Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)

Archives (Index)

2008/November 2008/December 2009/March 2009/April 2009/May 2009/June 2009/July 2009/August 2009/September 2009/October 2009/November 2009/December 2010/March 2010/April 2010/May 2010/June 2010/July 2010/August 2010/September 2010/October 2010/November 2010/December 2011/January 2011/February 2011/January/Archives/2011/February 2011/March 2011/April 2011/May 2011/June 2011/July 2011/August 2011/September 2011/October 2011/November 2012/January 2012/March 2012/April 2012/May 2012/June 2012/July 2012/August 2012/September 2012/October 2012/November 2012/December 2013/January 2013/February 2013/March 2013/April 2013/May 2013/June 2013/July 2013/August 2013/September 2013/October

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Archive

Archive to 1 Dec 2006 • Archive to Nov 2008 • Naming conventions (settlements) • Naming conventions (places)

Requesting clarification on dual names

The section on "Multiple Local Names" states: "Experience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first." At Talk:Senkaku Islands, the point has been raised that while this guideline strongly frowns on multiple names, it does not forbid it. I don't know how well watched this talk page is, but I have a few questions on this part of the guideline:

1) Are there currently any Wikipedia articles that have "multiple names"? As an example, there is a proposal that the name of the above mentioned article be changed either to Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands or Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. If such a proposal were to be seriously considered, would it be the only example of its type, or are there other dual-named articles?

2) Since the line quoted above implies that dual names have been tried in the past but failed, does anyone know of an example of this? That is, anyone know of any article histories where we could look to see the attempt at dual names causing equally bad edit warring to just choosing one name?

3) Assuming that, nonetheless, the "local" editors at that talk page really felt that there was no better solution, that there was no distinction between the two names, and that the dual name is actually one of the more common names used in English sources, where then would they need to go to determine if this breach, or at least, "bending", of the guidelines should be allowed? That is, assuming somehow the dual name got talk page consensus, could we then just move it to do the dual name? Or would we need to raise the issue somewhere "higher", like the Pump, or some other noticeboard?

Thanks for any input. Just to clarify, I'm not looking for any input here about what the name of that particular article actually should be. I'm just trying to figure out if there is any point in discussing a dual name at that article's talk page. In full disclosure, I have thus far argued that there is not). My worry is that even if we were to agree to the dual name, as soon as we moved it, someone else would move it back as a violation of the guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

1. The only place I know of which has a multiple name as an article title is Biel/Bienne, although there was some discussion about doing it for New Zealand places (did that come to anything?).
   • Biel/Bienne is quite different from the Pinnacle Islands (to choose the least partisan of the single names): Its naming and nationality are uncontroversial (on Wikipedia and I think in Switzerland); and the double name including the order is both official and customary.
2. For the background of that provision, see WP:LAME on Bolzano; IIRC that entry is quite correct, including the two move requests from Bolzano/Bozen to Bozen/Bolzano; almost all of the mess should have been archived by now.
3. This is a guideline; genuine consensus may ignore it. But if you are worried about someone moving it back after a thorough discussion, preferably aired at WP:RM, you probably don't have consensus.
   • On the other hand, this is a warning, not a prohibition. If you think you can get genuine consensus on a dual name, without perpetual move requests, and with a clear answer to newbies who want the name they were taught in middle school, there's nothing here to make it pointles to suggest it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there are a couple issues I would like your consideration and input. (1) As I understand (from what the guideline says and what is discussed above), the main reason for avoiding A_B or A/B is the ordering problem. But if everyone who opposes A would rather have A_B than simply A, i.e. taking one name means much less compromise that dual name, isn't this a more acceptable solution to all? and that would mean less likely moving/controversy in future? (2) if in almost all literary in English, be in academic or media, if A_B is becoming more and more prevalent, and from the simple syntax/serach perspective, A_B or A/B appears much more often than simply "A", isn't this a good reason to pose A_B as a candidate? i.e. one could view A_B is THE NAME adopted by academic and media, instead of a dual name. It is not "an artificial invention" by the wiki community just for this pupose. Thanks for your input.San9663 (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

For me it's not so much the possibility of arguments over the order that's the problem; it's the possibility that once we start, people will start proposing this "solution" for all sorts of cases where there isn't really a problem to solve (Gdańsk/Danzig, Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna, Londonderry/Derry, Burma/Myanmar, Oder/Odra and so on - thousands of other places have alternative names) - I suppose we could name articles like this, it wouldn't be an entirely bad style, but we must be aware that once we start it will be hard to stop.--Kotniski (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kotniski, but the likelihood of order arguments is the final straw: if we are going to use long, clunky, unidiomatic forms, and not even get peace out of it, what's the point? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

For me, part of the worry on order of names is that, even if got agreement now, that won't stop others from changing it in the future. That is, once the partial step is taken (say to move it from A to A/B), then in a month or so someone might say, "Yeah, but now that a dual name is okay, it's obvious B should be first, so I' moving it to B/A." But that's not really a reason to stand in the way, as any consensus can change, so it's not right to object just because it makes things more volatile. So I suppose that one step would be, if the local editors on that article do want the change, to get a solid agreement that at least no one editing right now would propose a move to B/A. I also see the logic in Kotniski's concern that this could be bad for other articles. If in fact such a solution is chosen at Senkaku Islands, it might almost be worth adding a line to this guideline specifically to point out that the use of dual names is only acceptable when a large portion of reliable sources themselves use dual names (which may be the case here). That is, that S/D wasn't chosen as a compromise name, but because that's actually the name used in reliable sources (assuming it is). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable exception; let us know if compromise is attainable on those grounds. In fact, I have included a very limited statement on the acceptability of Biel/Bienne, since nobody seems to be disputing it on any grounds outside this guideline. If anybody can think of more restrictions, feel free to pile on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Norwegian example of Gáivuotna – Kåfjord seems to conflict with your wording. For a limited period it was the official name, but it is not now - and on the evidence of the article itself, the place seems to be most commonly referred to as Kåfjord in English. Arguably it should be moved, although Kåfjord is ambiguous, which might be the reason it has not been moved. Mhockey (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The talk page strongly suggests that this is another ethnic naming dispute. I don't think this falsifies what I wrote; it may imply that the article ought to be moved - but to which? There is the difficulty that if Kåfjord is ambiguous, it may be hard to find out what English usage on this arctic hamlet is.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems like I am late to the game. I agree that the name ordering of S/D and D/S can still be disputed, but that significantly lessens the degree of controversy even though that in itself is not a perfect solution.

Also, I personally doubt a consensus will be reached because numerous editors involved in the issue (mostly from Project Japan) seem to like nothing more than complete favour of "Senkaku Island" names. So, I'd be surprised if we don't send this issue right off to mediation. For more background, here's the thread and here's my summary of the issue. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Philippines

The city naming conventions for Philippines have been evolving, as per this recent successful move proposal. I've updated the guideline to reflect what is happening as best as I can understand it. At least it no longer states the preference is to add the suffix "City", which is clearly out of favor. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion notification

There is a move request to move Green Bay, Wisconsin to Green Bay at Talk:Green Bay, Wisconsin#Requested move. Because the outcome of this discussion would affect our article naming conventions, you may want to participate in that discussion. Please discuss at the linked section. Powers ^T 13:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC: United States cities

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..

• C - Status Quo

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Survey

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 It ain't broken. Born2cycle's endless campaign on this issue is more disruptive than any of the names.   Will Beback  talk  01:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• A Hesperian 01:52, 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. Powers ^T 03:05, 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)
  • Are you calling my justification irrational? Powers ^T 03:25, 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) Worm 14:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• A. Per WP:precision. Disambiguation terms should only be used when needed.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2010 (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:

        1. "use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article"
        2. "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)

      • In a word, no. I have my opinion and you have yours.DCmacnut<> 20:17, 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)

• A If a name is unambiguous, there is no reason to disambiguate. --Polaron | Talk 20:19, 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 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 Thorne ^talk 23:20, 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But aren't most Canadian, English, Australian, and other English-speaking countries' placenames ambiguous? Dohn joe (talk) 22:48, 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 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)

[1] Hesperian 05:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free. A sample of American placenames - and I believe other countries' - was examined in the archives of WT:NC (settlements) before the page was merged here. 77 out of 100 American names were ambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• A Only disambiguate when necessary. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:11, 22 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)
  • Per WP:ILLEGIT, we may not use sock accounts to discuss policy changes. Please sign in with your regular account.   Will Beback  talk  09:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• C. Status quo works well for the USA and there is a good argument for extending it to other countries. Deb (talk) 12:22, 22 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)

• C Status quo is fine -- put the articles at the commonname and use redirects for the rest. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 22 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 works well. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:28, 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:
    • Sacramento
  • BTW, notice how they disambiguate with parentheses:
    • Portland

  (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)

• C, as it's clear and customary, not only here but in everyday use. Jonathunder (talk) 03:15, 24 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 Born2cycle summed up my thoughts better than I could. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 22:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• A. Enough with walled gardens. US is not that special a country that it needs its own naming conventions; the standard Wikipedia ones work fine. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:32, 27 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 Lott 01:11, 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)

For the record, the CT neighborhoods category in which Born2cycle believed he discerned a pattern included 17 mis-named articles on CDPs (all under new Requested move to be corrected to comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)) and 9 articles which didn't belong at all (which i just removed). It was and still is a mess. --Doncram (talk) 17:04, 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. Ben MacDui 10:01, 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)

We already have those debates, but they currently involve redirects instead of article titles. Sacramento redirects to Sacramento, California, and other communities are listed at Sacramento (disambiguation). The same applies to Dayton, Tampa, and Tacoma. If the primary topic is clearly established and the redirect is already in place, what's wrong with moving the article over the redirect? - Eureka Lott 20:47, 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 Thorne ^talk 21:47, 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 Amalga is 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 Thorne ^talk 05:27, 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)

But in the EU we do not say things like 'Paris, France'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:37, 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)
  • Yeah, but what if you're near London, Ontario? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 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. Dough4872 17:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• C per Hmains and Eluchil404. ThemFromSpace 18:27, 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 Per above, it ain't broke. --Kbdank71 16:28, 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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:10, 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)
• C I'm persuaded by the above arguments that the status quo is best. Paul August ☎ 00:29, 3 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 | Talk 20:28, 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 Albury 02:16, 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 | Talk 05:47, 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.

            As to people, you are clumsily evading the point. The common name of Parnell, De Gaulle, Churchill, and Reagan is one word; but at WP:NCP we have created an exception to WP:COMMONNAME's principle of using the shortest. American placenames are just another such exception to a general rule. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

            • 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.

              In other words, if the comma convention worked in practice like the First Last convention does, I would support it, as happily as I do the First Last convention. Just as we once had people regularly trying,wanting and wishing to move cities like Chicago, Illinois to Chicago, San Francisco, California to San Francisco, etc., we now have people regularly wishing, wanting or trying to move articles like Carmel-by-the-Sea, California to Carmel-by-the-Sea, Ann Arbor, Michigan to Ann Arbor, Tallahassee, Florida to Tallahassee, etc. This is not the stability promised by the guideline, and enjoyed by the articles about people. That's the difference; that's my point. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Indeed. Although that might better go over at Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada. john k (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• A. No need to disambiguate unambiguous names. —Jeremy (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• A. But if there is consensus for B (unlikely), why the arbitrary choice of NFL/MLB cities, instead of all major league cities? Why shouldn't Orlando and Memphis also be treated the same way? (I see that San Antonio is already properly named.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 08:09, 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 Thorne ^talk 13:04, 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 Worm 14:40, 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)

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)

What clarity! WP needs more of this kind of thoughtfulness. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The error is in thinking the state name serves only to disambiguate. Powers ^T 14:59, 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 assists that, as well as assisting editors (which, while a secondary goal, is still important). Powers ^T 16:07, 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)

Vegaswikian, "The other 2% look out of place" was essentially one of the main arguments made against even moving the U.S. cities on the AP list to their base names. Yet here we are... do Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, or Seattle "look out of place"? You get used to it, don't you? Does Carmel-by-the-Sea (which I just noticed is at its base name, not disambiguated) "look out of place"? Oh, my let's call the naming police! What a travesty! Seriously, what is the problem?

If the Green Bay, Wisconsin → Green Bay proposal succeeds, will Green Bay "look out of place"? Really? Why? How will that be a problem? By the "looks out of place" reasoning Cher should be moved to Cher (entertainer) because Cher "looks out of place" compared to Madonna (entertainer), Usher (entertainer), and Common (entertainer), and South Australian cities Adelaide, Port Lincoln, Port Pirie and Whyalla should be moved to Adelaide, South Australia, Port Lincoln, South Australia, Port Pirie, South Australia and Whyalla, South Australia respectively because they "look out of place" at their base names compared to Victor Harbor, South Australia and Murray Bridge, South Australia. The "looks out of place" argument completely ignores the reality of how mostother Wikipedia articles are named (precision is usually added to the name of the subject in the title only when necessary for disambiguation, thus making some more precise than other the norm, not something unusual).

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? Powers ^T 21:36, 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:

• Carmel-by-the-Sea, California About 40,800 results
• Carmel-by-the-Sea About 571,000 results

• Tallahassee About 10,600,000 results
• Tallahassee, Florida About 1,550,000 results

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. Powers ^T 00:04, 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. Powers ^T 11:58, 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. Powers ^T 14:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty. Yes, I'm afraid the objection to putting U.S. cities that don't need disambiguation at their base name ultimately comes down to "it just feels right". I really think that if you go to Carmel-by-the-Sea and give it a sec, it will feel right too. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:07, 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. Powers ^T 19:09, 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:

• London, England: 22,400,000, London: 472,000,000 5%
• Omaha, Nebraska: 2,320,000 Omaha: 25,900,000 9%

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. Powers ^T 20:38, 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)

Hear hear. --Doncram (talk) 06:17, 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)

Another reason is secondary disambiguation. To stick with the current comma-convention keeps a lot of other disambiguation more stable and easy. Many historic site articles use (City, State) as clarifying disambiguation, and i hate for there to be endless nannering about how since City is primaryusage, Smith House (City, State) should be moved to Smith House (City) now. A lot elsewhere is more straightforward, if City, State is used. For example, there was apparently just a successful quick, uninformed RM of Ann Arbor, Michigan to Ann Arbor, counter to the consensus guideline here (see Talk:Ann Arbor#Requested move). I suppose that means that the correct disambiguation of First National Bank Building (Ann Arbor, Michigan) and Thomas Earl House (Ann Arbor, Michigan) (currently a redlink), both NRHP-listed places withinNational Register of Historic Places listings in Washtenaw County, Michigan), now goes into contention? And what appears at First National Bank Building (disambiguation) and Thomas Earl House (disambiguation) now also all goes into endless contention? It's not worth it. --Doncram (talk) 06:17, 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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 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:

1. missing redirects (the predisambiguated topic's base name is a red link),
2. 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
3. the predisambiguated topic is not considered a "significant competing use" in primary topic determinations for that base name (e.g., Plymouth).

--Born2cycle (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

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. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 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.

For the rest, I agree with Lt. Powers above (and the archives of WP:NC (settlement) offer plenty of confirming evidence, under the user-name B2C wore out boring people on this subject). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see that discussion; is there a non-dead link to it? --MelanieN (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the final page; it links to the others. Born2Cycle was editing under a different username at the time, but his identity should be clear enough; most of the archive is filled with his campaign. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

Don't forget that classic song, "Shuffle Off to Buffalo...New York" ;) Dohn joe (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it necessary to point out that Buffalo is ambiguous anyway? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• 

• Comment Considering the evidence at Commons:Category:City limit signs in the United States and Commons:Category:City welcome signs in the United States, it appears that most of these places don't use the state name when referring to themselves. I struggle to see why Wikipedia should. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • LOL. Good one. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I think most people, driving along a highway, are already aware what state they are in. --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 25 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)
  • The first sentence in Cayucos, California "immediately conveys what KIND of article it is". Same for Sleepy Eye, Minnesota. The article text would not change if these articles were moved to Cayucos and Sleepy Eye, respectively. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 00:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • As to your first point, I fail to understand why redirects wouldn't take care of it, as has been done for most of the cities on the AP list. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 00:09, 29 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 can still link to Farmington, New Mexico, which would be a redirect if the article is under another name. Jafeluv (talk) 00:31, 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)
      • Or you could just use a piped link, seeing as there is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 01:16, 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 Thorne ^talk 02:10, 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. Dough4872 16:41, 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)

Very few people outside of Meschede, for example, would know that it's in Germany, and yet the article is titled Meschede, not Meschede, Germany. Meschede, Germany redirects to Meschede. If this proposal succeeds, linking to cities will NOT require looking up whether or not the city needs the state because there will be redirects from City, State to City; as I stated a few comments above, there is nothing wrong with linking to redirects. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 05:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

<sarcasm>You can't compare Meschede to Amalga... Meschede is in... who cares but Amalga is in the United States!!!</sarcasm> --Born2cycle (talk) 06:41, 30 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)

Shorter: B2C is prepared to be disruptive for years until he gets his way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 19:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)\

Assume the assumption of good faith; to assume good faith is not to believe in it against the evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 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)

Sounds good to me. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 19:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Current move requests votes needed

Please, before the RFC above is closed, could everyone here please copy their votes here, also to:

1. Talk:Carmel-by-the-Sea#Move Request
2. Talk:Tallahassee, Florida#Requested move
3. Talk:Sacramento, California#Requested move
4. Talk:Boise, Idaho#Requested move
5. Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada#Requested move

Please also vote at:

• Talk:Austin, Texas#Requested move

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)

This is a somewhat disturbing statement. john k (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"Their views will be drowned out anyhow"? Your comments directly contradict Wikipedia policies and guidelines, namely WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:VOTE. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 19:18, 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)

You appeal to Wikipedia:NCDAB#Naming_the_specific_topic_article. This has two interesting properties: it would support the "most complete" name, which would be Carmel-by-the-Sea, California; and it is contrary to the principles of WP:TITLE. It is only undisputed because nobody has noticed it yet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Could catch, PMA.

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)

If B2C and PMA agree about something then it clearly isn't to be taken lightly... but I don't see any contradiction between WP:NCDAB and WP:TITLE, or any reason why the former would lead to Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. Can you explain?--Kotniski (talk) 20:15, 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)
  • Good point, John. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:30, 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)

I took the liberty to start a new section to respond to this, #Common Ground... Stability in naming!. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:45, 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] [2] [3], 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 explain C, 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.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 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 Lott 00:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This criteria seems arbitrary, much like when I first suggested using the AP Stylebook back in 2006. I would prefer a clear, all-or-nothing consensus, or else this debate is definitely going to last another five years... Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:54, 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 Lott 08:29, 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. [4], [5], [6]. 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". [7], [8], [9], [10]. 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). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 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)

• Comment - Far too much time is spent on wikipedia debating the names of things, which serves the readers not one iota. Normal US usage is "city, state". It ain't rocket science. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 1 January 2011 (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)

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)

edit warring on this guideline, regarding CDPs having any military association

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 | Talk 23:24, 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 | Talk 23:44, 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)

It's not easy to find military base CDPs since the MediaWiki software doesn't implement category intersections yet. Just repeating the examples I mentioned above: Beale Air Force Base, Edwards Air Force Base, March Air Force Base, and Vandenberg Air Force Base. --unsigned comment by Polaron (?)

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 | Talk 01:02, 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.

So, can we agree that Beale Air Force Base, Edwards Air Force Base, March Air Force Base, and Vandenberg Air Force Base are all examples of military bases that are also CDPs? And, the articles of these entities don't have ", state"? If so, I presume there is no objection to the current wording... "(excluding those with the same name as a military base)". If there is an objection (to the wording, not to how it got there), please explain. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

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 Beback  talk  01:59, 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.

How about, (excluding those that are military bases)? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

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 Beback  talk  02:55, 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.

1. If John Wayne is an American film actor and John Wayne is an article about John Wayne, then John Wayne is an article about an actor.
2. If John Wayne is an American Roman Catholic and John Wayne is an article about John Wayne, then John Wayne is an article about an American Roman Catholic.
3. If Beale Air Force Base is a military base, and Beale Air Force Base is about Beale Air Force Base, then Beale Air Force Base is about a military base.
4. If Beale Air Force Base is a CDP, and Beale Air Force Base is about Beale Air Force Base, then Beale Air Force Base is about a CDP.

Therefore, Beale Air Force Base is about a CDP, by tautology (4). Please stop disputing a statement based on a simple tautology.

Now, do you have any valid objections to the addition of this wording? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do object. Let's not make this naming convention more complicated than it needs to be.   Will Beback  talk  04:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Born2Cycle, if you really believe that these air force bases are primarily CfDs then please change the lead sentences to reflect that fact.   Will Beback  talk  04:13, 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 [11]:

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 Beback  talk  05:30, 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 Beback  talk  05:33, 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 topic of 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)

Military installations are not the same thing as cities, towns or other settlements.   Will Beback  talk  06:05, 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 | Talk 06:33, 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 [12].

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 Beback  talk  07:06, 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)

Is a CDP the same thing as an air base?   Will Beback  talk  08:49, 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 Beback  talk  09:31, 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 | Talk 16:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Well, you have 3 days to discuss it without making any more changes. I suggest you make good use of them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:28, 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.

  Are there any unresolved objections to the current wording about military bases and CDPs? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  • 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 | Talk 03:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. I accept many things Polaron has to say in other contexts. --Doncram (talk) 14:40, 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 | Talk 15:49, 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 | Talk 20:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Survey on proposal regarding military bases

Existing text (last undisputed version):

The canonical form for cities, towns and most census-designated places in the United States is [[Placename, State]] (the "comma convention").

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 | Talk 20:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. CDPs are mentioned in the guidelines to prevent people from writing Blackhawk Census Designated Place, South Dakota instead of Blackhawk, South Dakota. There needs to be someplace in the guidelines to address that.DCmacnut<> 21:04, 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 | Talk 23:05, 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 | Talk 03:22, 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 | Talk 15:11, 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 | Talk 15:47, 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)

They may say that, but in many instances they strike wide of the mark. john k (talk) 00:20, 5 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)

Places in the same city with ambiguous names

The general issue of how to disambiguate two places with the same name that are in one city (in this case a park and a community) is ultimately at stake at the proposed move of Lincoln Park, Chicago to Lincoln Park (Chicago community). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

US highways

The link is incorrect. The NC for U.S. highways is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways), not the category that's listed. The category, Category:U.S. Highway System, is for U.S. Highways (capital H) which are part of a specific system of U.S. highways (lower case h). Imzadi 1979 → 03:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)