Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/June

< Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Nilfanion in topic United Kingdon - Ceremonial counties ... what nonsense!


WP:USPLACE

Latest comment: 12 years ago36 comments9 people in discussion

Coming from Talk:Fort_Worth#Requested_move, I am addressing my concern about WP:USPLACE's requirements for ", state" to be appended to city names, in possible opposition to WP:PRECISION, which contraindicates this practice if no disambiguation is required. I am further concerned that WP:USPLACE does indicate that exceptions be made, but that we should refer to an outside authority, AP Stylebook, access to which is not readily apparent, or seemingly necessary since we already have an in-house standard (WP:PRECISION) by which to determine exceptions. I do appreciate consistency, but this goal seems undermined on the simplest level by allowing any exception, and once an exception is allowed, it seems following WP:PRECISION as the rest of WP does is the next most consistent approach. ENeville (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The consistency argument in favor of disambiguating all U.S. city names, even those with unique names that do not conflict with any other users in Wikipedia, never made sense to me, since this convention is inconsistent with how we title all other articles in Wikipedia that have unique and concise commonly used names (see User:Born2cycle#Examples_of_naming_consistency). The consistency argument that makes sense to me supports disambiguate only when necessary, and doesn't give special treatment to U.S. city names. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The broader provisions at WP:PRECISION rest on a cliquey and unsafe consensus at best, and are contested at many RM discussions. The local consensus at WP:USPLACE has at least equal claim to be consensual. It is decidedly rational, and in the interests of a worldwide readership who often have no background knowledge of the topics in question. Myself, I would prefer to see broad uniformity in these matters of titling. Fort Worth, Texas is a title that disadvantages no one, anywhere, ever, in any way. For the same reasons, Oodnadatta would be better at Oodnadatta, South Australia, which was the old title, before an RM in which the supporters made no reference to the real needs of real users; only to their cherished principles.
We've been blinkered about these things for too long, in the service of neat algorithms and discredited ideals that have nothing to do with human communication. Britannica online does it better – which is to say something of note, considering WP's patent superiority to it in several other ways.
Let's not pretend that there is wide consensus to serve such abstractions; the Wikipedia community at large surely wants to serve Wikipedia's readers. Whatever that takes.
NoeticaTea? 02:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I call WP:WIKIDRAMA on the argument that Wikipedia readers are served better to any significant degree by having the article at Fort Worth rather than at Fort Worth, Texas, etc.

But as long as we're measuring reader benefits on such a fine scale, then Fort Worth benefits the reader by clearly conveying that it is the only (or primary) use of "Fort Worth", in contrast with, say, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, neither of which can ever be at Portland because of an actual existing naming conflict with the other. Portland, Oregon correctly conveys that there is another "Portland", while Fort Worth, Texas incorrectly conveys that there is another "Fort Worth". --Born2cycle (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikidrama? Nice try. It is hardly wikidrama to remind people that we are here to make an encyclopedia for readers, not to satisfy a few editors' obsessions with concocted rules that other encyclopedias ignore. An empty rhetorical flourish. Stick to arguments and evidence, please.
As for the argument that the bare title "Forth Worth" informs readers that there is only one place with that name, it is easily dismissed. Does the title London do that? Does Melbourne do that? Would Collins Street do that, if we were stupid and parochial enough to make it a full article rather than a redirect to the sensitively titled Collins Street, Melbourne? There is no article for any other Collins Street; why, by the present rules, should the title not be simply Collins Street? (I set aside any appeal to "primary topic" here. Why should we think that readers uniformly have any such obsession? Often enough readers consult an encyclopedia to clear up an uncertainty brought on by careless assumptions that some meaning is naturally dominant over all others. We are not here to reinforce such confusions.)
Garbage rules, garbage titles.
NoeticaTea? 06:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with B2C. It seems to me that the idea of pre-disambiguating every place, whether it needs it or not assumes that our readers are bumbling idiots. Frankly, if someone is looking for Fort Worth, or Portland, that is what they will put in the search box. In the case of Fort Worth they will be taken directly to the article, in the case of Portland they will be taken to a DAB page, where they will see that there is more than one Portland and then they can choose which one they want. In what way is this going to be confusing to anyone with enough wit to be using a computer in the first place? The Wikipedia naming standards quite clearly state that articles should be named with no more precision than is necessary. Those who strive for some Utopian ideal of absolute consistance consistancy are fooling themselves. No such thing is possible. Get over it. - Nick Thorne talk 05:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
No one is arguing for such idiocies, Nick. Straw man arguments will get us nowhere. And if anyone puts "Fort Worth" in the search box, they will get first of all (as things stand) a DAB page called Fort Worth, where they can learn that the term has other meanings than Fort Worth, Texas. Including Fort Worth, Virginia. How about that? ☺ Funny how you can learn things in an encyclopedia! NoeticaTea? 06:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Since people are actually taking seriously the loss of useful precision from Collins Street, Melbourne, I have initiated a multiple RM to test community opinion on this matter.

NoeticaTea? 13:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Time for this discussion again. IMO the current convention for US place names should be retained, for a number of reasons. One is WP:Common usage. It is absolutely standard for Americans to refer to cities in this way, whether or not the name is ambiguous. Listen to any radio call-in program and you will always hear the callers say "I am Jane from Des Moines, Iowa." "I am John from Orlando, Florida." And if a person in conversation omits the state - "I am from Missoula" - the other person will usually ask "Missoula, Montana?" There are many reasons why Americans do this but the fact is that they do. It is standard practice and thus should be accepted as a kind of National variety of English. Sometimes people object to this practice by pointing out that it is not done for cities in other countries, but that is because it is not common usage in those countries. (Frenchmen don't say "I am from Lyon, France". Germans don't say "I am from Wiesbaden, Germany.") Wikipedia DOES allow different naming conventions for different countries, as can be seen in the project page of this very article. There is no rule that every country has to do it the same for the sake of some kind of trans-Wikipedia consistency.
Another reason is consistency (within the U.S.) and simplicity. It avoids constantly having to decide whether to disambiguate or not; it avoids arguments about which is the "real" Portland or the "real" Fort Worth; and it makes it evident that the article is a city. When you see an article title like Sleepy Eye or Cayucos you don't know what it is; when you see Sleepy Eye, Minnesota or Cayucos, California you know exactly what it is. As for the AP Stylebook, access is not a problem; it is right here and many other places. Using it defers to a Reliable Source and avoids hours of unproductive argument over cities that aren't on the list but conceivably might be (such as Fort Worth). Per Wikipedia:Article titles, "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources."
Finally, and I point this out every time but you all never seem to get it, it would be far better for the encyclopedia if people would simply accept the convention and move on to more productive work. Again per Wikipedia:Article titles, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." and "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Striking out part of my comments because, while true, they are a distractor and not as firmly rooted in Wikipedia policy as the rest of my points. See below. --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it is useful to look at things like this in a completely different way. I’d like everyone interested in this discussion to peruse this category: Category:Populated places established in 1849. It is one of several categories that are listed on the Fort Worth, Texas article. There are only 2 articles without state or country disambiguation—Zonguldak and Hellur. Does anyone here know where these places are without looking at the article. So from a reader perspective (I am a reader as well), the absence of the state, country disambiguation is annoying. As a reader, I know nothing of WP:PRIMARY so seeing Zonguldak without Turkey appended, doesn’t as someone above says, clearly indicates to the reader that Zonguldak [Turkey] is the ‘’primary’’ use of the word. We give way, way too much credibility to editor arguments for different titles based on Primary, Precision, etc. to readers, of which there are literally millions, from all cultures and languages. Readers will recognize, learn and respond to consistency in WP titles—however that consistency is crafted. Inconsistencies will always be annoying to the average reader. I am strongly in favor of consensus based naming conventions because they eliminate a whole lot of subject interpretations of vague and impractical criteria like Primary topic and Precision. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Melanie, I think that's the strongest, most comprehensive, most compelling and most concise argument there is in favor of leaving USPLACE as is. Its only explicit weakness, and it's more of not-a-strong-point rather than a weakness, is the point about it making "it evident that the article is a city" - that's irrelevant because the vast majority of WP titles (that aren't disambiguated) don't make it evident what kind of topic the article is about, so that's not a purpose of titles.

But where it fails is that non-disambiguated titles like Missoula meets the criteria better than disambiguated titles like Missoula, Montana.

Short names like Missoula are just as recognizable to someone familiar with the city (which is what matters) as are the state-qualified names like Missoula, Montana, and your argument is compelling on the point that state-qualified names like "Missoula, Montana" are natural. There is no debate about this. But short titles like "Missoula" are natural too. Readers are likely to search with either title, and both convey what the city is actually called in English. So it's a wash on both of these criteria.

Since we're only talking about moving only those that are either unique or primary, both names are sufficiently and arguably equally precise, but the longer name is the quintessential overly precise title, when disambiguating from other uses on WP is not indicated.

Consistency might seem like a wash because the shorter name is consistent with most non-U.S. cities, while the longer name is consistent, currently, with most U.S. cities - but that latter point is Affirming the consequent since if we change USPLACES so that we disambiguate with state only when necessary, then titles like Missoula will also be consistent with other U.S. city names that are unique or primary, and will be me more consistent with non-U.S. cities. So moving to shorter names where possible due to uniqueness or primary-ness will increase consistency overall.

On conciseness the shorter names clearly win.

So, overall, it's a wash on recognizability and naturalness (which is the crux of your argument), but the shorter names win on precision and conciseness, and ultimately even on consistency. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Mike, that's not a new way of looking at it. It's understandable that you might not be aware that the observation about including the state in the title helps convey what the topic is (a city - and where the city is) has been made, and refuted, since the earliest days of this dispute.

But what's a little surprising is that Melanie made that same point again just above your comment -- "When you see an article title like Sleepy Eye or Cayucos you don't know what it is; when you see Sleepy Eye, Minnesota or Cayucos, California you know exactly what it is." --yet you present it as if it's looking "at things like this in a completely different way".

To refute this point (again) I have to click on SPECIAL:RANDOM only once to get a counter-example: Schwabing. If the WP community thought it was important to convey where a location was to the reader from its title alone, then that article would be at Schwabing, Germany, Schwabing, Munich, Schwabing, Munich, Bavaria or something like that. Same with Chełpina, and countless other examples. So the community doesn't think that's a purpose of titles in general, or for cities in other countries - why should it be for articles about cities in the U.S.?

To be fair, you're not arguing that U.S. cities should be a special case, but that all cites should be qualified with location information. In contrast to the argument some make at WT:AT that articles in general should be more descriptive, but never answer how we determine how much more description we add to which titles and why, at least here you're talking about a specific domain of articles, where the additional information can be objectively specified. But what you're proposing is an enormous physical and WP-cultural change, moving almost every article about every city (and other geographical location?) in the world. Consider that when it was determined that the Ireland city of Cork needed to be disambiguated, the opposition to moving it to Cork, Cork, Cork, County Cork or Cork, Ireland was so fierce that the only acceptable solution was Cork (city). Based on countless experiences like that (another example: Talk:Plymouth/Archive_1#Proposed_Move), I don't see how that's a battle worth having, much less one that we're capable of winning, which brings us back to the problem of treating U.S. city articles specially. In fact, one of the many problems with predisambiguating all U.S. cities is that consideration of them are discounted when determining whether other uses of their names, like "Plymouth", are the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In defense of my different way of looking at things, I was talking about looking at titles collectively via category versus in isolation. Your example of Schwabing is a good one. The article is included in the category: Category:Entertainment districts of which ~ 50% of the titles provide some indication as to where the district actually is in terms of state or country. From a reader perspective which of the two categories: Entertainment or Populated places gives a reader the most consistent view of the category contents. As a side exercise, have you ever created a book out of a category? If not, try it. The resulting table of contents is composed of the article titles. When there is a lot of inconsistency in the structure of the titles, the TOC is pretty bad. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the "category viewing problem" has been discussed countless times - that's just a particular mechanism that can be used to view what appears to be inconsistency. I call this the conflating of apparent consistency with true consistency. On my home page I list examples of titles that are apparently inconsistent, but are truly consistent, with our naming policy and conventions, including "disambiguate only when necessary". The list is here: User:Born2cycle#Examples_of_naming_consistency. Look it over and note how I use category views, like Localities of Berlin, to present more examples. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree. What harm is done to the readers by having article names that are clear and concise? Having to read paragraphs or other articles to find out what the article is about (yes, this does happen) for some places does not serve anyone except for those who support obfuscation. Heck maybe we can eliminate much of these debates and reduce confusion by banning obfuscation in the naming! Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Vegas, do you favor "article names that are clear and concise" (where "clear and concise" apparently means "convey what type of thing the topic is") for all articles in WP, or just US city articles? If all articles in WP, where do you draw the line? How do you decide what additional descriptive information is needed so the title conveys what it is about to be "clear and concise"? Is Nelson A. Kellogg (to choose the first example from SPECIAL:RANDOM) fine where it is, or do we move it Nelson A. Kellogg (person), Nelson A. Kellogg (athlete), Nelson A. Kellogg (American athlete), Nelson A. Kellogg (American track athlete), or what? If you mean only for US city articles, why make them the exception? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
For everything! As to where to draw the line, that is not a big issue in my mind. Your questions are about disambiguation which is a different topic. The fixation that clear titles are banned since they can be accused of being predisambiguation is the problem! Using the war cry of predisambiguation to foster obfuscation helps no one. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not following... please explain s l o w l y. Just to be clear on what I'm not understanding... So, we often add more descriptive information to titles (and since we're at PLACES I'm thinking exclusively of articles about places with names) for the purpose of disambiguation, but we're constrained when doing so, to add only as much precision as is necessary to disambiguate, and we also take into account the other uses to decide what to use (e.g., Cork (city) because that is the only Cork that is a city).

Now, what you're suggesting is that we also sometimes add more descriptive information to titles that don't require disambiguation in order to have titles that are "clear and concise" (which you confirmed you mean to convey what the topic is about).

What I'm not clear about is when we add the information, and when we don't, how we decide whether additional information is needed, and how much additional information is needed, to be "clear and concise". What you say is "not a big issue in [your] mind", is the whole issue for me. It seems like we already have wau too many reasons to argue about titles; I think this would increase debate and consternation by at least an order of magnitude, because it potentially opens up probably at least 75% of current articles for moving, and, worse, nothing is settled once they are moved (or not), because a few months or even weeks later someone can propose that the title needs less or even more descriptive information to be "clear and concise", and nobody has any objective means whatsoever (as far as I can tell) to argue otherwise. So I don't understand how it's not a big deal. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If the title is not going to be clear to most readers, then it is a bad title. If this is the case, then you need to add something to the title so that the average reader can determine what it is about. You want a recipe from a cookbook to be able to create titles. That is not going to happen. Common sense goes a long way here. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's get real. I'l grab some examples from SPECIAL:RANDOM and let's see how clear it is what "common sense" says to do.

Again, I think about 75% of our articles qualify for title consideration like this, which is confirmed every time I look at any random sample, per this new "If the title is not going to be clear to most readers" criterion. Do you really believe "common sense" will prevail on these? Remember, if my estimate is even close to right, we're talking about reconsidering and probably changing the titles of millions of articles, and if only a fraction are disputed, that still hundreds of thousands of titles to be resolved. Is that what you're advocating?

It seems to me that anyone who proposes making our titles more descriptive like this, doesn't fully realize and appreciate what that would entail. If you still don't think it's a big deal, I beg of you to click on SPECIAL:RANDOM 30 times or more in a row, just to get an idea of how many of our articles have titles like those I just listed above, that currently do not make the topic clear to most readers. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Not funny - totally understandable. It's entirely understood that most countries do not identify their city names as "city, state" (or "city, province" or "city, départment" or whatever). This is an Americanism, based on standard American practice. Nobody is saying that other countries should follow this example, only that the other countries should let Americans do it the way Americans standardly do. This is why there are individual-country sections in this project page - to recognize that not all countries do it the same. --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we actually look at B2C's list of random titles?

  • Van Loon Glacier – obviously about a named glacier; unlikely to be two in the world with such a name, so not ambiguous
  • Amoghavarsha II – sounds like someone in an obscure dynasty; likely unique, unambiguous
  • Freguesia (Jacarepaguá) – no clue what this is, but it certainly doesn't look ambiguous; I presume that Freguesia was too ambiguous and that someone felt that (Jacarepaguá) was a good way to clarify which was meant.
  • Performance testing – ridiculously ambiguous; needs to be moved
  • Shelburne Railroad Station and Freight Shed – not sure what or where, but sounds like a uniquely named railroad/freight operation (actually, it's a museum, but the title is still not ambiguous, as nothing else is likely to have a similar name)
  • Alejandro Fernández – some guy; if there's only one such in WP we don't usually give you a clue; maybe we should
  • Dallas Roberts (athlete) – an athlete named Dallas Roberts; suggests that there are no other notable athletes named Dallas Roberts, and even though we know there probably are some non-notable others, we tolerate this kind of person-name ambiguity because there's no good alternative

So, would it be a big deal if from time to time somebody noticed things like Performance testing and wanted to fix them? No, not really; I do it all the time, and so do many others. Every now and then a move is controversial, but most just aren't. Certainly Fort Worth should not have been, since it was according to pre-agreed applicable guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's very interesting, Dicklyon, but you're apparently using a different criteria from that suggested by Vegaswikian. You seem only concerned with "ambiguity", though not in the WP sense (ambiguous with other uses in WP title namespace), but in the English sense (ambiguous with other uses in English). But what Vegaswikian said was, "If the title is not going to be clear to most readers, then it is a bad title. If this is the case, then you need to add something to the title so that the average reader can determine what it is about."

I submit all of these would not be clear to most readers, and that you would have to add something to the title so that the average reader can determine what it is about. That's why I made the various suggestions I did. But I'd like to know what Vegaswikian thinks "common sense" suggests we do with these.

By the way, if you're changing titles Performance testing, which is not ambiguous with other uses in the WP title namespace, you're making page moves contrary to community consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't say what he had in mind exactly by "clear to most readers", but I was showing how those titles are mostly not hard to understand, and mostly because they don't seem to be ambiguous (in the sense of not being clear what they might refer to). I don't think there exists a "WP sense" for this word; didn't your latest attempt to redefine ambiguity go down again? Of course, when you select titles at random from a list of millions of topics, you can't expect a reader to know much more about the topic than the sketchy bits I mentioned above. RANDOM basically gives you the long tail; yes, titles do matter there, but they certainly are not representative of typical title issues and problems. For titles that are very common recognizable words, clarity is sometimes at a minimum, due to ambiguity. Like with Big; or Cane. Dicklyon (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Vegaswikian clarified what he meant by "clear to most readers", and none of those listed is "clear to most readers" in that sense.

As to the WP sense of "ambiguous", see the opening sentence of WP:D: "when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles". --Born2cycle (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you meant the WP:D version of ambiguity. I wasn't talking about disambiguation, but about ambiguity. Oh, I see you must be referring to V's "If the title is not going to be clear to most readers, then it is a bad title. If this is the case, then you need to add something to the title so that the average reader can determine what it is about." With the exception of Performance testing, I think most of these were not unclear in that sense; that is, I wouldn't think that adding to them would help an average reader determine what they are about, since it's already clear that they are about obscure unfamiliar topics. Not at all like typical hotly contested title issues, so kind of pointless to speculate if someone would see a good way to improve them. In the case of Fort Worth, on the other hand, there's a good chance that adding Texas makes it more likely that an average reader to understand it to be about a city, as opposed to a fort. In that sense, Fort Bliss, Texas is made more clear by removing the Texas, since it's a fort. I don't think Vegaswikian was claiming that clarity always goes up by adding. Certainly not by the addition of a lot of the junk examples you gave. Dicklyon (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, WP:D clearly defines "ambiguous". It's confusing and counter-productive to use different definitions of the same important term in one project. I know of no other definition for "ambiguous" given within WP, which is why I refer to this definition as the "WP sense" of "ambiguous".

Vegaswikian also wrote: " you need to add something to the title so that the average reader can determine what it is about.", strongly suggesting his goal is enabling the average reader to determine what an article is about simply from looking at the title. You can't do that with the titles I listed. except maybe with Van Loon Glacier, if simply figuring out it's about a glacier is sufficient.

Those "junk titles" may not be typical for what we usually see at RM, but they are typical for WP. Give SPECIAL:RANDOM a few clicks and you'll get a similar list. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I think a lot of this discussion misses the point. The fact is most ordinary readers (non-editors) do not browse Wikipedia, which would be the only time where pre-disambiguating the article title would be of any use. Rather they do a Google search which naturally looks at the content of the page more than its title and includes an excerpt from the article in its results in any case. In other words adding info to the article title does not assist in any way whatsoever the typical reader of a Wikipedia article. Article titles are just labels. They only need to be unique so that Wikipedia can keep track of them. Adding unnescessary additional information (beyond that required as per WP:PRECISION) serves no useful purpose and probably just adds overhead to the database engine. I don't care what common usage is in the USA, Wikipedia is a global excercise and the rules for article titles should be the same everywhere. Don't forget that anyone searching for Fort Worth, Texas will still find it just the same even if the article title is just plain Fort Worth. Adding the extra info to the title does not help one little bit. - Nick Thorne talk 05:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't go quite as far as saying titles are "just labels", because then random strings would be just as good as current titles. I think we all recognize the benefit of value of having Paris at Paris, rather than at R8*TYGCE31)T.

      But I agree the difference in benefit to the reader between the vast majority of alternatives between which we typically decide is negligible. Ever since the cities on the AP list had the state removed from their titles, there have been no discernible effects whatsoever. I have no reason to believe it would be any different with any other city article titles treated this way. The argument that it's beneficial to the reader to have it at Fort Worth, Texas rather than Fort Worth just doesn't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

      • Actually, I quite agree. Paris makes more sense than R8*TYGCE31)T, but only because humans read it as well as the Wikipedia software, plus it makes it a lot easier when editing articles to have meanginful names. I can remember Paris much more easily that R8*TYGCE31)T. However, adding more and more info into the article title is counter productive in my opinion. I very strongly believe that we should put only enough info in the title as is actually needed, no more. This is of course a case by case issue. Where there is no ambiguity, or where there is a clear primary use we should just use the simple name. Disambig pages and pre-disambiguation are for those cases that do not fit this criteria. I cannot for the life of me understand why some people seem to think that this causes a problem for anyone. - Nick Thorne talk 06:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Rsp to Nick – Your arguments are based on a conjecture, assumption, supposition or whatever other word might best describe an unsupported position. You started your comments with: The fact is most ordinary readers (non-editors) do not browse Wikipedia, which would be the only time where pre-disambiguating the article title would be of any use. Rather they do a Google search which naturally looks at the content of the page more than its title and includes an excerpt from the article in its results in any case. I’ve highlighted the use of the word fact because I dispute your statement as fact until someone provides empirical or reliable source evidence that such conjecture is true. However, it never happens, no one ever is able to provide empirical evidence to support their personal beliefs about how millions of readers behave relative to WP titles. In a related thread at WT:AT I wrote and strongly believe in the premise behind these words.

My first observation about this discussion is that we will continue to “tilt at windmills” if we continue to try and describe anything about titles using some element of the user experience to do so. Utterly impossible and meaningless. At last count, there were ~2.7 billion internet users on a daily basis. WP historically is visited by ~13-14% of global internet users on a daily basis. Do the math (14% of 2.7 billion) = ~378 million users every day. Trying to describe a title in terms of how 378 million users ought to behave relative to the title is pure fantasy.

We all think we know how readers behave, because we are readers ourselves. But we cannot, without empirical evidence, extend our beliefs to millions of other readers. Our titling policy, guidelines and naming conventions have to put the burden on the title/content relationship and not on speculation as to how millions of culturally and geographically dispersed readers are going to react to them. Thus, your arguments have little weight because they are based on an unsupportable assumption. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nick Thorne, you said " I don't care what common usage is in the USA, Wikipedia is a global excercise and the rules for article titles should be the same everywhere." This may be your opinion but it is not Wikipedia policy. This attitude is directly contradicted by Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, which allows for variations in spelling (criticize, criticise; honor, honour) depending on whether "British English" or "American English" seems more appropriate for that particular subject. In other words it does not have to be "the same everywhere". Your attitude is also directly contradicted by WP:Common usage which is the guideline we are supposed to use in Wikipedia titles. That section suggests deferring to Reliable Source authority: "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals." Most major English-language media outlets follow the AP Stylebook. Bottom line, while the rest of you throw around examples and argue from hypotheticals and express your opinions, I am basing my recommendation on actual Wikipedia policy - which clearly supports the current guideline. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Names for ancient and medieval locations.

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This may not be the optimal page to ask this but what is the convention for geographical names for the birth place of ancient or medieval locations? I don't see a consistent pattern in biographies. Sometimes just the town is used. At other times the town and kingdom. Still at other times town, region, and empire (or town, provence, and empire.) It seems questionable to use the modern convention of town/nation-state. This is especially true in non-European history. Has this problem been addressed?Jason from nyc (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect to see a consistent pattern. I would expect the use of the name most commonly used in reliable sources in each case. That's unlikely to result in a consistent pattern. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
That was my first assumption. I replaced geographical names used in the period and place with names used by the best and most recent English texts (and gave references) only to see them revert by "the consensus" (neither of whom can give me a reference in scholarly literature). Fortunately, these two are less concerned with the actual biographical essay than they are with "flag waving." Being relatively new to editing I wasn't sure if there were standards for ancient and medieval locations as I saw no pattern. Thanks for the feedback. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
B2C is not addressing your question—to him, everything is an article titling question, and all article titling question reduce to WP:COMMONNAME. To answer your question, why not tell the reader the whole story, that is, give the birthplace in terms of what country or empire it was in at the time, and also link the modern name of the location? Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't mention or imply anything about titling or WP:COMMONNAME. He asked about a "convention for geographical names" and that's what I answered... follow usage in sources.

For example, if reliable sources say John Doe was born in "Burma (now Myanmar)", then say that. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, Dicklyon, remember that I'm talking about the infobox. The article explains modern and medieval names for the location and ruling power. The infobox is getting rather crowded. It's the only case that I know of where city, state, and empire are listed with both old and new names. I looked at several historical biographies and I never see mention of empire in the infobox. I never find Byzantine Empire, Holy Roman Empire or even British Empire in the infobox. Thomas Jefferson was born in Shadwell, Colony of Virginia, not Shadwell, Colony of Virginia, British Empire. The link to Colony of Virginia gives a wonderful description of the political and geographical place at that time. That was my suggestion ... let the link tell the story.
The editors in question insist on adding Almoravid Empire making the infobox for Averroes rather crowded: Cordoba, Al-Andalus, Almoravid Empire (present-day Spain). It seems that an empire, which is often a rule over several lands and nations, doesn't help locate the birthplace geographically. Perhaps that's why one almost never sees British Empire in the infobox. Of course when a bio has too few editors, two can dominate quite easily. I gave up! Jason from nyc (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Need opinions on interpretation of WP:NC-SoJ

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Based on a vote, we have very specific conventions about how to name the marginal sea which lies between Japan, the Koreas, and Russia, which you can see at WP:NC-SoJ; the name used depends upon the focus of the article. The question I have is, which of the 6 categories does the articel Korean Peninsula fall under? Is it an article on "Korea and South Korea", thus requiring us to use the name "Sea of Japan (East Sea)", or is it an international article, requiring us to use only "Sea of Japan"? I personally believe its the former, since the area of the peninsula is essentially the same as that of the two Koreas combined, while Oda Mari thinks the "Korea" part of #5 only applies to the historical (pre-division) Korea. The issue seems fairly unclear to me, so I'd like to see what others who deal with geographic naming think. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdon - Ceremonial counties ... what nonsense!

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ceremonial counties are all well and good as ceremonial entities - but it's not really a way of identifying places. Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesbrough are unitary authorities with the same rights as counties - they are not with North Yorkshire, but have a historic connection with the North Riding of Yorkshire and therefore with the present county of North Yorkshire. But to actually place towns and villages inside North Yorkshire, when they are inside a separate unitary authority is not just confusing - it's downright bonkers. Normanby, Redcar and Cleveland uses the unitary authority and so can't be confused with the other Normanbies in North Yorkshire - so this works very well. South Bank, Middlesbrough has just been changed to South Bank, North Yorkshire - even though people will tell you that North Yorkshire is another 15 miles to the south. South Bank is part of the Middlesbrough urban area, but within the unitary authority of Redcar and Cleveland - all of which is associated with North Yorkshire for nothing more than ceremonial purposes. What d'ya think guys? Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 20:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The guidance is primarily written for a different (and much more common) situation to that you are describing. In general, the ceremonial counties are the best match to the common perception of county and using them is the least bad solution to the various types of counties. For instance, what counties are Bath, Grimsby and Derby in? Its not bonkers to say "Derby is in Derbyshire" :)
Quoting from the relevant bits of the guidance on this page (emphasis is mine)
  • The usual convention is to use [[placename, ceremonial county]].
  • For localities unambiguously located within a town/city settlement (according to reliable, external sources) [[placename, town/city]] is used.
With regards to the specific case here - South Bank - looking at maps it is clearly part of the same conurbation as Middlesbrough, but not within the unitary authority. The ONS calls the urban area "Teeside" with "Eston and South Bank" and "Middlesbrough" being two seperate sub-districts (the border is the local authority boundary). So its not correct to say South Bank is part of Middlesbrough, so it shouldn't be disambiguated as "Middlesbrough". As its strongly associated with Middlesbrough, "Redcar and Cleveland" may also be inappropriate?
If the guidance on this page isn't ideal for a specific case, make an exception - work out a better solution and create a move request to put the South Bank article there.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)/Archives/2012/June&oldid=1137425735"