The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved to Pensacola metropolitan areaMike Cline (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose "Pensacola" is already a redirect to the city so it is the primary topic for that name. There are no other metropolitan area articles with Pensacola in the name so adding the state name is not necessary. We should always use the shortest name that is sufficient to identify the topic. --Polaron | Talk 14:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Eliminating the state name makes this article title unintelligible to many users outside the U.S. This isn’t the U.S. Wikipedia. The general reader should not need to read the article in order to understand the title. Buaidh 20:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I see no evidence that the title is "unintelligible" to people outside the U.S. At any rate adding the state doesn't make it any clearer than it is, just longer and less in line with what the sources actually use for the subject.--Cúchullaint/c 20:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Adding the state name does let users know that the area is in the United States. Buaidh 21:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Telling readers (or at least those familiar enough with American geography to know all 50 states) that an area is somewhere in the United States is not a priority of the article title policy. It does say we need to make titles concise, no more precise than necessary, and follow the WP:COMMONNAME used in the sources.--Cúchullaint/c 21:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Support match naming of the parent article. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. It seems reasonable that foreigners might not realize that Pensacola was in the US until linking to the article. I don't see this as harmful. May seems a trifle redundant for most Americans and Canadians. Having said that, there are a number of other article names of a similar nature that don't seem to require a state or nation. Tokyo, New York, London (even though there are lots of Londons), etc. Has to be taken up case by case unfortunately. Pensacola not one of the better known metropoli. Student7 (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
In actual fact, normal Wikipedia practice is not to add a qualifier to the names of any towns unless they need disambiguation. It's an American habit to append the state to every town, but it's not done in most other countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Appending the state is indeed a common US practice, and Wikipedia recognizes it: see WP:USPLACE. ╠╣uw[talk] 20:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Commment: A comma is missing in the proposed title per WP:Copyedit, section Punctuation; "Location constructions such as Vilnius, Lithuania require a comma after the second element, e.g., He was born in Vilnius, Lithuania, after the country had gained independence." HandsomeFella (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Disambiguation isn't necessary, because there isn't another WP article about "Pensacola metropolitan area" with which this one might be confused. In addition, as noted by HandsomeFella above, the proposed title is ungrammatical. It should be "Pensacola, Florida, metropolitan area" or "Pensacola metropolitan area, Florida". DoctorKubla (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. How many other Pensacola metropolitan areas are there? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Trivial oppose unless a second comma is added after "Florida". Proper grammar requires it. Otherwise, I'm neutral. PowersT 22:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Support the addition of the state to the title for reasons including standardization/consistency as noted by the nominator and others. I'm uncertain about the comma (or absence thereof) noted by other commentators. ╠╣uw[talk] 20:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Support per above comment. Omnedon (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.