Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)

This page describes conventions for determining the names of Wikipedia articles on places. Our naming policy provides that article names should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. Template:TOCnestright

Consensus

The Wikipedia community has found it difficult to reach consensus, its preferred mode of dispute resolution, in several geographic naming debates. Two significant conflicts have been brought to Wikipedia's Arbitration Commitee: the distinction between Ireland as an island and the Republic of Ireland [1] and the distinction between the country which describes itself as the Republic of Macedonia and the various other uses of Macedonia [2]. Other long-standing problems have been settled through compromise or voting.

General guidelines

1. The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects.
2. The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}.
   • Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e., (archaic: name1).
   • Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name.
   • Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
     • In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several [[#Names|alternative names]])". When there are several significant alternate names, the case for mentioning the names prominently is at least as strong as with two.
       
     • Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".
   • Infoboxes should generally be headed with the article title, and include these alternate names. The formal version of a name (Republic of Montenegro at Montenegro for a header) can be substituted for it; extensive historic names are often better in a second infobox, as at Augsburg.
3. The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context. In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)." This resembles linking; it should not be done to the detriment of style. On the other hand, it is probably better to do too often than too rarely. If more than one historic name is applicable for a given historical context, the other names should be added after the modern English name, i.e.: "historical name (English name, other historical names)".
   • Use of widely accepted historic names implies that names can change; we use Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul in discussing the same city in different periods. Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around. Many towns, however, should keep the same name; it is a question of fact, of actual English usage, in all cases. For more examples, some of them involving changes within the twentieth century, see below.
4. This page is a guideline; it is not intended to overrule all other guidelines.
   • Where, as with Lyon, different national varieties of the English language spell a foreign name differently, we should also consider our guidance on national varieties of English, which would have articles in British English call the city Lyons, articles in American English Lyon, and the article itself use either, consistently. Articles should not be moved from one national variety to the other without good reasons; our principle of most common name does not mean "use American, because there are more Americans in the English speaking world."

Emphasis

It is Wikipedia convention to emphasize alternate names at first use, normally in the first line. It is customary to bold the article title name, and its frequently used English language synonyms, and to italicize foreign or historic names represented in Roman script. (It is technically possible to bold or italicize Greek or Cyrillic names; but there is consensus not to do so, because they are distinguishable from running text anyway.) If this produces a garish first paragraph, consider moving the discussion of names to a separate section, or deemphasizing some of them.

Names not in Roman script should be transliterated (in italics). If there are multiple frequently used transliterations (again, used by at least 10% of the English sources), include them.

Use English

See also: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)

When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be identical in form to the local name (as with Paris or Berlin), but in many cases it will differ (Germany rather than Deutschland, Rome rather than Roma, Hanover rather than Hannover, Meissen rather than Meißen). If a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name. An example is Livorno, which is now known more widely under its native name than under the traditional English name "Leghorn".

If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name. If more than one local name exists, follow the procedure explained below under Multiple local names.

If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If there is no such name in English, use the historical name that is now used locally.

Other applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects. They may also appear in the lead paragraph or in a special section of the article, in accordance with the advice given in the lead section guideline. For use of names in infoboxes, see the infobox guideline.

Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title, or a historic name when discussing a past period. Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around. Many towns, however, should keep the same name; it is a question of fact, of actual English usage, in all cases. For example, when discussing the city now called Istanbul, Wikipedia uses Byzantium in ancient Greece, and Constantinople for the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and also the Ottoman Empire. Similarly, use Stalingrad when discussing the city now called Volgograd in the context of World War II. For more details on this subject see Wikipedia:Proper names.

Widely accepted name

A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following methods (not listed in any particular order) may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name (period will be the modern era for current names; the relevant historical period for historical names):

1. Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name.
   • One reason for 1993 is to ensure that post-Cold War changes in usage are duly reflected; other (especially later) limiting dates may be appropriate in some parts of the world.
2. Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted.
   • Always look at search results, don't just count them. For more, see the section on search engines below.
3. Consult other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question. (We recommend the Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies, and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved). If they agree, the name is widely accepted. The possibility that some standard histories will be dated, or written by a non-native speaker of English, should be allowed for.
4. Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexis, if accessible. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted.
5. Enter the proposed move at WP:RM. If it is the consensus that a given name is the English name, then it is presumably widely accepted.
6. If a name is used in translating or explaining the official name, especially in texts addressed to an English-speaking audience, it is probably widely accepted.

Some names will be widely accepted, but not quite meet any of these tests; they are phrased to ensure that no name not widely accepted will pass. These should be decided case by case, on the evidence of the substantial body of data accumulated in the tests above. Names which fail each by a small margin or single exception are probably widely accepted.

When considering a source in determining English usage, remember the purpose of the source. When a guidebook or roadmap written in English shows an autobahn between München and Nürnberg, it is attesting to local usage, because that is what the signs on the autobahn will say; Munich and Nuremberg are still the English names. Similarly, a town's own website may well attest to an official name, even when this differs from local usage and widespread English usage.

The reliability and the fluency of sources allegedly in English may reasonably be considered; a text which reads like it has been produced by Babelfish probably has been, and such sources are unlikely to represent English usage.

BGN

The United States Board on Geographic Names determines official Federal nomenclature for the United States. Most often, actual American usage follows it, even in such points as the omission of apostrophes, as in St. Marys River. However, if colloquial usage does differ, we should prefer actual American to the official name. Similarly, its GEOnet server normally presents local official usage in the country concerned (for example, Frankfurt am Main); in a handful of cases, like Florence, it has a conventional name field; its BGN Standard is a systematic transliteration, as Moskva — Wikipedia prefers Moscow. Where it acknowledges a conventional name, it is evidence of widespread English usage; where it does not, it is not addressing our primary question.

Search engine issues

Search engine tests should be used with care: in testing whether a name is widely accepted English usage, we are interested in hits which are in English, represent English usage, and mean the place in question. Search engine results can fail on all of these.

• Failure to be English sources:
  • Google Books has no filter for language; the filter on Google Scholar is often mistaken.
  • Search engines will find hits when a paper in English is quoting foreign text, which may well include foreign placenames. This often occurs when citing a paper by title. For example, hits which are in fact citations of German papers which use Riesengebirge are not evidence of English usage, either way.
  • Some websites mechanically copy and compile other websites. These should not be counted as separate instances of English usage, but as the same instance duplicated.

• Failure to be English usage:
  • Google Scholar will frequently return post office addresses, especially for modern university towns. This attests to local usage, not to English usage (except of course for towns in the English-speaking world, for which local usage should prevail).
  • Search engines do not normally distinguish consistent use of a name from a single mention. Any good history of Venice will mention Venezia at least once; any good history of Bratislava will mention Pressburg. But what we want is the word they consistently use to refer to the city; it is very difficult to find that with a search engine, especially when the question is: does the source call nineteenth- or eighteenth-century Bratislava something different?
    • For example, hits which are of the form "X (Foolanguage Y)" attest to English usage of X, and Foolanguage usage of Y. The latter matters to the Foolanguage Wikipedia, not to us.
  • Writing by non-native speakers of English is often not representative of English usage. This can be from familiarity as much as lack of fluency; one historian, born in Silesia, uses Nürnberg when writing in English, despite seventy years of residency in the United States.
  • Please remember that Google Scholar and Google Books are imperfectly random selections out of the whole corpus of English writing. If the results could easily have arisen by chance (for example, if there are only half-a-dozen or so valid hits on all the alternatives combined), this is not a good indicator of widespread English usage.

• Failure to be about the place under discussion:
  • Many names are used for several places, often several places of the same type. In addition, many placenames have become surnames, and papers which are by authors with those surnames do not establish English usage for the placename.
  • Raw Google searches (i.e using www.google.com) will find Wikipedia and its mirrors. These are not reliable sources, especially for what we should use. Avoid raw google searches as far as possible; when they are used, always include "-wikipedia" in the search conditions.

Some of these problems will be lessened if the search includes an English word, like "city" or "river", as well as the placename. (If this is done with one proposed placename, it must of course be done for all competing proposals.) Another approach is to examine the first few pages of hits, and see what proportion of them are false hits. But the only certain control is to count how many hits are genuinely in English, assert English usage, and deal with the place discussed.

Another useful idea, especially when one name seems to be used often in the construct "X (also called Y)" in sources that consistently use X thereafter, is to search for "and X" against "and Y" (or "in X" versus "in Y") to see which is common in running prose.

Multiple local names

There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine.

Experience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first. We also deprecate any discussion of which name the place ought to have.

We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems; one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive. This has been done, for example, with the communes of the province of Bolzano-Bozen, based on an officially published linguistic survey of the area (see Italy below).

In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view. For example, the name Liancourt Rocks has been adopted rather than select either the Korean or Japanese name for the feature. Similarly, Wikipedia's version of the Derry/Londonderry name dispute has been resolved by naming the city page Derry and the county page County Londonderry.

Use modern names

For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods. Names have changed both because cities have been formally renamed and because cities have been taken from one state by another; in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use.

For example, we have articles called Istanbul, Dubrovnik, Volgograd and Saint Petersburg, these being the modern names of these cities, although former names (Constantinople, Ragusa, Stalingrad or Leningrad) are also used when referring to appropriate historical periods (if any), including such article names as Battle of Stalingrad and Sieges of Constantinople. It is sometimes common practice in English to use name forms from different language to indicate cultural or political dominance. For example, Szczecin is often written as Stettin (the German name) for the period before 1945, likewise Gdańsk is called Danzig (the detailed decisions at Talk:Gdansk/Vote apply to that dispute; they are older than this page). There are other cities for which policy is still debated, such as Vilnius, which in various contexts is referred to as Vilnius, Wilno or Vilna.

In some cases it is not the local name but the spelling of the name in English that has changed over time. For example, Nanjing, as the contemporary pinyin spelling, is used for the name of the article rather than Nanking. However, the article on the Treaty of Nanking spells the city as was customary in 1842, because modern English scholarship still does.

Another example is Mumbai, which officially changed its name from Bombay in 1995. Our choice of name does not automatically follow the official one, however, but depends on two claims: that usage in English by locals (and wider English usage as well, to some extent) has changed to commonly use Mumbai, although many local institutions do not, and that Indian English, as an official language, should be followed, in accordance with our guidelines on National varieties of English.

Alternate names

Wikipedia articles must have a single title, by the design of the system; this page is intended to help editors agree on which name of a place is to appear as the title.

Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out, although non-Latin scripts - Greek, Cyrillic, Chinese - are not bolded because they are distinguishable from running text anyway; transliterations are normally italicised. If there are more names than this, or the first line is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. It will serve neutrality to list the names in alphabetical order by language (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). Local official names are often listed first, out of alphabetical order.

Disambiguation

It is often the case that the same widely accepted English name will apply to more than one place, or to a place and to other things; in either case disambiguation will be necessary. For general rules about this topic, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

The following should be considered in disambiguating the names of places.

• If a place is the primary topic for a particular name, then its article should normally carry that name (for example, Kuala Lumpur, Mont Blanc). However, if idiom or specific naming conventions indicate a different article title as more appropriate, then a redirect should be created to that article from the term for which it is the primary topic. For example, Thames redirects to the article named River Thames, and Danzig redirects to Gdańsk.
• When there are conventional means of disambiguation in standard English, use them, as in Red River of the North and Red River of the South, and in New York City (to distinguish from the state of New York).
• Rivers, lakes and mountains often include the word River, Lake or Mount in the name; national conventions and idiom should be followed in this matter. For example, rivers in the UK and Ireland follow the pattern River Thames, while those in the United States follow Mississippi River. For many countries the additional word is used when needed for disambiguation purposes, but is otherwise omitted: compare Jade River (which requires disambiguation) and Rhine (which does not).

In other cases, a disambiguating tag will usually be needed. In some cases (as with most U.S. towns) it is conventional to add such a tag even when it is not strictly needed for disambiguation purposes. The following general principles apply to such tags:

• Places are often disambiguated by the country in which they lie, if this is sufficient. However, when tags are required for places in the United States, Canada and Australia, use the name of the state, province or territory (if the place lies within a single such entity).
• If using the country name would still lead to ambiguity, use the name of a smaller administrative division (such as a state or province) instead.
• Rivers can also be disambiguated by the body of water into which they flow.
• With the names of cities, towns, villages and other settlements, as well as administrative divisions, the tag is normally preceded by a comma, as in Hel, Poland and Polk County, Tennessee. Any specific national convention takes precedence though.
• With natural features, the tag normally appears in parentheses, as in Eagle River (Colorado). Specific pre-existing national conventions may take precedence though.
• Generic parenthetical disambiguating tags as used for most Wikipedia articles are used only occasionally for geographic names (as in Wolin (town), where no regional tag would be sufficient to distinguish the town from the island of Wolin).

If specific disambiguation conventions apply to places of a particular type or in a particular country, then it is important to follow these. Such conventions (or links to them) can be found in the section below titled Specific topics. If a country has no convention listed, and there is a clear pattern among the articles on places in that country, follow it. Please note any such pattern here, as a proposed national convention.

Order of names in title

Where multiple geographic names occur in a title, the names should be placed in alphabetical order unless there is a clear reason for another order. Hypothetical examples Andorra–Liechtenstein relations; Otters of the Amazon and Orinoco deltas.

Specific topics

Administrative subdivisions

Names of classes of places follow the same guidance: do what English does. In particular, when dealing with administrative subdivisions, we write of Russian oblasts and the Moscow Oblast, but of Chinese and Roman provinces, not sheng or provinciae.

It is useful for all administrative divisions of the same type in the same country to share the same format (for example, all townships in the United States have the format: Manalapan Township, New Jersey), so if one district in a country is moved from X to X District, it is worth discussing whether all districts should be moved. But this should not be done when inconvenient or as a violation of idiom; whether the uniformity is worth the cost in inconvenience should be decided in each case on its merits.

Natural features

For further guidance on the naming of articles about lakes, mountains and rivers, see:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes#Naming
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains#Naming conventions
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming

Country-specific guidance

Where there is no Wikipedia convention on a specific country and disambiguation is necessary, it is generally reasonable to use [[placename, nation]], as in Shire, Ethiopia.

When naming topics related to some specific country, prefer the form "(Item) of (Country)" over forms with adjectives (for example, History of Japan rather than Japanese history). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics).

The pages and categories below represent what discussion and opinions have actually taken place in Wikipedia. Their force consists of the force of their arguments and the extent of the consensus that backs them; listing here does not warrant either virtue.

Argentina

If disambiguation is required [[City, Province]] is used, except for provincial capitals which use [[City, Argentina]]. See Category:Cities in Argentina and its subcategories.

Australia

All Australian town/city/suburb articles are at [[Town, State]] no matter what their status of ambiguity is. Capital Cities will be excepted from this rule and preferentially made [[City]]. The unqualified [[Town]] should be either a redirect or disambig page. Local government areas are at their official name.

Belarus

Major cities (voblast capitals) are named according to the most common English usage. All other settlements are named according to national rules (exceptions may be discussed case by case).

Brazil

Brazilian cities go under their undisambiguated name when possible. When there is ambiguity, the convention used is [[City, State]]. An exception applies when the city name and the state name are the same: Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro (state); São Paulo, São Paulo (state).

Canada

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles).

Chile

A naming convention is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Chile-related regional notice board.

China

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). See also Hong Kong conventions below.

France

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (France & French-related)

Finland

See Toponyms of Finland.

Article names should be on province's, municipality's, region's or sub-region's majority language (Finnish or Swedish), unless there is a well established name in English. The minority language of the area should be mentioned in the lead chapter either in bold (if the municipality is bilingual), or in italics (if the municipality is unilingual). Any second name needs to referenced by a reliable secondary source; often the best will be recognition by the Research Institute for the Languages of Finland (see list).

The secondary names of municipalities should not be mentioned in other articles than the article about the municipality itself (ie. applying "Helsinki (Swedish: Helsingfors)" to an article that is not Helsinki lead chapter) unless it is of a special interest, as the secondary name can be seen in the main article's lead chapter and template.

Place names of Sami Domicile Area should be mentioned in Sami languages in the article's lead chapter in italics.

Germany

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions.

Hong Kong

Where possible, articles on places in Hong Kong should go under [[placename]]. Where disambiguation is needed, articles should go under [[placename, Hong Kong]]. Thus Quarry Bay but Stanley, Hong Kong.

India

A convention was under discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian districts/Naming and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(settlements)/Archive_18#India.

Ireland

Where possible, articles on places in Ireland should go under [[placename]]. Where disambiguation is needed, articles should go under [[placename, County x]]. Thus Castlebar but Westport, County Mayo. This same convention applies to both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Isle of Man

Where possible, articles on places on the Isle of Man should go under [[placename]]. Where disambiguation is needed, articles should go under [[placename, Isle of Man]]. Thus Castletown but Peel, Isle of Man.

Israel–Palestine

See Naming conventions (West Bank)

A convention was under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel/Archive 2#Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements).

Italy

If necessary, places in Italy are disambiguated by province (abbreviated name in parentheses) as is the universal custom in Italy. Thus: Manciano (AR), Manciano (GR).

Province of Bolzano-Bozen

In the Province of Bolzano-Bozen (South Tyrol), the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, and English discussion is often so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English. However there is an official linguistic survey of the area, by commune, which has the following advantages:

• It is available on-line, and officially published.
• The proportions of the various language groups are fairly stable.
• Most communes have a large majority, often a 90% majority, of one language group.
• In the few cases where there is a widely used English name, it is usually that of the majority language group.

Therefore articles about locations in the province of Bolzano-Bozen are placed according to the language of the linguistic majority, except where the widely used English name is adequately substantiated and is different from that of the majority language group.

Japan

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles).

Korea

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean).

Mexico

Mexican geographical articles go under [[Placename]] when possible: Acapulco. If disambiguation is needed, [[Placename, State]], is used (the "comma convention", as in Nogales, Sonora, or Córdoba, Veracruz). The cities that share names with states have been placed at [[Placename, State]]], with the state taking the [[Placename]] location: for example, Oaxaca, Oaxaca, (city) and Oaxaca (state).

Mongolia

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mongolian).

New Zealand

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand).

Norway

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Norway#Naming.

Philippines

Where possible, articles on cities go at [[Cityname City]] (e.g., Dumaguete City). When disambiguation is needed, articles go under [[Cityname City, Province]] (e.g., Valencia City, Bukidnon). All municipalities are under the format [[Municipalityname, Province]] (e.g., Valencia, Negros Oriental).

Poland

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Conventions.

Russia

This naming convention covers all types of inhabited localities in Russia: cities/towns, urban-type settlements, and all kinds of rural localities.

Always use common English name of the locality. In absence thereof, use romanized Russian name, as per the WP:RUS guidelines.

• When the name of the locality is not unique within Russia, use comma-separated name of the federal subject on the territory of which the locality is situated (e.g., Oktyabrsky, Republic of Bashkortostan). If the name of the locality is not unique within a federal subject, precede the federal subject disambiguator with the name of the district on the territory of which the locality is situated (e.g., Vesyoly, Shovgenovsky District, Republic of Adygea).
• When the name of the locality is unique within Russia, but conflicts with the name of another locality in a different country, disambiguate the name with "Russia" (e.g., Dimitrovgrad, Russia).
• When the name of the locality is completely unique, but conflicts with the name of a different concept, use the parenthesized locality type as disambiguator (e.g., Kalevala (urban-type settlement)).

South Africa

Only disambiguate towns where necessary; use [[placename, province]] where this is unambiguous.

United Kingdom

Where possible, articles on places in the United Kingdom should go under [[placename]]. Where disambiguation is needed, a different system exists in each of the home nations. Disambiguation should never be to post town, former postal county or postcode district.

England

In England, disambiguated place names should go under [[placename, ceremonial county]]. Where this is inappropriate [[placename, Town/City]] should be used. Where county boundaries have changed, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)/Counties.

Where further disambiguation is needed (i.e. there are two identical [[placename]]s within the same county), use the local government district. Thus Moorside, Oldham, and Moorside, Salford (not Moorside, Metropolitan Borough of Oldham or Moorside, City of Salford).

In London/Greater London, disambiguated place names should go under [[placename, London]]. Thus Rainham, London not Rainham, Greater London (which is a redirect page). Where two places exist within London, use the London Borough (in short form), so for the two Belmonts, they become Belmont, Sutton and Belmont, Harrow.

Wales

In Wales, disambiguated place names should go under [[placename, principal area]]. Thus Queensferry, Flintshire, not Queensferry, Wales (which is a redirect page) or Queensferry, Clwyd.

Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board it was agreed that where a county borough is to be disambiguated, it should go under [[Placename County Borough]]. Thus Conwy County Borough, not County Borough of Conwy, Conwy (county borough) or Conwy county borough.

Scotland

Where possible, articles on places in Scotland should go under [[placename]]. Thus Glasgow, not Glasgow, Scotland. Where the settlement is significant and disambiguation is needed, articles should generally go under [[placename, Scotland]]. Thus Perth, Scotland, not Perth, Perth and Kinross. Where disambiguation is still needed, articles should go under [[placename, Council Area x]]. Thus Abernethy, Highland and Abernethy, Perth and Kinross. If, even then, disambiguation is still needed, then another form of natural and recognisable disambiguation should be sought, such as traditional regions, committee areas, etc, as in Kinnaird, Gowrie and Kinnaird, Atholl, both in Scotland and in Perth and Kinross. Where the necessity for disambiguation with other Scottish locations is unclear, as with smaller settlements unlikely to be widely known outside of the region, disambiguation by council area rather than Scotland is probably preferable, as many place-names in Scotland are used more than once. Settlements on Scottish islands generally, when disambiguation is needed, are followed by the name of the island or island-chain rather than by Scotland or council area; e.g. Broadford, Isle of Skye, Tarbert, Outer Hebrides, Balfour, Orkney, etc.

Northern Ireland

Where possible, articles on places in Northern Ireland should go under [[placename]]. Where disambiguation is needed, articles should go under [[placename, County x]]. Thus Omagh but Bangor, County Down. This same convention applies to the Republic of Ireland.

United States

The canonical form for cities in the United States is [[City, State]] (the "comma convention"). Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina). If more than one city, town, or census-designated place within the same county has the same name, specify the type of local government unit in parentheses before the comma (e.g., Poughkeepsie (city), New York and Poughkeepsie (town), New York, but not "Poughkeepsie, New York (city)"). Three unincorporated communities bear two states' names due to their peculiar locations across a state line: Glenrio, New Mexico and Texas, Freedom, Idaho and Wyoming, and Ray, Indiana and Michigan.

Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may have their articles named [[City]] provided they are the primary topic* for that name. The cities listed by the AP are Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington. No other American city may have its article named [[City]].

(Primary topic should be judged against all encyclopedic usages of a name; thus, for example, discussions of Phoenix should consider the mythological Phoenix, and discussions of St. Louis should consider Louis IX of France.)

A United States city's article should never be titled "city, country" (e.g., "Detroit, United States") or "city, state, country" (e.g., "Kansas City, Missouri, USA").

U.S. highways should be listed as is found in Category:U.S. Highway System.

*The city of Las Vegas is not considered to be the primary topic for "Las Vegas", as there is also Las Vegas metropolitan area, and the Las Vegas Strip.

Fictional cities

In order to make the distinction clear, cities which represent a fictional setting do not follow the same naming convention as real locations, even if the fictional city is said to be within a real state, province, or other subdivision. For example:

• Sunnydale, not "Sunnydale, California" (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
• Avonlea, not "Avonlea, Prince Edward Island" (Anne of Green Gables)
• Gopher Prairie, not "Gopher Prairie, Minnesota" (works of Sinclair Lewis)

When necessary to disambiguate with other articles, preference is given to using the author's name (literature), the name of the work (television or movies), or other connective quality.

• Castle Rock (Stephen King)
• Dunwich (H. P. Lovecraft)
• Springfield (The Simpsons)
• Haddonfield (Halloween)
• Metropolis (comics)

Transliteration

For a list of pages dealing with the transliteration of names from other writing systems into the Latin alphabet, see Wikipedia:Romanization. Transliteration issues are discussed further at Wikipedia:Accessibility.

See also

• Wikipedia:Naming conflict
• Wikipedia:Proper names, especially the section on place names
• List of European regions with alternative names
• List of country names in various languages
• Wikipedia:Seven rules of place naming