Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names): Difference between revisions
→Yet another USPLACE discussion: new section |
UnQuébécois (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
Once again at [[Talk:Beverly Hills, California]]. That discussion was closed on August 20 as Not Moved, but the same move was re-requested on September 23. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 04:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC) |
Once again at [[Talk:Beverly Hills, California]]. That discussion was closed on August 20 as Not Moved, but the same move was re-requested on September 23. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 04:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Blindly following a guideline is not the solution to our problems. The guideline is outdated, goes against the spirit of naming conventions, and needs to be changed. --[[User:UnQuébécois|Education does not equal common sense.]] [[User talk:UnQuébécois|我不在乎]] 04:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 04:10, 24 September 2012
Archive to 1 Dec 2006 • Archive to Nov 2008 • Naming conventions (settlements) • Naming conventions (places)
Another USPLACE discussion
Talk:Beverly Hills, California this time. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. --MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Should XX Province be capitalised?
Posted at WT:CAPS along with note that crossposted at WT:NCGN:
- Does it vary according to country? I am getting inconsistent results for Ben Tre province/Province In ictu oculi (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- One reply came at WT:CAPS. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
About USPLACE
That aforementioned guideline really contradicts numerous other things. First of all, the AP Stylebook is irrelevant regarding an encyclopedia, but relevant for a news service, which Wikipedia is not. Also, if a place of the US is the primary topic for a title, why would it use unnecessary disambiguation when it doesn't need it? Too many people worship USPLACE too much that whenever one opposes the USPLACE-compliant title, a worshipper would oppose the opposer by saying that "per USPLACE.".
Is that what USPLACE is? Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. The USPLACE guideline would be simpler, more helpful and more consistent with other guidelines if it followed the near-universal WP naming principle of disambiguate only when necessary. Right now you can't tell from a given US city title whether it is disambiguated because there are other uses of that name, or it's disambiguated simply because of USPLACE. For example, Carmel-by-the-Sea, California... why is it not at Carmel-by-the-Sea? There is no other use of that name, it already redirects to the article about the city... why confuse users into thinking the name is not unique; that there is another use of "Carmel-by-the-Sea"? Creating confusion is not helpful.
The current convention/guideline never achieved broad community consensus support, but was established by a bot in the early days that automatically renamed all titles of US cities to include ", state" whether disambiguation was needed or not. Getting an exception for the best-known cities (coincidentally those on the AP list) was a difficult multi-year process. It might be time to revisit this issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The current guideline has been used too many times to impose a non-Wikipedia like rigidness in the naming of articles. Even many people who invoke this guideline do so admitting it does not make sense. It is time to update, and use some common sense for this subject. Why should this naming guideline be so counter intuitive, and against the main idea of simpler is better?--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that guidelines are supposed to reflect current practice, and current practice in this area appears to be to disambiguate all articles about incorporated cities in the US with the state, unless they're on the AP list. So it's impossible to find, in practice, evidence supporting a change to the guideline.
At the same time many people argue against changing any of these titles solely on the grounds of what the guideline says. This of course creates a Catch-22 situation that makes it impossible to change either practice or the guideline, even if consensus supports such change.
The only way to fix this is to get several such articles moved despite what USPLACE says by persuasively applying WP:IAR (for good reason) to ignore USPLACE. Then, when several articles have been so moved, the argument can be made that the guideline should be reflected to support this. This is why I argued as I did at Beverly Hills, California#Requested move. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that guidelines are supposed to reflect current practice, and current practice in this area appears to be to disambiguate all articles about incorporated cities in the US with the state, unless they're on the AP list. So it's impossible to find, in practice, evidence supporting a change to the guideline.
Is there an exception to MODERNPLACENAME - RM to consider
RE: the use of historic vs modern names. There are some places in the world that are known almost exclusively for a historical event... where there are thousands of English language sources that mention the place in an historical context, and very very few English language sources that mention it in a modern context. I am not talking about a place like Constantinople/Istanbul, Calcutta/Kolkata or Stalingrad/Volgagrad (where there are lots of English language sources that discuss the places in a modern context) I am talking about a place like Manzikert/Malazgirt (which is almost exclusively written about in the context of history).
I don't think there will be many of these situations... but I do think the few that do crop up should be exceptions to WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Looking at this in terms of the five basic principles layed out at WP:Article titles ... in these rare situations, the historic name will be far more recognizable than the modern one... the historic name will also be far more natural and consistent (since it is likely that the geo-article about the location will primarily be linked to in other articles that mention it in its historic context). I would like to explore this idea further... and to give us a test case, I have proposed the following move at RM: Malazgirt → Manzikert. Please comment there. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yet another USPLACE discussion
Once again at Talk:Beverly Hills, California. That discussion was closed on August 20 as Not Moved, but the same move was re-requested on September 23. --MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blindly following a guideline is not the solution to our problems. The guideline is outdated, goes against the spirit of naming conventions, and needs to be changed. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 04:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)