Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/June

RfC notification

I started an RfC a few days ago that could do with some more attention. It concerns the WP:USPLACE guideline, and how it should be applied to articles about metropolitan areas. I'd be grateful if interested editors could weigh in at Talk:List of metropolitan areas of the United States. Thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Naming convention

The following discussion 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.

---

The current naming convention on U.S. settlements contraindicates Wikipedia's general policy of WP:PRECISION. There have been several previous discussions to restructure this policy, with significant support or concern—such as this. However, there was a previous consensus from 2008 which have dominated these proposals for unknown purposes, stating communities in the United States are to be named along with their state, with the exception of those listed in the AP Stylebook. The policy has been criticized on numerous occasions, and something has to occur relatively soon. The general Wikipedia convention is to disambiguate only when necessary, but it would seem that cities in the United States have special treatment. Elsewhere in the world, the convention is to name communities without unnecessary disambiguation unless required, as documented for Canadian settlements and other countries. In Canada, for example, Wenatchee, Washington would be named simply as Wenatchee, due to different policy there, but this does not make sense to me. Vancouver, Washington conveys that there is another, more primary city known as Vancouver, appropriately, but Chicago, Illinois does not, in my personal insight. Why pre-disambiguating every place, even when it is unnatural? If this convention was used elsewhere in Wikipedia, then perhaps David Beckham would now be David Beckham (footballer), or Barack Obama would be Barack Obama (president). I'm surprised that this convention ever passed, considering how much it violates the general guidelines of the encyclopedia. I have proposed this be corrected previously, along with various other editors, but it has been a while since then. Therefore, I am opening another request for comment in the hope of obtaining some new, fresh comments and concerns and restricting the consensus, as has done with Canada recently. Thank you for your time, TBrandley (T • C • B) 20:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose changing WP:USPLACE for several reasons. In general, the principle of stare decisis means that people can have confidence that they understand the rules and don't have to continually adjust to changes or continually re-argue the same issues. The current rule isn't perfect, but it's easy to apply, and its consistent application means that we avoid a lot of discussions over topics like whether a particular name is truly unique or whether one of the multiple instances of place names like "Albany", "Burlington", and "Watertown" deserves to be treated as a primary topic. The reality is that a large proportion of U.S. place names are not unique, but have numerous instances within the U.S. and may be borrowings from place names in the United Kingdom, so there are far more places that need to include a state name than not. Furthermore, because U.S. cities are legally subdivisions of their state -- and typically chartered by the state -- I submit that their names generally should incorporate the state name. Leave things well enough alone. The status quo isn't perfect, but it doesn't cause any harm, and changing it would create disruption. --Orlady (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose IMO the current convention for US place names should be retained, for a number of reasons. One is WP:Common usage; another is WP:Reliable sources. 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. Furthermore, the current policy follows the AP Stylebook; 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. Per Wikipedia:Article titles, "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources."

@TBrandley, in addition to the 2012 discussion you linked to above, this issue has been discussed at length at least twice before in the past seven months: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/December#RfC: US city names, which was closed in November 2012 as "maintain status quo (option B)", and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/February#Request for comment in January 2013, which you started; that discussion was never officially closed, but when it died out at the end of January there were 18 editors opposed to a change and 12 in favor. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, but it has been a while since then, and I hope to obtain some fresh comments here, having provided further explanation here. TBrandley (T • C • B) 00:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The general guidelines to which you refer have flexibility; they are not absolute rules, and I believe that's best. For United States places, "City, State" is the commonly-used naming convention outside Wikipedia. City names are frequently re-used in multiple states; applying the same convention to the entire group makes for greater consistency, and (as Melanie states) avoids lots of discussion on individual cities, of which there are a great many. In other countries, it seems to be much less common to re-use names. This may be due to the individual identities that US states tend to have, which is not usually the case in other countries. This convention is simple, it fits, and it works, and has been discussed at length many times. Omnedon (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I gather that TBrandley missed the discussion that just ended at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/February#Request for comment. --Bejnar (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. It has not been a while since the last RfC on this issue. I don't think the proposer is intentionally being disruptive, but this RfC is disruptive and should be speedily closed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2013 (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.

USPLACE inconsistency confuses again

For those who claim the USPLACE convention to include the state name even when the place name is unambiguous does not cause confusion because it's inconsistent with how other articles are titled, including how most other place name article are titled, this time it is with regard to county names.

• Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Names of counties of Texas

--B2C 23:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is no indication anywhere in that discussion that anyone was "confused" about anything. They merely asked for justifications for the current policy, which I think you could probably provide, even if you clearly disagree. And, anyway, I could have sworn we just had an epic discussion about this that didn't end very harmoniously. AgnosticAphid talk 00:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)