Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names): Difference between revisions

	; 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.

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:23, 5 August 2013

Bibliography and place-names

Recently some difficulty has come up regarding the use of place-names in bibliographical listings. At Translations of Through the Looking-Glass, some editors, citing the Naming Conventions on geographic names, have changed a bibliographic citation from [[Westport, County Mayo|Cathair na Mart]] to [[Westport, County Mayo]]. Now I agree with the usual MoS naming convention: articles and general citations about Westport should be listed under that name and not under Cathair na Mart. But in a bibliography, the correct thing to do is to give the publication place as it is given in the book itself. Why? Because that is how it will be catalogued by libraries, in particular OCLC, the Library of Congress, and the British Library. In those editions of Looking-Glass the name "Westport" doesn't even occur. The point of a bibliographical entry is to help a person identify and find a book, and to do so, the information as presented in the book should have priority over a secondary translation by a Wikipedia editor. I propose that the MoS adopt a rule that in bibliographies, the place-name be given as it appears in the book (subject to script transliteration) and that it be pipe-linked to the article whose name should be the common name in English. -- Evertype·✆ 11:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've written the text of this policy in the article. I hope the policy will be accepted, or modified with discussion and consensus. -- Evertype·✆ 12:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was reverted, the phrase Wikipedia editor does not belong in there. It implies that translations by our editors are inferior to other forms of translation. Either we want to use translations in this case or we prefer not too. The source is not the issue and should not be raised. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. My view is that while translation is not really original research, in the context of changing the citation form that appears in a bibliography, it is bad practice to change Cathair na Mart to Westport in particular if the latter term does not appear in the book. Piping here is the appropriate place for the translation activity of an editor; but the editor should not be taking it upon himself or herself to essentially change the bibliographic information itself. -- Evertype·✆ 00:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evertype has a WP:COI on this subject as his printing company use this style themselves. Oppose making exceptions to conform to outside manual of style. I have removed the BOLD entry, inserted in accordance with WP:BRD, removed inaccordance with this and to allow further discussion here. Murry1975 (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD Discuss when reverted Micheal. To say there is no COI yet your example is conforming this MOS to the MOS used by your publishing company is a COI. Murry1975 (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Accusing me of having a conflict of interest does not mean I have one. This is about bibliographic accuracy, and is not limited to the 150 books I have published: it is relevant to books published by all publishers, worldwide. If a book is published in Denmark, the bibliography should state København as written on the book, and pipe to the article Copenhagen. There is nothing unusual or strange about this: In library bibliographies from the British Library to the Library of Congress, the place of publication is normally given as it is stated on the book. Wikipedia practice should reflect this good and accurate biblographic practice. And I don't know what you mean about "my printing company" (I do not own a printing company) "use this style". My books say Cathair na Mart because my address is in Irish. Books printed in Denmark say København because their addresses are in Danish. In either case, it is inappropriate for editors to alter the bibliographic information as stated on the book, just as it would be imappropriate for them to translate the book titles or other bibliographic information. The proper way to deal with this is to give the information about the publishing city as it is on the book, and if a link to an article about that city is relevant, it should be piped. This is a sensible and serious proposal, and it was made in June. There has been no opposition to it, apart from yours, and in fact your opposition does not address the points raised, about bibliographical accuracy, which is the reason for "making an exception". in this matter. I have restored the paragraph. (You have deleted it again, without warrant.) I welcome further discussion, but having that paragraph and its text available for scrutiny is more appropriate than deleting it. -- Evertype·✆ 13:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"To say there is no COI yet your example is conforming this MOS to the MOS used by your publishing company is a COI." This is nonsense. My company does not use a manual of style. My company has an address, which is in the Irish language, and so that address appears on my books. That is not an MOS. Books published in Denmark do not have a MOS either. They have addresses in the Danish language, and so that address appears on their books. This is not about me, and there is no COI. -- Evertype·✆ 13:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions in bibliographies While the use of English names should be followed in titles and articles, an exception should be made in bibliographical citations, because bibliographical references are typically given (and catalogued by libraries) using the name of publication as it appears on the book itself. Since the point of a bibliographical entry is to help a person identify and find a book, the information as presented in the book should have priority over what is essentially a secondary translation by an editor. For example, if a book published in Ireland states Cathair na Mart on its title and/or copyright page, this name should be retained, though piped to the article name, which should be in English, thus: [[Westport, County Mayo|Cathair na Mart]]. A bibliographical listing may be given in romanization ([[St. Petersburg|Leningrad]]) or as it appears in the book ([[St. Petersburg|Ленинград]]), depending on the style chosen in the article.

So that the text can be discussed, since Murry1975 has removed it (again, needlessly). -- Evertype·✆ 13:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needlessly re-added :) by yourself with prior discussion as pper your bold edit. No it shouldnt be in non-English just because outside parties use that form. It should be in English, as this allows the reader, who in all likely hood, would not know the native name of a place. Wikipedia is about communicating to the ability of many levels of understanding and knowledge. It is one of the aims of Wikipedia, allowing all to garner information which they can understand.

It needs to be addressed but conform to the MOS we already have. Baile Áṫa Cliaṫ and Baile Átha Cliath are just Dublin, yet to a person reading the article they could read as two seperate places. As for Westport, not many Irish people know its Irish name, I honestly cant see an average reader gaining any information from reading Cathair na Mairt without having to follow the link, this is in itself unencyclopdic. Murry1975 (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bibliographical entry is a form of citation, and it is not appropriate to change the relevant data of a citation. I do not care whether Cathair na Mart or København is in the text in the MOS (evidently you are not continuing to accuse me of COI), but your saying "it should be in English" is simply re-stating your view, and is not addressing the issue. The issue is that good bibliographic practice worldwide lists the data of a book as it appears in the book. It is wonderful that Wikipedia can pipe to an article about the place; it is nevertheless inappropriate for the bibliographic data to be changed by an editor. The MOS is a guideline, and in general it is a good one. It should not be applied to bibliographical data. You say "It needs to be addressed". Yes, it does. I have addressed it. If we give the bibliographic data as it appears in the book, and pipe to the English-language name of the article about the place-name, we are "addressing" the issue. If we change the bibliographical data, we are engaging in paraphrasing, not in citation, and a bibliographical entry is a citation and should be treated as such. -- Evertype·✆ 13:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think that if we refer directly to a place name (or author, or publisher, etc.) that appears in a certain form in the work itself, we should reproduce that form on WP, a la MOS:QUOTE. However, 1) I don't think we need to add to the guidance here for this very specific issue - use MOS:QUOTE if it comes up again; and 2) I question the need for wikilinking to places of publication in the first place. See WP:OVERLINK. What value to the reader is served by linking to Paris in a list of Translations of Through the Looking Glass? I would de-link all of those. Dohn joe (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NYC neighborhoods

Can anyone explain the passage under USPLACE about NYC neighborhoods being named "Neighborhood, Borough"? Is that universal, or only when disambiguation is needed (the text is unclear)? I ask because my move request on Talk:Tribeca is not garnering any support despite the existence of this guidance. Powers ^T 15:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A look at Category:Neighborhoods in Manhattan suggests that the use of ", Borough" is not mandatory. That surprised me; like you, I thought it was. MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, presumably there was some discussion that led to the inclusion of that clause. I wonder how to find it. =) Powers ^T 14:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this section, with this entry at the end: "I added text to the US section to reflect the neighborhood naming standard used for New York City, which has been neighborhood, borough for quite some time, with "borough" being used as a qualifier in almost all cases. Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)" Here's the diff. So no explicit discussion at the time it was added.

Later on, Vegaswikian recalled a borough discussion in the 2006-07 timeframe, but couldn't recall where: see this discussion. Haven't been able to find that. Dohn joe (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"America"

I could have sworn there was guidance on usage of this term somewhere, but have not had much luck turning it up. While the average citizen of the U.S. will treat it as the common name for that country, others will use it collectively for the North and South American continents. No doubt there is an impact from wp:ENGVAR, but it seems an obvious thing to spell out. Am I looking in the wrong place? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I once looked for guidance, and could not find anything other than the DAB page at America. There should be something here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve always understood “America” to mean the United States thereof, and “the Americas” to mean the two continents. Does anyone refer to the continents in English as simply “America”? —Frungi (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a major discussion currently going on at Talk:America#Requested move on this very subject, where some are saying "America" should redirect to "United States" as primary meaning, and others are claiming that they do in fact say "America" when they mean the North and South American continents. Go figure. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then I guess I take it back. Learn something new every day. Of course, my experience is biased by living in the US.—Frungi (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan/micropolitan areas and the like

Shouldn’t this guideline address how to title articles about areas named after a central city? For example:

Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area
Columbus, OH metropolitan area
Columbus metropolitan area, Ohio
Columbus metropolitan area (Ohio)
Columbus (Ohio) metropolitan area

Which should be used? This page provides no guidance for such titles, and many current titles omit the second appositional comma (Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area—which could be read to mean the Columbus which is inside the “Ohio metropolitan area”). Is this addressed elsewhere? If not, I think we need this for consistency’s sake. —Frungi (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. It is Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area. It is written that way because it is the Ohio metropolitan area which contains Columbus. It is too much detail to put this into the guideline. Apteva (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation, but regardless, I should think a single short sentence under WP:USPLACE would suffice: mesomething like, “Articles about an area of a state should be titled [[X, State metropolitan area]].” How is that too much detail?

On the semantics: In a web search for this particular subject, I find multiple formats, including ones I gave as examples and simply an unqualified “Columbus metro area”. So I maintain that it’s “(Columbus (Ohio)) metropolitan area”—the metropolitan area surrounding and named for Columbus in Ohio. But if it was referring to an “Ohio metropolitan area” containing Columbus, a comma wouldn’t even be appropriate at all. I would give counter-examples, but at the moment I can’t even think of anything else that’s named after something it contains other than “jelly donut” (not “jelly, donut”). I can think of things named for their leaders (which is arguably the case here), such as “the Obama administration” or “the Ming Dynasty”, but that’s really not the same thing as what you assert. —Frungi (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent RFC which concluded that generally, articles on metropolitan areas don't have to include the state name unless disambiguation is necessary. I'd welcome a follow-up RFC asking how titles which do include the state name should be formatted, but I don't have the energy to start it myself. For what it's worth, I prefer the name of the area followed by the disambiguator ("Columbus metropolitan area, Ohio"). DoctorKubla (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As concluded at the recent RFC, the title of this particular metropolitan area should be Columbus metropolitan area, as it currently is - because there is no other Columbus Metropolitan Area. For those few articles that need disambiguation (because there are metropolitan areas for more than one city of that name), I prefer the style Portland, Maine metropolitan area (no comma) as the most natural format - in other words I agree with Apteva. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But… it's not. That's a DAB page. Anyway, I think matching appositional commas are the more natural format, since that's how the language treats states. But if it's such a point of contention, how about, e.g., "Portland metropolitan area (Maine)"? Has this format been discussed? —Frungi (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected about Columbus; thanks for the correction. And I have changed my mind about the second comma; it is needed. Apteva has demonstrated that the format "Portland, Maine metropolitan area" can be misread as meaning it is part of something called the "Maine metropolitan area". The second comma is essential to prevent this misunderstanding. So I now prefer Portland, Maine, metropolitan area, with a redirect from Portland, Maine metropolitan area. --MelanieN (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with the well-intentioned editors here about the need for a second comma after the state in such names. There's a relevant discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Do_article_titles_that_include_proper_names_need_to_follow_standard_grammatical_rules.3F

Basically, normally I wouldn't say this about hardly anything on Wikipedia, but I am willing to go to the mat on it being wrong to omit the second comma. It creates confusing and incorrect titles like Rochester, New York metropolitan area – which clearly suggests that Rochester is within the "New York metropolitan area" which is just wrong! It's an article about the metropolitan area in Rochester, New York, not an article about the New York metropolitan area of Rochester! English requires a second comma after parenthetical information like state names. I know tha some people don't like to include the state name, but if it is going to be included it really must have a comma. I implore all participants to think this through and separate the question of including the state from including a comma after the state when a state is necessary. I think adding a sentence about this to the main page would be helpful in clearing this up. AgnosticAphid talk 16:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Omitting the matching comma is a grammatical error. On the other hand, at least one guide says this formal requirement is changing in practice; the error is increasingly tolerated, making it not an error for some. But in WP, in writing for the widest possible audience, we strive to use style in support of clarity. There's no reason to move away from the formally correct punctuation that most clearly helps the reader to the right parse of the phrase. Dicklyon (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Apteva would be correct in saying to omit the comma if he were correct that "it is the Ohio metropolitan area which contains Columbus". But it's not. As the article says, "The Columbus Metropolitan Area is the metropolitan area centered on the American city of Columbus, Ohio." So he's wrong; or she's wrong; either way, it's wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think the second comma is awkward; it might be needed in a sentence, but this is not a sentence. However I am not going to go to the mat over it and would accept either Portland, Maine metropolitan area or Portland, Maine, metropolitan area. Whichever one is used, the other should be a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the evidence shows that the lack of comma has misled at least one semi-intelligent reader into the wrong interpretation of what the title means. Is there a reason not to use the more clearly correct punctuation? I suppose the alternative explanation is also supportable (that the reader in question is less than semi-intelligent). Dicklyon (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to say that the argument's been made, but the most compelling reason I can think of is IDONTLIKEIT. And when that's the most compelling reason… —Frungi (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case this is unfamiliar, it might be helpful to note WP:COMMA:

In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element (except at the end of a sentence). Dates in month–day–year format also require a comma after the day and after the year (except at the end of a sentence). In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetic.

Incorrect: On November 24, 1971 Cooper hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft that had taken off from Portland, Oregon and was destined for Seattle, Washington.

Correct: On November 24, 1971, Cooper hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft that had taken off from Portland, Oregon, and was destined for Seattle, Washington.

—sroc 💬 02:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for omitting the second comma is a simple matter of grammar. The metro/micro areas are not within the city named, they are within the state named, so we use Rochester, New York metropolitan area, instead of Rochester, New York, metropolitan area, which would be correct if the metropolitan area was contained within Rochester, but none of these are (and if they are, they should have a second comma). So the unit that we are putting commas around is [state metropolitan area], not [city], [state], [metropolitan area]. Apteva (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's how it works. The term "metropolitan area" is modified by the name of the city. We're not talking about a city in the state's metropolitan area. We're talking about the metropolitan area defined by the city. It's the Rochester metropolitan area (in the state of New York). When the name of the state is inserted, it functions as an appositive. But if you insist that you're correct, then please cite another case where commas are used as you describe, because I don't think English works that way. Also, please see my earlier reply to you at the top of this section. —Frungi (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Frungi. And Apteva, that's not correct. If this is how you are interpreting it (and your reading is definitely logical), then the second comma is needed. There is no such thing as a "New York metropolitan area" or an "Ohio metropolitian area". There is the metropolitan area centered on Rochester, New York - or on Columbus, Ohio. You have just inadvertently convinced me that the second comma is needed after all. --MelanieN (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further, please note that many metro areas cross state lines. Thus, for example, the metro area that is named for Cincinnati, Ohio, is not an Ohio metropolitan area, nor is it a metropolitan area "in" Ohio. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A humorous aside, with apologies: A reminder that commas save lives. --MelanieN (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding, by examples:

He lives in the Rochester metropolitan area, which is within New York state.
He lives in the Rochester metropolitan area in a small apartment.
He lives in the metropolitan area of Rochester, New York, in a small apartment.
He lives in a Rochester, New York, apartment.
- Not He lives in a Rochester, New York apartment.
- Because this is clunky, I would re-phrase as He lives in an apartment in Rochester, New York.
He lives in the Rochester, New York, metropolitan area.
- Not He lives in the Rochester, New York metropolitan area.
- I would prefer to re-phrase this, too, like the first example.

I don't understand why it would be otherwise, but am keen to learn. —sroc 💬 11:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be correct if the metropolitan area in question was contained within Rochester, which it is not. Someone living in Savannah, New York, in Wayne County, is also within that same metropolitan area, and the only thing that is in common with someone living in Rochester, which is in Monroe County, is that it is in New York. It is not correct to say that they live in the Rochester, New York, metropolitan area, in a big house with a red door, because they do not live in Rochester, New York, and do not even live in the same county as Rochester. It is correct to say that they live in the Rochester, New York metropolitan area, in a big house with a red door. In another thread someone pointed to more detailed rules on commas that show where the second comma is omitted, which includes this case. We can not separate New York from metropolitan area any more than we can separate metropolitan and area with a comma. The four words form a single clause. It is very dangerous for us to try to explain or teach grammar or good writing in the MOS, and all of that advice belongs in our articles and in essays. Often our articles provide better information on a subject than our MOS does, because we have roughly 1000 times as many readers as editors, meaning that 1000 times as many people read and use the article on the subject than do the MOS. Apteva (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Apteva, that's why it is called an AREA. "Area" automatically implies more than just the city limits; if we didn't mean to include a larger area, we would just say the city. If someone lives in the "Rochester statistical area," that does not imply they live in Rochester; it means they live in the Rochester area - an area which is named for its largest city, Rochester, but includes surrounding cities as part of the metropolitan area. Just as we say "the Los Angeles area" which includes cities other than Los Angeles, or "the Boston area" specifically to include a larger area than just Boston. The thing which defines the area is the city around which it centers - not the state in which it lies. It's just that if there is more than one "Rochester statistical area," then we have to add the state name to disambiguate which Rochester we are talking about. The phrase "Ohio metropolitan area" (I'm using Ohio as an example rather than New York because there really is a "New York (city) metropolitan area") is NOT a single clause. In fact this "clause" makes no sense, as a phrase or as a concept, and it is not used by any source anywhere. Your argument to omit the comma because you want this to actually mean it is part of an "Ohio metropolitan area" is way out in left field and not supported by any reliable source. Certainly not by the federal government, which defines these metropolitan statistical areas and names them (usually) after the largest city contained within them. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word area does not define the extent of the area in question. The words "New York metropolitan" only say where the area is located. Ohio is a better example, because of the confusion between the city and state. Where the state is not needed, we do not place a comma between the city and the words metropolitan area, we say Cincinnati metropolitan area, we do not say Cincinnati, metropolitan area. Why would we include a comma just because we include the state? Doing so would pair the state with the city, which is not correct, as the state is not paired with the city, but with the words metropolitan area, which is why we have the Lima, Ohio metropolitan area, Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area, and Wheeling, West Virginia metropolitan area. Were those editors wrong in choosing those names? Why would we have so many like that if not for it being correct? If we put it at Lima, Ohio, metropolitan area, someone would have pointed out the error and suggested moving it to Lima, Ohio metropolitan area. These sentences, in Lima, Ohio, "As of the 2010 census, the city had a population of 38,771. It is the principal city of and is included in the Lima, Ohio Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is included in the Lima-Van Wert–Wapakoneta, Ohio Combined Statistical Area. Lima was founded in 1831." are not missing two commas. Nor does the US federal government place commas there, instead referring to "Lima, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area",[1] "Mansfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area".[2] Are they wrong, too? Apteva (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I disagree that the omission of the comma is because the writers MEANT to pair the state with the metropolitan area; it is more likely that they simply followed the increasing trend, noted above and often followed but considered sloppy by purists, of omitting the second comma in even when the state is meant to modify the city. We do not say "Cincinnati, metropolitan area" because there is no parenthetical modifier to Cincinnati. If we insert the state name we put it between TWO commas to make it clear that "Ohio" is parenthetical, specifically NOT part of "metropolitan area", just modifying Cincinnati. To follow up on the example above, if someone writes (erroneously according to the strict grammarians) "He lived in a Columbus, Ohio apartment", is Ohio really meant to modify "apartment"? What is an "Ohio apartment" and what makes it a single clause? Isn't "Ohio" rather meant to modify "Columbus", as in "Columbus, Ohio", and so shouldn't the sentence really read "He lived in a Columbus, Ohio, apartment"? I'm sorry, Apteva, but I really don't see where you are coming from here. It seems so clear that the metropolitan area referred to is that of "Columbus, Ohio" and the only question is how to make it clear that we are talking about the metropolitan area around Columbus, Ohio, rather than that of Columbus, Georgia, or Columbus, Mississippi. This whole concept of an "Ohio metropolitan area" is your invention and makes no sense at all to me. And the whole point of this discussion is to say that expressions like "Lima, Ohio metropolitan area" really should be changed to "Lima, Ohio, metropolitan area" to avoid exactly this kind of confusion. (BTW if there really is such a thing as an Ohio metropolitan area, why is Ohio omitted from Cincinnati? Why isn't every metro article titled "Cincinnati, Ohio metropolitan area"?) --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our choices are we can follow the convention used on this isolated site[3], or the choice used by the federal government. I recommend we follow the choice used by the federal government. A web search reveals almost no exceptions. There are two reasons that Ohio is not included in the Cincinnati metropolitan area, one, because it is not needed, but more importantly because Cincinnati is in the AP Stylebook as not needing the state. The 2013 AP Stylebook is now in print and needs to be checked against the list at WP:USPLACE for any changes. Apteva (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the state WOULD be needed, wouldn't it, if these cities were part of an "Ohio metropolitan area" as you claim? Why do we have Akron metropolitan area and Dayton metropolitan area (which incidentally DO need the state added to the title of the article, per the AP stylebook, but that's a side issue)? Aren't Akron and Dayton part of this supposed "Ohio metropolitan area", and if they are not, why is Columbus? Sorry; the bottom line is that you really destroyed your argument by bringing up these other cities that do not include "Ohio". If "Ohio metropolitan area" is the actual entity, then every metropolitan area in the state should include it. These articles should have been titled Akron, Ohio metropolitan area and Dayton, Ohio metropolitan area. The fact that they are not so titled proves that "Ohio" is merely a disambiguator (requiring parenthetical commas), and not an essential part of the name of metropolitan areas in Ohio. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No changes in the new AP Stylebook. Anyone wishing a second comma can take it up with the US census bureau. Until their usage changes,[4] I recommend doing what everyone else does; omit the second comma. Apteva (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're talking about disambiguation - a separate issue. Could you please address the issue of why "Ohio metropolitan area" is not included in the names all metropolitan areas in Ohio - if as you say it is a single clause?

Comment BTW I wish to apologize to User:Frungi, User:AgnosticAphid, User:Dicklyon and anyone else I initially disagreed with here; you were right and I was wrong. My discussion with User:Apteva has convinced me that the second comma is an essential part of the name of these metropolitan areas and should be added whenever they are disambiguated by the state name. Commas may not actually save lives, but they certainly prevent misunderstandings! --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Apteva: This is not about whether "Cincinnati" requires "Ohio". This is about following a basic punctuation style, followed by "most style manuals, including The Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook", which requires a comma before and after parenthetical remarks such as a state following a city. This is not unlike the year in an MDY-format date like July 23, 2013, for example where the second comma is required but sadly often neglected.

In an earlier comment, you mentioned "another thread [where] someone pointed to more detailed rules on commas that show where the second comma is omitted, which includes this case." It would be really helpful if you could actually link to it so we could all read and benefit from it, given the tide of disagreement against you on this. —sroc 💬 22:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would help me too, and in an hour or two of searching I can probably find it, but is not essential to this conversation, which is not about grammar, but usage. Stick to reliable sources, which universally omit the second comma.[5] Apteva (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That source also uses the ZIP code appreviation rather than the name of the state. Are you suggesting we should do that? --MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we do sometimes. Apteva (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many such articles were created using the weird styling of the Census, and have yet to be fixed for WP style. I fixed that one for you. Dicklyon (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By taking out the states? Who benefits from that? Certainly no one that I can think of. The census style is not weird, because everyone else uses only one comma. The point is, and was, that we sometimes use the zip code abbreviation instead of spelling out the state. In that case it was likely done because no one wanted a title that was 75 characters long. There are other examples or at least one that I have seen that use the abbreviation for the state. Wikipedia certainly does other things that are weird and do not reflect common usage, but those are abominations, not goals. Apteva (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"reliable sources, which universally omit the second comma". "everyone else uses only one comma". Who else, for example? The census page is not really comparable to our article titles because of their use of ZIP code abbreveations; can you show us other sources that omit the comma after the state in the names of metropolitan areas? --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The states are often omitted from multi-city areas, as you can confirm by searching for sources. Many sources do just use the census bureau's styling, but of those that don't (ie. that don't copy the postal codes), omitting the states altogether is most common. The mutiple cities make the name completely unambiguous already, and unlike standalone city names, there's no lack of clarity on what the topic is. A recent RFC decided that the state is not needed in such cases. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It helps to include the states because even though Youngstown, Warren, and Boardman are all in Ohio, the MSA includes Mercer County, Pennsylvania. This though is not a discussion of that article title, and moving it was really just WP:Pointy. The White House[6], Forbes[7], a law office[8], a school (Lima ... is the principal city of and is included in the Lima, Ohio Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is included in the Lima-Van WertWapakoneta, Ohio Combined Statistical Area).[9], payscale[10], places of America[11], hiker central[12], a real estate service[13], Missouri Census Data Center (a sponsored program of the Missouri State Library)[14] It is the exceptions that are hard to find, not the ones with one comma. So far in adding these I have found none that follow a two comma format. Apteva (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand User:Apteva’s position correctly (and please correct me if I’m wrong), the belief here is that terms like “metropolitan area” are in fact abbreviations of “[State] metropolitan area”. That is, the belief is that “[City] metropolitan area” is actually shorthand for “[City] [State] metropolitan area”, and a comma’s thrown in there just ’cause. I believe this is completely fallacious, firstly because the use of any commas in this case makes no sense grammatically, and secondly because it’s begging the question—it seems that this explanation was thought up in an attempt to make sense of the grammatical error of the missing closing comma, and now it’s being cited as fact in support of that error. I’m not saying here that any other arguments for “[City], [State] metropolitan area” are necessarily invalid, but this one needs to stop being used. (I haven’t read everything between my last post and this one, so if it has stopped being used, please disregard this.) —Frungi (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do with lame arguments supported by nobody but Apteva is to simply ignore them. But that's hard. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Anyone participating in a discussion should be afforded the same opportunity as anyone else to be productive, in this case by having faulty, preconceived notions challenged. If those notions are simply ignored, then that individual may never get free of them and meaningfully contribute to the conversation, and that’s just a stupid reason for that potential loss. —Frungi (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but after a lame idea has been refuted, and the person pushing it keeps pushing it, it is better to ignore it than to keep giving it air. This is pretty much always the case with Apteva, which is why he has gotten dozens of editors so annoyed that they topic banned him from style-related move discussions (or maybe something not quite broad enough to keep him away from discussions like this one?). Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to offer an "outside view" on this as someone who doesn't live in the USA (and finds the practice of adding the name of a state to a city that doesn't need disambiguating somewhat bemusing). Of the forms discussed so far, the only one that makes sense to me and describes what you're trying to do is [City] metropolitan area, [State]. I think this is correct because:

the name of the area is [City] metropolitan area - it doesn't seem to make any sense to insert a comma-separated disambiguation term in the middle of it, any more than we would use the form John, mathematician, Smith.
this keeps it more consistent with areas that don't need disambiguation - so it's either [City] metropolitan area (no disambiguation) or [City] metropolitan area, [State].
it also keeps it more consistent with the general disambiguation practice of [Title], [disambiguation term(s)].

As discussed above, Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area looks like the article is about Columbus in the Ohio metropolitan area. And to an outsider Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area just looks weird and convoluted. I think the thing to grasp here is the name of the city is Columbus not Columbus, Ohio - Ohio is a disambiguation term so should appear after the title of the article's subject. WaggersTALK 07:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this would be the most natural title, plus we wouldn't have the missing-comma question. I have made a similar suggestion more than once in this and the related WT:AT discussion (in the form of “[City] metropolitan area ([State])”), and unless I missed something (which is entirely possible), no one has reacted to it at all. I would love to know if there are any reasons against it. —Frungi (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would get into the area of WP:OR. Wikipedia does not make things up, and instead uses what reliable sources use, in this case, the format [City], [State metropolitan area]. No one has had any trouble finding or using that format. There are four articles that are in the process of being moved that deviate from that, but all the rest follow that format. I have not counted the number of articles we have, but there are 939 of these metropolitan and micropolitan areas in the U.S. in the link above. The census bureau includes the state in the names of all 939, but by convention and common practice in reliable sources, we omit the state for many of these. Apteva (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not WP:OR to follow a style which is endorsed by the major style guides and explicitly by the MOS, namely, that any combination of [City]+comma+[State] is always followed by another comma (unless superseded by other punctuation). You've not pointed to any style guides that make an exception for [City]+comma+[State]+"metropolitan area"; instead, you have only referred to other sources that deviate from the accepted style. —sroc 💬 10:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rules on commas go on to explain the situations where the second comma is omitted, in this case because it would indicate a different the meaning. Williamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area, and Williamsport, PA, Metropolitan Statistical Area have two different meanings. One is a metropolitan area centered on Williamsport, the other would be one contained within Williamsport. In the first case the state is attached to the words MSA, in the second case the state is a means of identifying Williamsport from all of the other Williamsport's. Does anyone really think that no one in the U.S. federal government knows how to use commas properly, and that we need to "correct" their grammar? How many other things is the whole world wrong about that we need to "correct"? We report, we do not make things up. Changes come not from our pages, but are reported in our articles after they have changed. Apteva (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I still have no idea where you’re getting this. If you consider “Metropolitan Statistical Area” to be synonymous with “PA Metropolitan Statistical Area” in this context, then a preceding comma indicates membership within that area: “Williamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area” refers to a Williamsport that is located within the PA MSA (which is not a thing that exists), just as “Williamsport, Pennsylvania” refers to the Williamsport that is located within Pennsylvania. As I’ve asked before, please show another case where commas are used as you imagine they are here (“[descriptor], [noun]”), because I’m pretty sure this does not happen in English (see jelly doughnut, Obama administration, Roman Empire, etc.—“[descriptor] [noun]”). —Frungi (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an OR issue. This is a grammar issue, and it’s entirely within the jurisdiction of our MOS (which I should hope is based on authoritative guides). These aren’t names. “Portland” is a name; “Oregon” is a name; “Portland, Oregon” is a name. These areas don’t have names, but descriptive titles, and we have every reason to follow basic rules of English with them. —Frungi (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MSA's have names that are assigned by the census bureau, or actually, the Office of Management and Budget, and they regularly change those names. Most people use those names and do not make up new ones to suit their own fancy. I found one example where someone was not aware that there is no comma after the state, but everyone else uses the name and formatting of that name that the census bureau uses, with the exception that some spell out the state and some abbreviate the state or leave it out. The name of an MSA is just as specific as the name of a city or a state, although they are simpler, because they do not include any flowery words that no one uses, like for Rhode Island, which is actually "The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations". FYI, MSA's are proper nouns and are capitalized, but we ignore that trivia, as do many RS's. Apteva (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Apteva, your Reliable Source argument, which you supported above by many citations, is powerful evidence that the name is usually given as "Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area". And I would have supported that formulation - DID support that formulation - until you started insisting that this format referred to something called an "Ohio metropolitan area." This error is so egregious - yet so logical if the lack of a second comma is taken literally - that I realized the second comma is necessary to avoid misunderstanding. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. And calling it a metropolitan statistical area in Ohio makes it in another state other than in Ohio? What I said was that what it says is that it is in Ohio, and not contained within the city which is used to name it, such as Dayton, which would be implied if the second comma was included, nothing else. I did not say that the name of the statistical area is "Ohio metropolitan area", which would really be a big metropolitan area. Apteva (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation to everyone reading this thread is ignore everything I have said if it confuses or even annoys them, go to this website,[15] and use whatever names are there. Apteva (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second comma implies that the name of the state is parenthetical. This is called apposition, and it’s a very common use of commas. And as has been explained before, the “San Diego metropolitan area” is not a metropolitan area inside of San Diego, just as the “Roman Empire” was not inside Rome, or a “jelly doughnut” is not a doughnut inside jelly. The city is used to identify the area because it’s the most important or prominent part of the area. That is, the “Dayton, Ohio, metropolitan area” is the metropolitan area of which Dayton, Ohio, is the most prominent part.

I hope this clears things up for you. If not, I’ll be blunt: If you cannot prove that this belief of yours is true, whether by showing an explicit rule of grammar or by showing other examples of this use, then stop giving it more weight than you would something that you simply made up. It just confuses the whole matter, and if there are valid reasons to avoid the second comma, they’re obscured by your misinformation. —Frungi (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of commas indicates that when the state is used in a parenthetical or possessive form the second comma is omitted.[16] I can only guess that is what the census bureau is doing. The bottom line, is that none of us are going to change the census bureau or the rest of the world no matter how many commas we use, and per WP:OR, our job is to look for reliable sources and find out what they use. Why they use them is not particularly important. English has a lot of idiosyncrasies that just do not make any sense. Since all the MSA's are created by the OMB, we really have no choice other than to use whatever they give us. Apteva (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do have choices about how WP:MOS is applied to styling titles. But your topic ban (see [17]) seems to say that your opinions on the application of the MOS to titling decisions is out of bounds for you. So why not just back off and stop hammering us with your lame theories about what the punctuation means here? Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. That page indicates that when the possessive form of a city’s name is used (“Hartford’s investment”), or the city name is part of a compound phrase (“a Hartford-based company”), and the state’s name is included immediately after the city’s, the second comma is omitted. An alternate interpretation is that the second comma is overridden or superseded by another punctuation mark (an apostrophe or a hyphen). There is nothing on that page that implies that the comma may be omitted when there is no other punctuation following the state.

You would have a point about OR if we were talking about areas with proper names rather than descriptive titles, but, again, that’s debatable at best (I’m still leaning toward the latter, especially since “metropolitan area” usually isn’t capitalized). And what of “metropolitan areas” that are distinct from MSAs? And what of areas where the terms are used interchangeably? —Frungi (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be correct, it is capitalized, as we do for Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area. When we say Dayton metropolitan area, it is not capitalized, because we are not referring to a specific MSA, but are referring to both the MSA and the CSA, and are just generally referring to the metropolitan area which includes Dayton. Dayton metropolitan area is not a proper noun because it is missing a word, "statistical". To be correct it would also need the state, but no one is going to say that Dayton Metropolitan Statistical Area is not a proper noun just because the state is missing from the name, just as no one would say that William Clinton was not a proper noun because it was missing the word "Jefferson". There are many reliable sources that do not capitalize metropolitan statistical area, so I would not quibble over whether we do or do not capitalize each, or care if we standardized them or not. Apteva (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“There are many reliable sources that do not capitalize metropolitan statistical area”—then wouldn’t that mean that there are many reliable sources that don’t consider it a proper name? Because otherwise they’d capitalize it. Anyway, I strongly oppose breaking basic rules of grammar for descriptive names like these (in no small part due to the confusion that you yourself have demonstrated it can cause), and I think formatting them as “Akron Metropolitan Statistical Area (Ohio)” should be acceptable to both sides. —Frungi (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not breaking any rules of grammar, nor is the census bureau breaking any rules of grammar. I do not see any reason for not using the same names that everyone else uses. Apteva (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rules of grammar pertaining to apposition, which require a comma on either side of the appositional phrase (in this case, the state’s name). This has been explained multiple times. —Frungi (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this link,[18] provided by the above editor, it is non-controversial for the OMB or anyone else to omit the second comma when the state is abbreviated. What I am finding though, is it is more common to not put it in when the state is not abbreviated (see above examples). Apteva (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I got it from User:Dicklyon over at the related WT:AT discussion. To your latter point, I think it’s been said both here and there that while it may be increasingly accepted (or less unaccepted) o omit the comma after an appositional phrase, it’s best to limit the potential for confusion, especially in article titles—and with respect, you’ve demonstrated that danger very convincingly. —Frungi (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion has been continued below, where BDD has weighed in with a "do not move" opinion and I have changed my own opinion back to "do not move". --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A formal survey on the "one comma" vs. "two commas" question has now been added below. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Survey. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

The section on Australia states:

Most Australian settlement articles are at Town, State/Territory, irrespective of uniqueness or ambiguity; however, City alone for a large city is acceptable if the context is clear, and Town alone if the name is unique, or if the place-name is the primary topic for that name. In particular, the cities of Perth, Western Australia, and Newcastle, New South Wales, often need to be disambiguated from their namesakes in the UK; editorial judgement is required in international contexts, where [[Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia]], may be preferable to [[Newcastle, New South Wales]], and where suburbs of large cities may be rendered in relation to city rather than state (e.g., Dulwich Hill, Sydney, rather than Dulwich Hill, New South Wales). Generally, the larger state capitals, and Canberra, can generally drop their state or territory (Sydney rather than [[Sydney, New South Wales]], and Melbourne rather than [[Melbourne, Victoria]], unless the state/territory is an explicit theme). Where possible, avoid the repetition of Australia in such items as [[Perth, Western Australia, Australia]], by simply omitting the name of the country.

A few issues:

Firstly, why might Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, be preferable to Newcastle, New South Wales? There isn't any another New South Wales that we need to disambiguate from. It's not helpful that this contradicts the example given in the second sentence, either.

Secondly, there is an article named Dulwich Hill, New South Wales, not Dulwich Hill, Sydney, directly contradicting the example given. Is it a bad example, a bad rule, or should the article be moved to comply?

Thirdly, what does "unless the state/territory is an explicit theme" mean?

Fourthly, do we need to explicitly say "avoid the repetition of Australia in such items as Perth, Western Australia, Australia, by simply omitting the name of the country"? Shouldn't the country name be omitted from the title in any case, except to disambiguate (which would almost certainly be unnecessary if the state/territory name is used, and particularly one that includes the word "Australia")? —sroc 💬 02:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The examples just need to be replaced with ones that do illustrate the principles. The articles are at Newcastle, New South Wales and Dulwich Hill, New South Wales, so those are not good examples, and should be replaced. This is a naming convention, so the words "explicit theme" have little meaning. If we were making a list of towns in Western Australia, when we got to Perth the list is tidier if we keep the Western Australia, but that does not affect the article title. I can see what they were thinking though, here is a list of names, and the theme I am going to use is city, state, or the theme I am going to use is city, country, but we really do not get to name things, we use the names that others use, and document those names. Where we deviate from that is where there would be a conflict. We can not just decide to name the Australian area Newcastle, because of about 30 others of that name around the globe. Apteva (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I felt I was going a bit mad reading it.

The only examples using [Place], [City] instead of [Place], [State] I know of are for localities other than suburbs, such as: The Rocks, Sydney (an "urban locality, tourist precinct and historic area"); Bell railway station, Melbourne; St Kilda Road, Melbourne; Royal Park, Melbourne—the entries at List of Sydney suburbs, Category:Suburbs of Sydney (excepting The Rocks) and List of Perth suburbs all use the latter format.

How about this:

Most Australian settlement articles are at Town, State/Territory; however, the name of a major city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary topic for that name (e.g., Sydney rather than [[Sydney, New South Wales]]). The cities of Perth, Western Australia, and Newcastle, New South Wales, need to be disambiguated from their namesakes in the UK. Localities other than suburbs and places such as roads, train stations, parks, etc., may be disambiguated, where necessary, by reference to city rather than state (e.g., The Rocks, Sydney, rather than [[The Rocks, New South Wales]]; St Kilda Road, Melbourne, rather than [[St Kilda Road, Victoria]]). State/Territory names should not be abbreviated in article titles.

—sroc 💬 10:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC) updated —sroc 💬 11:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Do it. If anyone finds anything else it can be changed then. Our articles dictate our guidelines, not the other way around. As mentioned above, 1000 times as many people read and use our articles than read and use our guidelines (readers outnumber editors by 1000:1). Apteva (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is simpler and seems to reflect usage. Ben Mac Dui 19:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have said 10000, because it is possible that only 10% of our editors read our guidelines. We want people to click edit when they see something to fix, and fix it, we do not want them to have to spend three months learning a set of guidelines before making their first edit. We do not even bother to welcome someone unless they make more than a few edits. But we do hope that long term editors (more than 500 edits) do spend some time reading at least some of our guidelines and policies. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might consider asking the editors at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board for their views? Personally I disagree strongly with the inclusion of the word "major" in the phrase "the name of a major city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary topic for that name" Any town, settlement etc. in Australia should only be disambiguated if it is not unique AND not the primary topic. I would advise looking at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/January/Archives/2011/February#Current discussions? and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/March#Current discussions? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Also see Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 36#RM -- moving forward. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Trying to distinguish based on whether a city is "major" or "large" is arbitrary and inherently problematic. Why unnecessarily disambiguate any city name regardless of size? --B2C 21:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with leaving out the word major. It was not in there before, and all we said was if it "is unique, or if the place-name is the primary topic for that name." Apteva (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the "if context is clear" phrase refers to with respect to City alone but not Town alone. I've combined the two into one coherent statement[19]. --B2C 22:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version was vague and inconsistent by saying that the State/Territory is usually included "irrespective of uniqueness or ambiguity" but can be omitted for a "large city" or "Town alone if the name is unique, or if the place-name is the primary topic for that name". Happy to omit the "major" though. —sroc 💬 22:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has always seemed obvious to me that if a given use of a name is unique then it is the primary topic, but others have disagreed with me, arguing that there has to be a disambiguous situation - two or more uses for a given name - in order for "primary topic" to make sense. So, for clarity, maybe we should leave the "unique or primary topic" language in there?[20] --B2C 23:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Born2cycle: I think "unique" is redundant: if it's unique, it will be the primary topic; if it's a unique place name but some other use is the primary topic, then it can't have that name anyway. —sroc 💬 23:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed here from Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Geographic names in article titles to invite further comments, but in the meantime have made the change (without "major") as it's certainly an improvement on the version we had before. —sroc 💬 23:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem including the word unique, even though as pointed out it is awfully hard to have a unique name that is not also the primary topic. The words "primary topic", though, are obscure to Wikipedia, "unique" is easily understood. Apteva (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is redundant. But that's per my interpretation. As I just noted, others have argued that the concept "primary topic" has no meaning in a context where a name has an unambiguous unique use. For example, they would argue that the city of Whyalla is not the primary topic of "Whyalla" because there are no other uses of that name. Therefore, to make sure such arguments are not made to defend unnecessarily disambiguating titles like Whyalla, I suggest we include the word unique. It doesn't hurt, except to propagate the inane notion that a unique use of the name is not the primary topic of that name.

Alternately, we could add the clarification to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But somebody else needs to do it, because every time I've tried to clarify this at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the past[21], it has been rejected[22]. --B2C 23:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried again[23]. If there is no objection/revert, then it's unnecessary to make the redundant clarification here. --B2C 23:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've come around on this one, I have to say. Last time it was discussed I was on the mandatory disambiguation side, for mostly practical reasons, but I really can't see a reason for it anymore. If it's the only town of that name anywhere, then a mandatory ", state" is pointless. Regarding suburbs, where disambiguation is necessary I would prefer ", state" rather than ", city", since this is how most people would think of it and it's certainly how you would address something to go to that place. Frickeg (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would defer to local usage. Guidelines can be dangerous. Apteva (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My efforts to clarify that the unique use of a term is its primary topic at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC have already been reverted[24]. I started a discussion about it here:

Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#What_is_the_primary_topic_for_.22Oprah_Winfrey.22.3F

--B2C 00:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think roads should be included in the scope of this section, nor given as an example, as these are covered by the (relatively new) Naming conventions (Australian roads) – which, by the way, recommends disambiguation by brackets, ie "<road> (<city>)" rather than "<road>, <city>". - Evad37 (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, I have reverted (ie, removed) the roads-related aspect of the recent bold edit, pending discussion here (so at least now we don't have two guidelines conflicting with each other) - Evad37 (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. This convention does not address roads. --B2C 01:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, good pick-up. Wasn't aware of that one. Shouldn't we link to it from here so people can find it if they come here first (as would seem probable)? —sroc 💬 03:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea, so I have added a link to it - Evad37 (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better to put the word "unique" back in. Editors understand unique better than "primary topic". If the name of a city is unique, it does not need to include the state/territory. We certainly did not need to include unique three times ("irrespective of uniqueness or ambiguity; however, City alone for a large city is acceptable if the context is clear, and Town alone if the name is unique"). Apteva (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago, Illinois

This discussion on the name of Chicago categories may be of interest. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_22#Category:Chicago.2C_Illinois. I've proposed that the discussion be moved here as it has impacts far beyond Chicago, but for now please share your thoughts at CFD.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commas in metro areas

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

History and geography
Wikipedia style and naming

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Recently our guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) was edited to state that when the city and state is given followed by something else, such as Dublin, Georgia micropolitan area, a comma is used after the state. Should there be a comma there, yes or no? There are dozens if not hundreds of articles and categories affected by this decision. Apteva (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and that revision was reverted since the discussion at the Talk Page had not reached any conclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

On just the question of whether one comma or two commas are preferred when a state name is used parenthetically as in "Rochester, New York metropolitan area" versus "Rochester, New York, metropolitan area", in a title or in a sentence, please make a brief numbered signed entry, with optionally up to 50 words of explanation, in one of these subsections. Keep responses and discussion in subsequent sections (neither of these choices is to be interpreted as a preference to not change to a construct that avoids the parenthetical state).

(this survey started late; we should bug anyone who has responded with an opinion before but not registered it here)

One comma

Oxford and Chicago find the second comma awkward; I agree. Dohn joe (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the second comma is required from a strictly grammatical viewpoint. But Reliable Sources often omit it, and titles here are supposed to be based on usage by Reliable Sources (that's per WP:AT which is policy). Since Reliable Sources are split, the argument for adding the second comma is not strong enough to change all those stable titles (that's also per WP:AT). --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since this isn't a full sentence, it's not clear that the appositive rules should apply here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Titles are not sentences. I don't think any reasonable reader would mistake the meaning of "Rochester, Minnesota metropolitan area", and adding the second comma introduces different problems already noted. Omnedon (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that Apetva is not reasonable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per the rationales advanced by Dohn joe, MelanieN, BDD, et al. (and the reasons elaborated in the discussions below), a single comma in the title is preferable. Adding a second seems necessary only to satisfy what I consider questionable grammatical pedantry – an insufficient basis for changing a large number of stable article titles, particularly given the reasonable counter considerations voiced by various other editors. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two commas

per overwhelming consensus of guides to grammar, including our MOS, if we're going to have the state in the middle it should be set off by matching punctuation of some sort, whether parens, brackets, dashes, or commas. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per style guides on proper construction of parenthetical clauses; better yet, avoid the construction altogether (e.g., "Rochester metropolitan area, New York"—which would also need to been followed by a comma if used in continuing text—or "Rochester metropolitan area (New York)" or "Rochester (New York) metropolitan area"). —sroc 💬 05:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per obvious grammatical resons. WP:Copyedit has a few examples, which, in my opinion, needs to be expanded further. I'll use a similar example: He was born in Vilnius, Lithuania, in 1955. The appositive Lithuania calls for a closing comma. With less geographical precision, that sentence could read: He was born in Lithuania in 1955. No appositive, no comma. Thus, the only reason for the comma was the appositive. But there can be more than one reason for a comma. If there are, it doesn't mean that you put two commas there. Example: He was born in Vilnius, Lithuania, but moved to Poland with his family in his teen years (lots of creative writing here). With less precision: He was born in Lithuania, but moved to Poland with his family in his teen years. The phraseology calls for a comma between the two parts of the sentence. Thus, there were two reasons for the comma here. I think Dohn joe didn't realize this when he said "That comma serves a completely different function than the proposed one. It serves to set off two clauses, as opposed to setting off an appositive" on Talk:Rochester, New York metropolitan area. My response is that a single comma can serve both purposes. Regarding the "Awkward?" section below, it's the same thing with dates: The minister of finance said in a June 10, 2011, interview .... It's an awkward construct, but it doesn't get any better by adding a grammatical error to it. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good grammar requires two commas. If this construction is awkward, then find a way to re-word to avoid the need to use this form. older ≠ wiser 12:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely two commas. Even if there were no confusion, the state name is parenthetical, which requires that it be set off by two punctuation marks, whether they are commas or parentheses. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is longstanding grammatical practice and improves clarity for everyone. Powers ^T 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per standard English grammar and MOS:COMMA which advocates the same. As an encyclopedia, we should adhere to the rules of the language and strive for professionalism, rather than preferring what several guides call an “informal” practice. Preferably, though, these titles should be written to require no commas whatsoever, which would avoid many of the problems pointed out by both sides. —Frungi (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, per Arthur Rubin and Bkonrad. Avoiding potential ambiguities is best done by an unerring application of the second comma, even though I sometimes find it a bit bumpy. Tony (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Off-topic discussion of Apteva's bizarre theory

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Arguments in favor of a comma. Rules of grammar require a comma there.
Arguments in favor of not having a comma there. These are statistical areas, and the census department abbreviates the state name. Rules of grammar dictate that when the state is abbreviated, it is not followed by a second comma, for example in Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area. It is argued that "OH MSA" abbreviated or not forms a token that is not to be broken up with a comma.
Reliable sources are divided on the issue.

--Apteva (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“OH MSA” is not a “token”. “Akron, OH” is the token, an attributive noun that modifies “MSA”. —Frungi (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask "who changed that convention, inserting the "use a comma" rule, when the issue was still being debated at the talk page?" ~~But I see that it was YOU who changed it, without any consensus or closure of the debate - until somebody quite properly reverted your change a few hours later. Apteva, this was out of line.~~ --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I misread the history. It was Frungi who made the change, you merely modified it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It took me by surprise, but I follow all guidelines, so we either need to change almost all of our articles or remove it. I did not even know it had been changed. I just added what to do if the state is abbreviated. A formal RfC is needed because we have editors who disagree with the change. Apteva (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove it from the guidelines until the discussion is formally closed. IMO it is by no means clear what the consensus was. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, I thought we had reached consensus (the last comment was made a week ago). Apteva had seemed to be the only one opposing, and that under a misunderstanding of the grammar involved. —Frungi (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Frungi; I thought we were pretty much all in agreement, except for Apteva, who didn't understand the intended parse. MelanieM, what is your concern? Furthermore, Apteva's special case for titles with postal codes in them is pretty irrelevant, since our guidelines say not to abbreviate states that way. Yes, there are still some things to fix about that. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't and don't find it clearcut; the discussion ranged all over the map, with no bolded !votes and some people taking more than one position. But going through it carefully right now I think this is the tally: In favor of the second comma are Frungi (who also supported "Cityname metropolitan area, state"), MelanieN (who initially wanted to leave out the second comma per Reliable Source usage, and still would except that Apteva convinced me it could be confusing without the second comma), sroc, Agnostic Aphic, and Dicklyon. Against the second comma: Apteva, offering several different arguments, including the "state metropolitan area" interpretation which no one else accepted. Favoring a third option "Cityname metropolitan area, State": Waggers, Doctor Kubla and Frungi. Am I summarizing it correctly? Maybe we can figure out the result even without a formal close. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We will also need to contact the editors who created these articles, instead of just telling them that all of them are wrong (so far 80/82 use one comma). Apteva (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN: I believe so, yes. The alternatives I proposed were in case “City, State, area” was deemed completely unacceptable, but this seems to be unnecessary.

Apteva: Why can’t we just silently correct them like we often do with other grammatical and typographic errors? —Frungi (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 939 MSA's, most of which we do not have articles on, but we do have a lot. It is not particularly diplomatic to tell someone else what they are doing is wrong without asking their opinion on what the correct title is. I personally do not care, I never do, I just want us to make the right decision, as always. However, I recommend that we specifically state that the categories that were created with one comma do not need to be moved if we decide to add a comma to the articles. Each category has multiple articles, so we are dealing not with hundreds of edits, but thousands. Categories do not get moved, a new one gets created and populated by editing each article in that category. While I have no problem with moving 100 articles, or whatever the count is, I can categorically say that it would be easier for all of us to decide that there actually should be one comma instead of two. Apteva (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about not changing the categories (provided you don't try to claim they actually mean something else); changing categories creates a big mess. OTOH if we do end up adding the comma in the article titles, there is absolutely no need to notify the creators of the articles. We should simply move them, with an edit summary that links to the discussion (once it is closed). --MelanieN (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notify them of this discussion, not the decision. They might have information that would be useful. People do not look at categories to decide how to title articles, they look at the articles in those categories. Apteva (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can’t just “decide” to change the rules of written English… —Frungi (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No argument there, nor do we do any original research. We look to see what others use and report on that. English is both an evolving language and a complex language that even the best experts have disagreements on. All we can do is the best we can. The crux of the interpretation seems to be on the parsing of the state and the description. If we say the state goes with MSA there is no comma, if we say it goes with the city, there is. I am not expressing an opinion on which is correct, I am just summarizing the arguments. The editors who created the articles may have better information that will help us. Apteva (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, but unless I missed something, you are the only one in the discussions here and at WT:AT who has argued that the state name “goes with” the area label, and in fact the only one I’ve ever heard make that claim anywhere. I ask that you stop framing that misinterpretation as a valid argument, but I’d still very much like to know where you got that idea if not from the very lack of that comma. —Frungi (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Rochester, New York metropolitan area. Apteva (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At that page again, you were the one to introduce the misinterpretation as valid (and the correct interpretation as a misinterpretation). There’s no mention on that page of where you originally got it from. Was it your own conclusion from seeing the missing comma? Was it something you read somewhere? What was the source of this misinformation? —Frungi (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware that most of our articles used the one comma format, I was not aware that there were 100 of them but I knew there were a lot of them. I did quite a bit of searching for information about how commas are used and how these titles were presented in reliable sources. In most cases the articles are local and do not include the state at all, but where the state was included, it seemed to use only one comma quite a bit more often than two. That was the source of my recommendation – do whatever everyone else does. Apteva (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear… I was asking you where the idea came from that a second comma means that the area is inside the city, or that “[City] area” means an area inside the city. If it was something you read on Wikipedia, whether in an article or in guidance, that desperately needs to be corrected. This is why I’m asking. —Frungi (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that. Well if it was inside the city, there would obviously be no issue, the second comma would be required to indicate that the city, state were to be paired. When the region involved is not within the city is where it gets muddy, as the region involved is within the state, but not within the city. Some of the MSA's also cross state lines. Apteva (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then allow me to clarify: The name of the city is an attributive noun that modifies “metropolitan/micropolitan area”, because the city is the identifying characteristic of the area. I’ve drawn this comparison before, but this is the same construction as “jelly doughnut”, where “jelly” is an attributive noun that modifies “doughnut”—it is a doughnut whose identifying characteristic is that contains jelly, not a jelly that contains doughnuts. There is never a comma between an attributive noun (the city) and the noun that it modifies (“… area”)—even if you’re under the impression that the “area” phrase has a state name in it (which is why the insistence that a single comma is grammatically correct is so baffling). As I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this page, when a city is clarified with its state, that’s called apposition, and it’s set off with a comma on both sides. To omit the second comma is to include “… area” as part of the appositional phrase, which it most certainly is not. —Frungi (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it even more clearly: commas used in apposition serve exactly the same purpose grammatically as a pair of parentheses. "Rochester, Minnesota, metropolitan area" has exactly the same meaning as "Rochester (Minnesota) metropolitan area." Omitting the second comma is as wrong grammatically as "Rochester (Minnesota metropolitan area" (without a second parenthesis) would be. Without that second comma or second parenthesis, it is apparently possible for literalists like Apteva to think it refers to some nonexistent concept called a "Minnesota metropolitan area" - in other words, that the way to correct "Rochester (Minnesota metropolitan area" is not "Rochester (Minnesota) metropolitan area" but "Rochester (Minnesota metropolitan area)". It is to avoid that misunderstanding that we must include the second comma (or second parenthesis). Most reliable sources omit the second comma, because they think it will be obvious to everybody that the meaning is "Rochester (Minnesota) metropolitan area". But since that is not obvious to Apteva, we must add the second comma to make it clear. The name without the second comma is ambiguous if the punctuation is taken literally. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commas, of course, are not always paired. Minnesota has two metropolitan areas that are partly in Wisconsin, two that are only in Minnesota, and 17 micropolitan areas. All are Minnesota statistical areas, which is the argument for calling the state attributive. If the statistical area was contained within the city, though, it would be descriptive of the city. In this case the state is descriptive of the statistical area. For the two that are partly in Wisconsin, Wisconsin is not at all a part of the city, Duluth. So the state or states go with the statistical area, the city or cities are the identifier. Apteva (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No As I said at a recent RM, "I think it's frankly absurd to suggest the presence or absence of that second comma is going to do anything for readers. And the highly pedantic justifications offered in support of the move fall apart upon investigation. The topic is either [for example] the metropolitan area of Rochester, New York, or the New York metropolitan area centered around Rochester. New York has several metropolitan areas, including Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. Let this be. There are probably hundreds of articles which would need to be changed, all for a very unclear benefit." Don't assume our readers are idiots. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, BDD. (See, folks, I TOLD you this wasn't settled!) I used to agree with you. I think it is perfectly obvious that "Rochester, Minnesota metropolitan area" means "Rochester (Minnesota) metropolitan area." I would like to be persuaded that this change isn't necessary, but is Apteva really the only reader who is ever going to make this mistake? --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which mistake, this one? (Rochester (Minnesota)), (Minnesota metropolitan area)? Minnesota has 17 of these. Rochester has one. With or without a comma does not move the boundaries of the statistical area, as only the OMB can do that. Apteva (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does Apteva really get confused about these titles based on the presence or absence of that second comma? Apteva, aren't you just trying to settle the inconsistency? --BDD (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he actually argued strongly - in the discussion above - that the lack of a second comma was correct precisely because the relevant entity was "Minnesota metropolitan area". At least I think he did; he appeared to shift away from it later. I found it so hard to believe he could actually think this, I think I didn't respond until his third repetition of it. His insistence on that is the ONLY reason I shifted my opinion toward requiring the second comma. @Apteva, if you will assure me you do understand that "Rochester, Minnesota metropolitan area" means the metropolitan area centered around "Rochester, Minnesota," I will change my opinion back to "no second comma". --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has never been in contention. I have always held that it was centered on Rochester, Minnesota. Yes I have been trying to find a logical reason why all of our articles were created using a one comma format. The most telling one that I could see is that the census bureau abbreviates the state, which requires not using a comma, and when people spell out the state they just leave the commas unchanged. Apteva (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, ok. So this is only an issue because someone's making a semantic fuss? Why not just leave it alone? --BDD (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my opinion back to Don't move. Thank you, BDD, for bringing me to my senses. It was crazy[25] for me to change my opinion based on the confused interpretations of one person - and it was crazy for me to suggest that hundreds of titles should be changed to avoid the mere possibility of such interpretations. To those who are arguing grammatical correctness, I apologize; you are correct and I agree with you in principle, but I think grammatical correctness is more than countered here by the policies of Reliable Source usage ("This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources") and Title Stability ("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.") Reliable sources (not counting the US government, which uses state abbreviations) are split: in a search for half a dozen MSAs where disambiguation is needed, I found that the comma is usually added in formal or legal situations ("Portland, Oregon, Metropolitan Statistical Area"), but omitted in newspapers and general usage ("Portland, Oregon Metropolitan Statistical Area"). Title stability is firmly on the side of not changing the titles. Grammatical correctness is not enough of a "good reason," in my revised opinion, to change all these titles - if you ignore (as I should have) the peculiar theories of one person. --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One comma only. Ultimately, this comes down to a simple rule: more commas = less readability. Commas disrupt the flow of text, and should only be used where necessary. In this case, we have a proper noun, "Rochester, New York", that is functioning as an adjective, modifying "metropolitan area". While an argument can be made that "Rochester" and "New York" are separate nouns, connected appositively, I think that given the universally recognized "city, state" construct, the appositive reading is vestigial at best. The one-comma approach is also supported because there is no such usage as "(City), (State metro area)", and so there is no ambiguity to resolve with a second comma. No one lives in "Rochester, New York metropolitan area"; that's just not usage, anywhere. I'll also repost my contribution to the RM: "Grammatically, the second comma is not necessary, because "Rochester, New York" constitutes a single lexical unit. Just as we wouldn't insert a comma if we were writing about the "Rochester metropolitan area", neither do we need one for the "Rochester, New York metropolitan area". The confusion or misinterpretation of other editors is not pertinent to that. Adding the second comma would cause more confusion that omitting it. The second comma may satisfy some pedants, but it actually conveys the meaning of the phrase less naturally." Dohn joe (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One comma. In this case, the subject of an article is a metropolitan area. Which metropolitan area? The metropolitan area of Rochester, Minnesota (for example). Given that the city is indeed Rochester, Minnesota (with no trailing comma), I personally see that as being the modifier – rather than seeing Rochester as the modifier, which itself is further modified by the disambiguator of Minnesota. To me, this makes Rochester, Minnesota metropolitan area seem the more natural and less awkward choice – though I do understand the reasons advanced on the other side.
As for the assertion made above that commas in this case work as parentheses do, I disagree. For instance, one could title the article on the Minnesota city of Rochester as Rochester (Minnesota) (with parentheses surrounding the state), but one would not title it as Rochester, Minnesota, (with commas surrounding the state). To surround the state on both sides with commas is not always necessary when using commas, whereas to surround it on both sides with parentheses is necessary when using parentheses.
Also, regarding literalists: if I wanted to be obtusely literal, I could misread the two-comma form and interpret it as "Rochester, Minnesota, a metropolitan area" – as if a metropolitan area is all that Rochester is. I don't honestly think readers would make such an error... but nor do I think they'd make the kinds of pedantic errors that others suggest. Satisfying a minority of literalists would seem an inappropriate basis for changing the punctuation, and I don't see benefits emerging from changing the current form that would outweigh the awkwardness of a second comma – one that I don't see as necessary in accurately conveying the subject of the article. Per BDD, I think it's best to leave well enough alone. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Huwmanbeing: To surround the state on both sides with commas is not always necessary when using commas, whereas to surround it on both sides with parentheses is necessary when using parentheses. Have you read WP:COMMA and WP:COPYEDIT#Parenthetical comma? —sroc 💬 15:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have. The sentence you quote is correct. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence I quoted was you. It is contradicted by:

WP:COMMA: "In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element (except at the end of a sentence)."
WP:COPYEDIT#Parenthetical comma: "Location constructions such as Vilnius, Lithuania require a comma after the second element, e.g., He was born in Vilnius, Lithuania, after the country had gained independence."

How do you reconcile your statement with the above? —sroc 💬 01:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I might be so bold, I think I get his point well enough to provide that answer: (except at the end of a sentence), among other situational exceptions. Hence, not always. Nitpicky. —Frungi (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that Huwmanbeing is lobbying for one comma despite the fact that this situation would not fall under one of the exceptions in running text (e.g., The statistics were drawn from census data from the Rochester, Minnesota, metropolitan area or The statistics were drawn from census data from the Rochester metropolitan area in Minnesota; not The statistics were drawn from census data from the Rochester, Minnesota metropolitan area). —sroc 💬 02:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to basics? It's really sad that this discussion has been driven so far off the point by Apteva's bizarre theories. The result has included about three cycles of flip-flopping by MelanieN, and lots of ink wasted on the distraction of Aptevas confusion. He should never have gotten involved, and should certainly not have started this latest RFC even while being sanctioned for his disruptions. But now at least we have a comment or two from people with an opinion based on readability, which is roughly back where we started. Dohn Joe says "more commas = less readability". I don't agree, but it's something we can discuss. BDD says "I think it's frankly absurd to suggest the presence or absence of that second comma is going to do anything for readers." Again, I don't agree, but at least it's a point we can discuss. As I mentioned in previous related discussions, guides do differ a bit, but they mostly say that, in formal writing (an encyclopedia is kinda formal, no?), the second comma is generally preferred. It seems to me that the second comma clarifies the intended grammatical structure, in a way that will help, more than harm, readability. I hope we can talk about that, and not be further distracted by nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: about three cycles of flip-flopping by MelanieN: Feel free to WP:TROUT me; I deserve it. But at least my new (and original) position of "no second comma" is based on policies, namely Reliable Sources and Title Stability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself trouted. I'm not sure where you found policy on title stability, other than B2C's user page; can you link it please? And I'm not sure I see your point on sources; if you search books for "statename metropolitan area", for most states you see mostly comma after the state, it looks like to me. Of course lot of books are wiki mirrors, so you see a lot of missing commas for Georgia, New York, Florida, and some of those others you can find in the list below. Try it. Also, the guides mostly require the second comma (I can post a long list later; does anyone have one that advising against?), and the gov't bureau of labor statistics uses it, even if the census doesn't, so I'd like to see a deeper look at sources. And how do you interpret WP:RS policy as having anything to say about grammar, punctuation, or title styling? Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, wonder what reliable sources we're talking about. It's not the census bureau, because then the articles would be titled like Rochester, NY Metro Area. That's a proper noun that refers to a specific definition that our articles may or may not precisely follow. Our articles are titled (quite properly) as generic nouns -- that is, we don't have articles on all of the proper statistical areas that the census bureau has defined, but rather we have articles on the generic concept of metropolitan areas centered around certain cities. Generic descriptive titles such as these should be formatted using our Manual of Style, with no need to reference any sources. Powers ^T 01:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Dicklyon: The Article Stability quote is not from B2C, and in fact I often use it to mean the opposite of whatever he is arguing for. It is from WT:Article titles#Considering title changes, which is a POLICY page. It says "Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. " and "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." As far as Reliable Sources, I searched for about 20 minutes using half a dozen different city names. What I found was the second comma is commonly used in legal or official use, such as the name of a legislative action or a term in a lawsuit. On the other hand here's the EPA: "Portland, Oregon metropolitan area"[26] But I also found that professional journalists find ways to write around it - not to use the actual phrase "Portland, Oregon statistical area" but rather things like "the statistical area of Portland, Oregon" - but when they do use the phrase "Portland, Oregon statistical area" they generally omit the second comma. Example "Portland–South Portland–Biddeford, Maine Metropolitan Statistical Area"[27]. "greater Portland, Oregon metropolitan area"[28] On the other hand here's CNN: " the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area"[29] Many of my best examples are dead links or behind paywalls. The more I look, the more I find no pattern at all; some Reliable Sources use the second comma, some don't. The search is complicated by the fact that the official name of the MSA often includes multiple cities rather than just the main city, but our Wikipedia article may be named only for the main city. Legal sources and mainstream newspapers are both Reliable Sources, so I considered that a wash on RS. --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, that one. I see that it came from this edit way back in 2007, without discussion (followed by this). It's awesome how much damage this guy did before he was banned. Anyway, that's fine, since the current discussion is not about controversial titles, nor about changes for no reason, but simply about trying to make titles more grammatically correct and explicitly parsable. As I mentioned before, we don't usually ape the styling and punctuation of sources; and if we punctuate these right, that doesn't interfere with any efforts to change to alternative less awkward titles wherever there's good reason to do so. One way we do so is by omitting states sometimes, especially where multiple city names makes it very unambiguous. I'm not opposed to such things when they help, but basically have a state set off by commas is so common and formally correct that there's no real reason to be avoiding it except in otherwise too-long titles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Powers: That's not what it says at WP:Article titles. The nutshell summary says "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." See anything in there about MOS overriding Reliable Sources? I don't. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the MOS overrode reliable sources, I'm saying that we're not using reliable sources to title these articles. We do that sometimes, such as for the reasons at WP:NDESC. Note there where it says "In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title ... . These are often invented specifically for articles..." While the passage is speaking mainly of cases where sourced terms have POV issues, it's very common for us to invent a descriptive title in cases where no "official" title is available. That's the case here, as our metro-area articles do not always strictly follow the census bureau definitions. We can tell this is true by the fact that our metro-area titles are not the proper nouns that the census bureau uses. Powers ^T 21:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the vast majority of metropolitan areas should not have any state name in their title. State names are needed only for ambiguous metro-area names (like Portland and Rochester, each of which is the name of at least two metro areas) and for metro areas whose principal cities have non-unique names and are smaller than the usual census threshold for a metropolitan principal city (like Morristown, Tennessee, and Brunswick, Georgia). --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do sources say?

Many good grammar and style guides are not available online, so let us know if you find info in some you have.

Some online guides that recommend or mandate matching commas around states (I think it's fair to read "phrase" where they say "sentence"):

Or generally in pairs around parenthetical items:

And those that don't like commas around states, or allow the second to be omitted:

Dicklyon - thank you for that thorough search of style guides. I had done a similar search, with a slight variation: looking only for guidance where "City, State" was being used as an adjective, as it is in our metro area articles. As you can see, the only guidance that explicitly addresses that situation (your last excerpt) advises against it generally - but finds the two-comma construction even worse than the one-comma kind. ([30] This excerpt uses the construction, but without addressing it explicitly.) So while it may be more proper (albeit increasingly less common) to include the second comma when "City, State" is used as a noun, I think we're on solid ground if we decline to do so when it's used as an adjective. Dohn joe (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus I would hate to move 100 articles, along with all of the many more edits that entails just to decide in a year or two that it was "standard practice to eliminate the comma", and take them all out again. Apteva (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's true that it's hard to find anything that specifically addresses the use as adjective, but the principle would seem to apply equally well to either context (my search was hardly thorough, though). If you have guides that talk about that case, I'd like to see them. In the mean time, look at what people actually do when not copying from wikipedia articles (section below). Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here's one: 11.7 City and state act as an adjective. When a city and state precede a noun and help to describe it, no hyphens are used. Also, make sure a comma (,) follows the name of the state..

That's a nice find. The Chicago Manual of Style seems to follow Oxford/Garner in recommending avoidance of commaed placename adjectives. I can only see the snippet online, but it says "A place-name containing a comma ... should generally not be used as an adjective because a second comma may be deemed obligatory," and the second comma "is awkward." So I'm not the only one who finds it awkward. But as long as we don't deem it obligatory, we can avoid that awkwardness. Dohn joe (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though sources do say that a comma should be placed after the state, and give sentence examples like "I arrived in Glens Falls, New York, at three o'clock," that's not always so — for instance, our article on Glens Falls is not titled Glens Falls, New York, (with a second comma). In this way, a comma is different from, say, a set of parentheses, where one would always have to supply a closing parenthesis when using them to note the state. That said, I entirely agree that the convention should be applied in normal writing; I'm just not entirely sure that it is (or should be) applicable in brief article titles. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the sources clearly cover that case, saying "when the sentence continues" and such. The "pair" concept is explicitly discussed as having such begin and end cases in this one that I quoted above. The fact that we don't put a spurious comma at the end of title like in Glens Falls, New York, in no way bears on the present discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; I was just noting that it's not contrary to the broader guideline for there to be exceptions in which the final comma does not appear. Your point that the guideline applies "when the sentence continues" is also reasonable to consider, since titles are not sentences. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be beyond odd to use the comma in the lead sentence, and then omit it in the title just because it's not a sentence. As I noted already, I think it is fair to read "sentence" as "phrase" in all of these. I've seen no suggestion anywhere that those would ever be treated differently. Am I'm not sure what would motivate "exceptions" to the formally correct grammar in our context. Are metropolitan areas special in some way? Dicklyon (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should be consistent between the title and the body of the article. But I don't think that we would be creating an "exception" here. We'd simply be choosing between two perfectly acceptable - and correct - options, both of which are sanctioned by outside guides, and both of which are used in reliable sources. Dohn joe (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Style and usage guides overwhelmingly advocate the second comma. I should hope that an encyclopedia, of all things, would use proper English and strive to be grammatically correct. I would be more than happy to see the state name done away with entirely wherever “City metropolitan area” would be unambiguous, and as I’ve suggested previously, “City metropolitan area (State)” could be done for disambiguation with nary a comma. —Frungi (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. —sroc 💬 02:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it would be a completely artificial construct, one that is virtually never used by Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t consult reliable sources for how to title articles for disambiguation. Do correct me if I’m wrong, but no reliable source uses the terms “Jumper (film)”, “Jumper (novel)”, “jumper (dress)”, “jumper (computing)”, etc. We have our own conventions for that, and I see no reason that they shouldn’t apply to ambiguous X-politan area names as well. —Frungi (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon: If I understand you correctly, you're saying you see no reason why a phrase or other isolated set of words would "ever be treated differently" from a sentence when it comes to rules of punctuation. This seems odd: we treat the two differently all the time. To take one obvious example, any well-formed sentence should end with a punctuation mark like a period, a question mark, or an exclamation point – that's a clear rule of punctuation, but we would never apply such a rule to titles, because they're titles and not sentences. Should the specific "enclosing comma" punctuation rule under consideration here apply to titles? Perhaps, perhaps not. I can see both sides, and I do appreciate the desire to apply all rules consistently (since it's one I normally share), but in this particular case I'm just not convinced it's necessary or adds any benefit for the reader. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article title clearly is not a sentence (they usually lack verbs, for example) and we make exceptions for some rules (style guides generally do not require sentence-terminating punctuation) but we don't just disregard all punctuation rules in the case of headings. No comma should come at the end of a heading that ends in a parenthetical remark, just as it wouldn't in a sentence. —sroc 💬 02:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

H, as you twisted my words "ever be treated differently" into a stupid context, you put stupid words into my mouth. Don't do that. We routinely punctuation sentence endings differently from phrase endings in captions, titles, headings, etc. Nobody would dispute that. So what's your point? Mine was that there's not a different rule for parenthetical state names in phrases from in sentences. If I'm wrong about that, show me something relevant. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you so politely ask what point I'm trying to make with my "stupid words", it's this: not all rules that apply in the context of a sentence should be made to apply in the context of a title, and I feel that the particular rule in question is one, for various reasons already given. That's all. ╠╣uw [talk] 08:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would California say?

Try more searches like this one on states not over-represented in the list below: [31]. Do you see many that omit the comma after the state? Any? Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or pick a city not listed below, like Albany, New York. Let us know what you find. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good illustration of my off-the-cuff opinion that the comma usually IS added in formal or legal situations - which virtually all of these examples are of that type. But try a similar search at Google News instead of Google and you will get quite a different result. [32] [33] --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Rochester RM, I had found several sources that omit the second comma: see [34] [35] as examples. I can look for more, but I think we can all agree that usage is mixed. Dohn joe (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I'm not suggesting that it's not done. It's becoming more acceptable to depart from the formal standard as one of the guides points out. But they're not so common as to be compelling, and for some states, for some reason, they're really quite rare. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward?

Chicago is quoted above saying, "A place-name containing a comma ... should generally not be used as an adjective because a second comma may be deemed obligatory," and the second comma "is awkward."

Oxford/Garner say, "The practice of using as adjectives place names having two or more words is generally to be resisted." for similar reasons; the flow of the sentence is interrupted by the comma-separated state, whether with one comma or two.

They don't recommend using one comma; they recommend avoiding the construct altogether. We can do that, too. But when we have the awkward construct with the intervening state, is there any reason to not punctuate it in the way it is punctuated in documents designed to help the unfamiliar reader understand the intended meaning, namely formal and legal and such documents? Are we not an encyclopedia for the masses, trying to help the unfamiliar read things correctly? Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what's awkward about it anyway. It's no worse than "The July 15, 2012, trial ended in a hung jury." Powers ^T 21:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an identical construction, and I would be surprised to hear anyone say that one is awkward and the other is not. —Frungi (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that one is awkward too. And a lot of Reliable Sources are leaving it out in that formulation as well. I just did a survey of recent (within the last month) Google News stories using a similar formulation. I found that while some publications (including the New York Times) still do use the second comma...

"the aftermath of the July 7, 2005, bombings in London" [36]
"In this Friday, June, 28, 2013, file photo," [37] (interesting, that one includes a punctuation error - the stray comma after June - so not a good source for a punctuation lesson)
"Smith was on trial for the June 24, 2011, robbery of" [38]

many others do not.

"free on bond as he awaits trial for the April 21, 2013 murder of his wife" [39]
"The court’s July 17, 2013 settlement order states " [40]
"Simpson was booked Wednesday July 24, 2013 for allegedly making threats" [41]
"ordered up a March 17, 2014 date for a trial " [42]
"potentially face the death penalty for the June 20, 2008 attack" [43]

In other words, as I keep saying, Reliable Sources are split.--MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it always bugs me when they don’t include it, just as it bugs me when they misspell a word or do a comma splice. But anyway, do we have a WP-namespace page that says to consult reliable sources (and not major style guides) for questions of grammar? —Frungi (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too. I'm with you on this, Frungi. My reading of WP:AT is that we should consider reliable sources for what a topic is most commonly known as (e.g., Bill Clinton not William Jefferson Clinton or William Jefferson Blythe III) but we adopt our own style for how that title is presented in the article title (e.g., we have our own rules for when to use dashes and hyphens which apply equally in titles regardless of whether reliable sources follow the same style). —sroc 💬 23:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the construction is awkward because it is an exceptional case where a comma comes between the adjective and the noun it qualifies (the red balloon, not the red, balloon); but it is required because the adjectival phrase itself contains a parenthetical phrase which requires a comma (the September 11, 2001, attacks, not the September 11, 2001 attacks). The elegant solution is to avoid the awkward construction in such cases (the September 11 attacks or the attacks of September 11, 2001, … or the 11 September 2001 attacks or the 9/11 attacks). There are many ways to avoid the awkward construction; contradicting style guides is not a good one. —sroc 💬 23:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles and categories affected

Question: what is the point of this section? --MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it serves multiple purposes: it will be a useful guide to anyone who wants to help update titles after this discussion settles out; and it occupies Apteva's time. I think the intent, however, was to scare people about the scope of the work needed to actually bring titles into uniform alignment with what we agree is normal English punctuation. It will take literally hours to fix. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My expectation was that all of these were going to be moved, and I was simply making a list for that purpose. Of course, not putting in a second comma means that instead of moving 100 articles (after removing duplicates), only 3 need to be moved. All articles affected were listed, not just ones that were of one or the other format. Apteva (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles and categories affected

Two commas

Vidalia, Georgia, micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Akron, Ohio, metropolitan statistical area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Harrisburg–Carlisle, Pennsylvania, metropolitan statistical area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One comma

Safford, Arizona micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Camden, Arkansas micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Harrison, Arkansas micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Russellville, Arkansas micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gainesville, Florida metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North Port–Sarasota–Bradenton, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Albany, Georgia metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Columbus, Georgia metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dalton, Georgia metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Macon, Georgia metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Valdosta, Georgia metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Americus, Georgia micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dublin, Georgia micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fitzgerald, Georgia micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Milledgeville, Georgia micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Waycross, Georgia micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pocatello, Idaho metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Burley, Idaho micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rexburg, Idaho micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twin Falls, Idaho micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rockford, Illinois metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Springfield, Illinois metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Galesburg, Illinois micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jacksonville, Illinois micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mount Vernon, Illinois micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Peoria, Illinois metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quincy, Illinois micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kokomo, Indiana metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lafayette, Indiana metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jasper, Indiana micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cedar Rapids, Iowa metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Burlington, Iowa micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mason City, Iowa micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Muscatine, Iowa micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Manhattan, Kansas metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emporia, Kansas micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Salina, Kansas micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexandria, Louisiana metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lafayette, Louisiana metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Monroe, Louisiana metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ruston, Louisiana micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Houghton, Michigan micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rochester, Minnesota metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brainerd, Minnesota micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greenwood, Mississippi micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Columbia, Missouri metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jefferson City, Missouri metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joplin, Missouri metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Springfield, Missouri metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
St. Joseph, Missouri metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Branson, Missouri micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hannibal, Missouri micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kirksville, Missouri micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Helena, Montana micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lincoln, Nebraska metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Berlin, New Hampshire micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Binghamton, New York metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Glens Falls, New York metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rochester, New York metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fayetteville, North Carolina metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greenville, North Carolina metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jacksonville, North Carolina metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elizabeth City, North Carolina micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dickinson, North Dakota micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Minot, North Dakota micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canton–Massillon, Ohio metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ardmore, Oklahoma micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ontario, Oregon micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Columbia, South Carolina metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Florence, South Carolina metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greenville, South Carolina metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rapid City, South Dakota metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sioux Falls, South Dakota metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aberdeen, South Dakota micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mitchell, South Dakota micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pierre, South Dakota micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Watertown, South Dakota micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cleveland, Tennessee metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jackson, Tennessee metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Johnson City, Tennessee metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Morristown, Tennessee metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cookeville, Tennessee micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tullahoma, Tennessee micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Union City, Tennessee micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Abilene, Texas metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Longview, Texas metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Midland, Texas metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
San Angelo, Texas metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Victoria, Texas metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kingsville, Texas micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pampa, Texas micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Burlington, Vermont metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Charlottesville, Virginia metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Harrisonburg, Virginia metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lynchburg, Virginia metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Danville, Virginia micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Martinsville, Virginia micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wheeling, West Virginia metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jackson, Wyoming micropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

@@ Line 236: / Line 236: @@
 # This is longstanding grammatical practice and improves clarity for everyone.  [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 #Per standard English grammar and [[MOS:COMMA]] which advocates the same. As an '''encyclopedia''', we should adhere to the rules of the language and strive for professionalism, rather than preferring what several guides call an “informal” practice. Preferably, though, these titles should be written to require '''no commas''' whatsoever, which would avoid many of the problems pointed out by both sides. —[[User:Frungi|Frungi]] ([[User talk:Frungi|talk]]) 01:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
+# Yeah, per Arthur Rubin and Bkonrad. Avoiding potential ambiguities is best done by an unerring application of the second comma, even though I sometimes find it a bit bumpy. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk) </font >]] 04:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 ===Discussion===