the population so it's trivial to find
The ABS doesn't have a state suburb for every locality, but it probably has one for every significant one. Additionally, its terms are more intuitive than simple LGAs and correspond far more closely to how I'd describe a place ("Hillside, it's a suburb of Melbourne", not "Hillside, it's a suburb split between the Shire of Melton and the City of Brimbank").
As expressed, it implies dropping the state name. I don't see any particular reason to include it, if there's no reason to include a state name on unambiguous cases. Include it only if it does work!
I support the proposal above to add the words the trend is to avoid unnecessary precision, and this is encouraged. It's true, and will save a lot of wasted time. Andrewa (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
As the one who proposed the clarification, I agree. The evidence in support of the proposed clarification might be greater than I realized. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I have replaced the under discussion tag.
Please note the heat at the Rockhampton discussion, and the several other similar successful moves quoted there. It is time to fix this and move on. Andrewa (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
If we merely reflect how things are then it's not a guideline but just an explanation of what the convention currently is. While our guidelines are supposed to reflect how things are, they are not supposed to be exclusively restricted to that; they are supposed to provide guidance as well. In fact, that's the justification for the "canonical form" wording in the U.S. guideline - which also goes beyond mere reflection of how things are. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if any other guidelines attempt to describe trends. Has your objection now shifted to being about the specific attempt to describe trends, or is it still that opinions don't belong in guidelines as you originally stated? If it's the latter, I suggest all guideline are opinions, opinions that are supposed to be supported by consensus agreement (which, by the way, the opinion stated currently in the U.S. guideline is not). If it's the former, why are you objecting to that specifically?
The point of a naming convention is to inform editors about how to name articles. It isn't to provide opinions about naming conventions. Will Bebacktalk04:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not understanding your fundamental objection, and, frankly, I'm not sure you do. It would help if you would answer the question Mattingbn raises below... about why you think describing the trend is an "opinion". --Born2cycle (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
@Will. "The point of a naming convention is to inform editors about how to name articles" I disagree, The point of the convention is inform editors on how articles are named. A small but subtle difference. The latter is descriptive, the other is prescriptive. The latter is guidance, hence the word "guideline" and your wording is statute law. WP:AT is policy, WP:NCGN is about how to apply that policy, not how to contradict it. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Will, please explain what you mean by "opinion". The term "opinion" here could be interpreted any number of ways (google dictionary gives me six definitions), and you have not elaborated on what you mean.
On one hand, we have "The beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people", and per that much of what is said in any guideline is an "opinion" (that is supported by consensus), so nothing is being started here by adding yet another such "opinion" in the guideline (after making sure the "opinion" does seem to reflect the views of a large number of people - and so far no one has expressed disagreement with the "opinion" in question) - that's just what all guidelines are comprised of.
On the other hand, we have the "a view not based on fact or knowledge" interpretation, but Matt argues below the phrase in question is arguably fact (or at least well rooted in knowledge), not "opinion" in that sense.
So, frankly, regardless of what you mean by "opinion", your objection doesn't seem to make any sense. But maybe there is another meaning you have in mind? Please, enlighten us. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure why you think the trend is merely opinion. It seems to me to be established fact. The results of recent RM discussions are (in rough reverse order)
This seems to be a pretty clear trend to me. In addition, if you look at each move in sequential order, the proportion of support for each move has increased over time.
I am not convinced that now is a good time to have another discussion about changing the Australian convention. A process of gradual change is working well at determining where community consensus lies. I am not convinced the guideline needs changing at this point - it is still a statement of fact. A huge RfC like the recent American one will generate more heat than light and tend harden positions rather than find common ground - not to mention will be used as a proxy way for the US convention. I am also concerned about the prospect of a mass renaming or a flood of RM discussions should the guideline wording change - this would be unlikely to have consensus among the editors working with Australian places articles. But if we were to change the wording of the guideline, a mention of the (very real) trend would worth including. I would not at this stage include "this is to be encouraged" as I don't think that is where consensus lies (yet!) -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
My concern is simply to save time and trouble. I think either convention works acceptably well, frankly. But it's obvious that consensus has changed to some degree, and so the guideline should change to reflect the current consensus, otherwise it does more harm than good.
The opposition to the renaming of the Rockhampton article was almost all on the grounds that the proposed move violated the guideline. I'm not even sure that it does, but that at least needs clarifying.
My objective is not to impose a new standard, but simply to accurately reflect the consensus that is already being followed, as evidenced by the Rockhampton result and others. Andrewa (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment I really don't care whether you opt for Placename, State or Placename as the format, but for heaven's sake opt for something, and stop cluttering up WP:Requested moves with proposals for every outback toilet stop. If the existing Naming Convention no longer enjoys support, remove it completely. Personally, I would go for Placename; if there are two or more then use Placename, State; if there are two or more within the same state then use Placename, Local Government Area. There is no need to be over descriptive: the purpose of a disambiguator is to disambiguate, not to provide directions on how to get to the place! Skinsmoke (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment Cluttering up? There is one (count 'em, one) RM discussion on an Australian place at present which has had exactly four people commenting to date. In fact since September 2010 (5 months ago) there has only been 10 RM discussions (around 2 per month) on Australian place names. This is hardly "cluttering" or "disruptive". If you aren't interested in the discussions in question, don't participate. If you want to see "disruptive", start an RfC on Australian place names, that will be disruptive. Even more disruptive would be a potential mass renaming of Australian articles if the current wording of the convention (which BTW does not mandate anything, it merely states the current facts on the ground) was changed. The move wars that would likely result as a result of the mass renaming would be even more disruptive again. The facts are: There is no consensus for any Australian place name convention at present and trying to force one into existence through brute force is futile (see the US discussion for an example or indeed Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#Australian place name convention and Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 36#RM -- moving forward). Some patience while the community considers its position would be appreciated. Even if the wording of the convention changed (and I strongly support such a change), I would still suggest some sort of consensus-based process such as RM take place before any article is moved, to avoid move wars. As for "Outback toilet stops", by Australian standards most of the places discussed are reasonably populated. Wait until discussions on places like Booligal, Useless Loop and Oodnadatta take place! :) -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
From Talk:Condobolin, New South Wales#Survey: Oppose The proposal is contrary to the Naming Convention for Australia. Andrewa claims that there is no longer consensus to support the convention. However, those proposing a change have been unable to muster a consensus to either change or scrap the convention. Until they can do so, no change should take place on individual articles, rather than the situation we currently have where somebody brings forward a proposal every two or three days. Are they intending to carry on with this until they have circumvented the convention for every single settlement in Australia? And at that point will somebody finally decide to sort out the naming convention? Skinsmoke (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with all of this, see my reply there, but it underlines that the current situation is unsatisfactory. We have a convention that clearly does not have support, yet because there was at some time in the past consensus to adopt it, in some people's minds it remains in force.
If we can't agree on the wording of a new convention, then we should at least agree to suspend the old one. It is doing far more harm than good, and wasting a lot of time. Andrewa (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
It is obvious that the old naming convention is no longer viable. Several requested move discussions on individual places have resulted in clear consensus to remove the disambiguation, except in one or two cases where the name was found to be actually ambiguous. Since guidelines are descriptive, this one should reflect what is actually being done- and that is that Australian places are not mandatorily disambiguated. The idea that the guideline should remain in force until it's actually repealed is a bit of a furphy. It is a contradiction or exception to a global naming guideline that enjoys widespread agreement, and therefore needs continued support to remain in place. That support no longer exists. We have a local guideline that conflicts with the global one, and with local consensus on the individual articles, and there is no consensus that it should remain in place. It needs to go. ReykYO!03:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Reducing country specific text
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
When country specific text states what the NCGN says anyway, then that should be removed. E.g. Argentina: "Where possible, articles on places in Argentina use Placename." That is the default rule for all articles in Wikipedia. Exceptions only exist for U.S. populated places, and maybe for Australia. NCGN (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
^Some on-line encyclopedias use arbitrary numbers to distinguish pages, hence article titles do not need to be unique, but Wikipedia uses a system whereby no two pages can have identical titles. It is technically possible to make articles appear to have the same title, but this is never done, as it would be highly confusing to readers, and cause editors to make incorrect links.
America in any list of countries. It doesn't look very academic. Nightw 10:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
