Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)

Please post discussions about Railway station names at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations).

Frequently asked questions

Why is the article on Georgia named Georgia (country), and Georgia is instead a disambiguation page?

The consensus is that there is no primary topic for the term "Georgia". Supporters of that position successfully argued that since the country is not significantly more commonly searched for than the US state of the same name, it cannot have primary topic over the US state. Opponents argued that internationally recognized countries should take precedence over sub-national units like the US state. Some opponents argued that the current setup conveys a US-centric bias. Attempts to rename the articles to a natural disambiguation title like "Republic of Georgia" or "State of Georgia" have not reached any consensus (see the list of archived discussions).

Why is the Ireland article about the island, while the article on the country is named Republic of Ireland?

The naming of Ireland articles dates back to 2002. Previously, content for both the island and country appeared on the same page,[1] but it was then decided to move content and the page history about the country to its official "Republic of Ireland" description, while keeping content about the island at "Ireland". Ever since, this issue has been heavily disputed, but there has not been any consensus to change this status quo. Previous failed proposals have included making the country the primary topic of "Ireland" instead, or using parenthetical disambiguation titles like "Ireland (island)" and "Ireland (country)". According to an ArbCom ruling in 2009, discussions relating to the naming of these Ireland articles had to occur at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. In 2023 this requirement was withdrawn so discussions can take place on the talk pages as normal.

Why do articles on populated places in the United States primarily use the [[Placename, State]] "comma convention" format? Why is there an exemption for cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring a state?

This is an issue where different rules of Wikipedia:Article titles can conflict with each other, thus consensus determines which ones to follow. Most of these articles were created by User:Rambot, a Wikipedia bot, back in 2002 based on US Census Bureau records. When creating these pages, Rambot used the "Placename, State" naming format, initially setting a consistent naming convention for these articles. Supporters of keeping the "Placename, State" format argue that this is generally the most common naming convention used by American reliable sources. Opponents argue that this format is neither precise nor concise, and results in short titles like Nashville redirecting to longer titles like Nashville, Tennessee. After a series of discussions since 2004, a compromise was reached in 2008 that established the Associated Press Stylebook exception rule for only those handful of cities listed in that style guide (the dominant US newswriting guide) as not requiring the state modifier. There has been since no consensus to do a massive page move on the other articles on US places (although individual requested move proposals have been initiated on different pages from time to time).

Need for clarity on linking major American cities

Consensus is sought as to the correct way to refer and link to major American cities such as Los Angeles and Boston. The discussion is being held at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Need for clarity on linking major American cities.

Request for comment (RfC) about WP:USPLACE

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Although I am WP:involved in this discussion myself, I am taking the liberty of closing it as "no consensus to change", the only possible outcome. The discussion has meandered and has now been going on for two months; the last comments were on 5 April. The proposer, User:TBF69, changed what they were proposing several times, so it wasn't even clear what was being proposed. (TBF69 was actually blocked in mid-March per WP:Competence). It's time to put this out of its misery; it is going nowhere. MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should WP:USPLACE (specifically regarding major cities) be based on the AP Stylebook?

WP:USPLACE cites the AP Stylebook for the "comma convention" ("Placename, State") for populated places in the USA, only excluding Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C..

Many large cities such as the following would usually use the short form name per WP:PRITOP, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISE.

Some clearly fulfil WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and in many cases are redirected from the short form (for example Orlando redirects to Orlando, Florida), but cannot have the title be solely the city name.

Nere's a quick mock-up of what I'd like it to look like.

Where populated places in the United States qualify for Wikipedia:Primary topic, the title of the article should be the name of the place. Where articles on populated places require disambiguation, the comma convention should be used (typically titled "Placename, State") when located within a state (or "Placename, Territory" in US territories). A placename that needs additional disambiguation should include its county or parish (e.g., Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina, and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina). If more than one place within the same county has the same name, specify the type of local government unit in parentheses before the comma, for any article that is not the primary topic (e.g., Callicoon (CDP), New York, and Callicoon (town), New York, but not "Callicoon, New York (CDP)"). A small number of unincorporated communities bear two states' names due to their peculiar locations across state lines (e.g., Glenrio, New Mexico and Texas).

Articles on US cities should never be titled "City, Country" (e.g., "Detroit, United States") or "City, State, Country" (e.g., "Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.") because that is contrary to general American usage. Postal abbreviations (such as CA or Calif. for California) are never used in article titles. (For postal abbreviations in articles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations § Special considerations).

Thanks, --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 17:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the FAQ (Freguently asked questions) at the top of this page? Proposals to change this guideline have been frequently offered and frequently rejected. Donald Albury 17:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I plainly do not agree with any arguments made. --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 17:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus supporting the currently wording of the guideline has survived many challenges, and is unlikely to change anytime soon. I do not agree with some of the specific guidelines for article titles, but Wikipedia works on consensus, and I am willing to live with that. Donald Albury 18:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO all places should in the form of "place, sovereign state". GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, unless they fulfil WP:PT1 --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 17:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Portland, Phoenix, (already on the AP Stylebook) Columbus, Memphis and San Jose go to DAB pages so unless there's a consensus to make them primary this is moot for those ones. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not use such a system in the case of German or Canadian cities. Why should it be used in the case of the United States? Wikipedia doesn't have to follow AP styleguide only. Internet media deffer from the printed ones. Everyone can find out the state in the first sentece of the article. Martin Tauchman (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that I don't understand what change is really under discussion here. Could someone articulate what content would be added/changed/removed to/in/from the guideline? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done! --- Tbf69 P • T 16:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, I'd strongly oppose Portland, Columbus, Memphis, and Phoenix, but would be open to Orlando and Louisville. I don't see the point of a broad-sweeping RfC, and this idea has been thoroughly rejected routinely in the past. Curbon7 (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be handled case-by-case, instead of the AP stylebook --- Tbf69 P • T 08:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, in case I wasn't clear, I am in favor of maintaining the status quo, besides a few limited exceptions determined by local consensus. Curbon7 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the state should be included in the title, but only when disambiguation is required. --- Tbf69 P • T 18:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation will be required in almost every single case not already on the AP stylebook, except a small handful, like Orlando and Sacramento. Instead of blowing up the whole system, why not seek a local consensus at those articles instead. Curbon7 (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7 I've tried. I started RMs at Portland, Oregon and Louisville, Kentucky. And they were unanimously rejected, per WP:USPLACE. Also, I've changed the list of cities in the proposal, what do you think? --- Tbf69 P • T 18:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you tried getting local consensus for this change and the proposal was soundly rejected, what made you think that there was going to be support for changing it centrally? At some point you've just got to recognize that a consensus exists that you disagree with and move on. VQuakr (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you provide a better example of exactly what would be changed in WP:USPLACE so we have a better idea of what we are discussing? Is it just dropping the AP Stylebook reference in the "Major cities" subsection (so what would that subsection look like then, exactly/roughly)? Off-loading the decision of which styles are eligible (so not required to be) to be a bare city to a reliable, independent source seems like a reasonable decision, over all. Skynxnex (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a draft of what I'd like it to look like. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. I don't really see any advantage for changing it at this point. I think for many of the floated cities that would get just bare "City name" titles should not have just a barename since they are commonly referred to by "City, State" when looking at the totality of the US/world. So I think that following the AP styleguide, in general, does not violate WP:COMMONNAME. And I think, in general, the names are as WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE as possible without being confusing. As for WP:CONSISTENT, I'd personally support moving basically all US cities to "City, State" and moving almost all disambiguation pages to the base "City" name. To use Jacksonville as an example, I don't think there's much advantage to our readers to have Jacksonville be a redirect instead of the disambiguation page, even though the Florida one is by far the biggest. I know this latter half is a minority opinion but it's also weakly held. I'll revisit and re-evaluate my vote later. Skynxnex (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support not just for this, but for all unambiguous U.S. cities. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISE and more have been ignored for long enough. Red Slash 16:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the proposed change. We have had this discussion many, many times, although not so much in recent years, since the accepted format seems to have become largely accepted. As per previous discussions, there are strong reasons for American city article titles to include the state, even if the city name is unique. And yes, we know that city-name-alone is the situation for most countries, where the name of the state/province/other division is not so important. But in the U.S. the state is almost added to the city, both in written sources at the first use, and in casual conversation ("I am from Louisville, Kentucky"). U.S. city names should not be handled on a "case-by-case basis" as proposed here; that would just lead to endless arguments on individual pages. [[City, State]] is the long-accepted format for U.S. cities. Our only exceptions - the cities named in the AP stylebook - are based in true Wikipedia style on a Reliable Source. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That goes against WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISE and more policies. Why can't we just use the same principles we use in the rest of the world, in the USA? --- Tbf69 P • T 17:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the role of the states in the United States is different from the role of geographic divisions such as states, provinces, etc. in other countries. For one thing, in the U.S. the states pre-dated the country (note its name, the United States of America). Under our constitution, states have an outsize role in governing the country, in passing laws, in setting taxes, even in national elections. For another thing, the U.S. is such a vast country that a person gets no idea of where a city is, just from its name; that’s why we almost always add the state when mentioning a city, even a large or well-known city. We DO know where the states are! We also know that city names are often used in more than one state. That is why we usually add the state when mentioning a city. If I say “I am from Nashville” or “I am going to San Jose”, the other person will commonly ask “Nashville, Tennessee?” or “San Jose, California?” for clarification.

The bottom line here: Different countries are allowed to use different systems and different formats at Wikipedia. In each article here, we use the date format, the standards of measurement, the spellings, etc. that are accepted in the related country. I don’t try to insist that you say "honor" instead of "honour" in an article with a British connection; you don’t try to force me to say "25 February 2023" instead of "February 25, 2023" in an America-based article. Place name conventions should be no different. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. One other thing: The current convention is based on a Reliable Source. What you suggest - a case-by-case choice of title - would in effect replace that Reliable Source with Original Research. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We already make WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT determinations for every single municipality around the globe, U.S. included. It would be seamless to switch all the current primaryredirects to the article titles. I agree with MelanieN that City, State is a ubiquitous convention. But it's also true of cities on the AP list: Someone says "I'm from Seattle, Washington" just as often as someone says "I'm from Nashville, Tennessee" - so why do we treat them differently? The AP is not the exclusive source for how to present U.S. city names - there are many other reliable sources that say you can omit the state for different cities than are on the AP list. Can you think of another situation where we restrict ourselves to a single reliable source when there are dozens of others we could consult? Finally, if we make this change, there will be zero confusion or outcry from readers or editors, whereas keeping USPLACE will guarantee this discussion every couple of years, because it's out of step with the rest of WP and editors are naturally troubled by it. Dohn joe (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dohn joe. Regarding “Finally, if we make this change, there will be zero confusion or outcry from readers or editors, “, you are so, so wrong about that. For an example of how much outcry to expect if we change this, see this summary. This used to be a constant source of argument, always concluding to keep the US Place system. And then the arguments pretty much went away for four or five years. I'm sorry to see it revived. If we make this change, especially the “case by case basis” recommendation, there will be constant battles everywhere. IMO the only reason you aren’t seeing more people here defending US Place is that everyone thought the issue had been settled, and stopped watching this page. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MelanieN. I've changed the list of cities on this proposal. Basically all of them would use the short form name per WP:PRITOP, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISE. So, I don't think there'd be many "battles" about those ones. Please can you provide some examples of cities where you think "battles would take place? --- Tbf69 P • T 19:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer removing the exceptions and naming all US places "City, State". Also support moving cities in other countries to "City, Sovereign state". Except Canada, Australia, and UK, where province, state, and constituent country would be used instead of sovereign state.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 04:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be OK with removing the AP-based exception and adding "state" to all cities, if that is people's preference. It would be seamless, because a city name like [[Chicago]] would simply redirect to [[Chicago, Illinois]]. But I disagree with changing it for other countries. We already accept different conventions for different countries on things like spelling, date format, units of measure, etc. We should accept (and have accepted for years) local conventions on place name style too. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AP-based exception makes little sense. I think consistency is important and I don't think most readers are aware of redirects, especially if the redirect is closely linked to the search. - Enos733 (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Readers don't need to be aware of redirects for them to do their thing in helping people get to the right place. Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case my position is not clear from the comments I left at the top of this section, I am opposed to any change in the current form of WP:USPLACE. - Donald Albury 16:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Do you think that WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISE are all wrong? --- Tbf69 P • T 16:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say that those are wrong? Do not be putting words in my mouth. Donald Albury 20:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USPLACE, in it's current form, violates all those principles. --- Tbf69 P • T 22:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It looks like we've found ourselves in a very comfortable position which is (a) supported by a top-quality style guide and (b) a huge time-saver for the community. When it comes to guidelines, that's about as good as it gets. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That violates at least 4 other WP principles. And leads to janky situations where a WP:PRITOP is redirected to an unnecessarily long title (Orlando -> Orlando, Florida, Nashville -> Nashville, Tennessee). --- Tbf69 P • T 22:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it gels well with the other criteria. It maximizes balance between consistency and naturalness and is equally precise. Tbf69, please don't feel you need to respond to every opposing comment, especially if it means you're repeating yourself. See WP:BLUDGEON. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more like the redirect is in error. I would expect Orlando to point to the given name. Or possibly the Shakespearian character. Personall, I find this more evidence that the concept of primary target is flawed. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 03:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose – This long-stable compromise convention prevents untold hours of argument over such things as whether either Portland, Maine, or Portland, Oregon, should be primary. There is no harm that comes from having Orlando redirect to Orlando, Florida. I'm not a fan of the arbitrary following of the AP, but that's where we are. If we don't like it, a less disruptive and generally better fix would be to remove those 30 exceptions. I'd support that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question can equally be asked "Should Portland redirect to Portland, Maine?" as "Should the article about Portland, Maine be at Portland?", and if this proposal passes then the answer to the latter should be identical with what now is the answer to the former. Animal lover |666| 14:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon We shouldn't just accept the status quo. Obviously Portland is a bit of an odd case, but surely Orlando and Nashville are universally agreeable cases --- Tbf69 P • T 17:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying "just accept the status quo", but rather accept it if you don't want to fix it in the direction that I proposed, opposite to the direction you proposed. A stable compromise is better than make it worse (worse in the opinion of many of the contributors here, that is). Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Any city (or town, village, or any other type of populated place) where the article titled "city" is a redirect to "city, country/state/region/other bigger location", the page should be at "city". We have Ramla, not Ramla, Israel. We do have Lapid, Israel, but Lapid isn't a redirect to it. Same should work for all other cities in the world, including the US. Animal lover |666| 14:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Complaint to the OP: You have RfC linked in the heading, but apparently did not read it yourself. You seem to have overlooked both WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCBRIEF (also shortcutted as WP:RFCNEUTRAL). I do not see where you discussed with others the best way to formulate the RfC question. And your "statement" is neither brief nor neutral. An RfC begun this way is faulty, as it's open to too much arguing about fairness. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose whatever half-baked, unintelligible and ever-fluctuating proposal is being made here. @Tbf69, your reaction to my complaint about a lack of brevity was to lengthen the RfC statement. Why? Because, you said, "It's my RfC, and I can change it if I want", which, in fact, is untrue. Your edit summary further said, "I originally wrote the cities in a rush", which is one reason for WP:RFCBEFORE which I linked to above (and which you apparently continue to ignore). On top of all that, your edit summary concludes with an exhortation to "please see WP:RFC", which I guess you have not done yourself.

Your argumentation, packed into what should be a neutral statement, is still muddled, even though you have removed some obvious non-primary topics (San Jose, Phoenix, etc.), since you simultaneously added others (Mesa, Raleigh, etc.). On top of which: changing the RfC after more than two weeks of active discussion is really disrespectful to all participants. All editors should boycott this mess, you should self-close the RfC, and then, if you still feel the need, work up a proper, well-formed RfC (not "in a rush") as per WP:RfC (read it yourself first) and start again. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 13:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I have not commented in this RFC because I can see that it is badly worded enough to make any outcome impossible to implement. @Tbf69, please follow JohnFromPinckney's advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I honestly wouldn't even mind if some of the articles that currently don't have state names instead included them. I think this convention could be extended to be other countries even because I find it funny when tiny little villages don't include any other specificity in the title. Your list of those that would become case-by-case is pretty silly when at least five obviously need the disambiguation. Reywas92^Talk 14:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 You misunderstand WP:PRITOP. --- Tbf69 P • T 16:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. We include the state to be precise and to follow general conventions of how US places are used by folks like the AP, not merely to disambiguate what is or is not a primary topic. Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I find it funny when tiny little villages don't include any other specificity in the title". If the village is WP:PRITOP, then the title should be the name of the village. --- Tbf69 P • T 17:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbf69: only if just the name of the village is sufficiently recognizable. WP:PRITOP is related to precision, which is only one of our five WP:CRITERIA for article titles. VQuakr (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to my comments. I continue to strongly feel that the United States should keep its standard format of "City, State" despite how it is done in other parts of the world. But in response to comments here and elsewhere, I would be OK with using "City, State" for ALL U.S. cities, and dropping the AP list of exceptions (which as many have noted is pretty arbitrary). If someone types in "Chicago" or "Nashville", they would automatically end up at the article "Chicago, Illinois" or "Nashville, Tennessee" without even noticing that they have been redirected. This would eliminate the arguments over the AP list (why not Orlando? why not Sacramento?) and treat all U.S. cities the same; the stand-alone name would redirect to "City, State" as it does now (or to a DAB page if the name is not unique). -- MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I notice that the same suggestion - dump the AP exception and use “City, State” for all cities - has been endorsed above by User:Khajidha and User:Dicklyon and partially endorsed by User:Dohn joe. Would anyone else feel OK with dropping the AP and titling ALL uniquely named cities as “City, State”? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be opposed. I think New York City beats New York, New York on all the criteria except consistency, assuming we adopted this proposal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, "New York City" is the title of our article, but it is not what the AP guidelines recommend. They recommend just "New York". So that is one case where we do not follow the AP, and it could probably remain "New York City" regardless of whether we keep or dump the AP. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well let's dump the AP then. Or how do we all feel about New York (city)? --- Tbf69 P • T 18:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would actually be longer than the current name of the NYC article, which benefits from being naturally disambiguated already. Also, the current title of the NYC article was decided through several huge RfCs, so I don't think that move will be happening any time soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gooooood point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with universal City, State as my second choice, and far preferable to the status quo. Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—the status quo is a carefully crafted compromise that has been in place for many years and works. It is also based on a reliable source for style guidance, so it has some imprimatur that a case-by-case discussion wouldn't have. Digging into the specifics: Portland, Phoenix, Columbus, Memphis, and San Jose would not be retitled if this RfC closed in favor of the proposal. There is discussion above that Orlando may not be the primary topic, and if so, that's another to add to the list that would be unaffected if this proposal passes.
As MelanieN says, I would also be in favor of possibly jettisoning the list and placing all US cities at "City, State" for consistency and clarity reasons. We bumped into something similar a few years ago when M-185 (Michigan highway) was moved to "M-185" when that article was the TFA. Because the "M#" or "M-#" convention is used in many places of the world, even though none of them use 185, it's still the convention to use the parenthetical for Michigan for clarity. Imzadi 1979 → 18:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the proposal above was changed significantly on 28 February 2023 after discussion and !voting ran for 16 days. Please take that into consideration when evaluating all comments and !votes made here before this comment. Imzadi 1979 → 19:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me what the change accomplished. @Tbf69: Was the change you made today simply to make a longer list of cities that could be listed by city name alone? But wasn't your original proposal to list ALL uniquely named cities by name alone? Or did you mean to propose deciding individual cities on a case-by-case basis? It has become very unclear what proposal we are being asked to discuss. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the list of cities only serves to shoot your argument in the foot even more. You have included one's that clearly should not be like Charlotte, Raleigh, Mesa (I didn't even have to cheekily pipe this one), and Arlington. Curbon7 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can no longer take seriously any proposal that implies that the primary topic for mesa is the city and not the geological feature--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read the current proposal, is that is a list of cities that are widely known as "City", but that some would require disambiguation regardless of the convention. Not artfully put, perhaps, but that's how I took it. Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible oppose to all broad changes, per my arguments above. Any changes should be made in the form of local RfCs, likely almost all of which will likely be in favor of the status quo. Curbon7 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you opposed? --- Tbf69 P • T 11:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbf69: Two of us now have asked you to stop challenging everyone who disagrees with you. You are still doing it. In this case, the answer to "Why are you opposed?" is as he says: "per my arguments above." -- MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support suggested changes to naming conventions. It has been discussed before but I agree that any populated place in the US that does not requrie disambiguation should just be at the the village/town/city name. This is how it is done for every other country. There no clear rationale why the US should be different. The state will always be in the first sentence of the lede anyway. ShakyIsles (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I thought the rationale was pretty clear; multiple points of rationale:
- This long-standing compromise has been very successful in preventing a large number of arguments/discussions about primary-topic status and ambiguity of thousands of city and town names.
- The "city, state" convention works very well in support of recognizability, one the main naming criteria. If omitting the state is more common, that doesn't make it more recognizable.
- Having a simple consistent convention such as this has proven successful in other titleing areas, too, and is explicitly discussed in WP:PRECISE ("Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. ... Bothell is already precise enough to be unambiguous, but we instead use Bothell, Washington (see Geographic names), seeking a more natural and recognizable title which is also consistent with most other articles on American cities.")
- The AP list of 30 exceptions was settled on long ago, and it's hard to imagine any particular modification of that list gain consensus.
So, yes, it's been discussed before, and no it's unlikely that we'll ever see a consensus to move to a different convention. Dicklyon (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking for the "rationale why the US should be any different" from any other country? What you've written above applies to other countries. Australia and India have states, China has provinces, the UK has counties. For these countries (well for every country except the US) we only put states/provencies in page names when disambiguation is required. Why should wikipedia treat the US differently? ShakyIsles (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think the US is different in that its cities really are very commonly referred to as "city, state", and its states really are pretty recognizable to most of the world's English-speaking population, much more so than the state names of other countries. Anyway, I for one would be happy to see such a convention in other countries where cities are so referred to (I'm not sure which those are though). Dicklyon (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The proposed expansion to every U.S. city that could clear PRIMARYTOPIC is far too much. I would support a limited expansion with a clearer criteria (as the AP Stylebook's is out-of-date, but including every last town with a unique name is extreme) that focuses mostly on large cities that are the center of their respective metropolitan areas and are broadly recognizable without their state to someone non-local. Sounder Bruce 01:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One of the main reasons why the U.S. uses the comma convention, both in practice and on Wikipedia, is the sheer number of U.S. places that aren't clearly a primary topic. The U.S. is unlike most countries in how common duplicate city names in different states are, especially for smaller cities and towns, and even a lot of the more unique city names share a name with a person or geographic feature. I'd be open to using a different list than the AP Stylebook to determine which cities are large enough not to need the comma convention, but the OP hasn't provided one. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCatalyst31, I don’t think your desire is at odds with the proposer’s. The comma convention would still be the mode of disambiguation, and those places that need disambiguation (those that are not primary) would be simply left in place; if this is the majority then there would be no issue, but it would mean we wouldn’t have to maintain a semi-arbitrary list here. — HTGS (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't clear, my desire is to continue using the comma convention for places that are still primary, simply because there are so many places that are either non-primary or only debatably primary that convention in the US is to include the state name for all but the largest cities. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCatalyst31 I kind of get your point, but surely you could say that we already know that some are primary, if the short form redirect to a title with the comma convention? Like Dayton or Spokane etc. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — how many times over how many years must we discuss this? Even for common primary topic names, the title should be qualified by state, no AP stylebook exceptions. Redirects are cheap.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support: The current standard can be summarized as “disambiguate first, except in a handful of carve-out cases”. This goes against the typical application of the MOS and Wikipedia standards as they are usually applied. It is absurd that some people are oppositional for essentially the reason that “we expect a lot of disagreement” or “we don’t want to have to deal with it”. This is, plain and simple, against the spirit of the project; if you want to appeal to an FAQ that is only explanatory on a descriptive level, then don’t participate.
For the record, I would be fine with a default of “disambiguate, except where article-level discussion prefers not to disambiguate” (though I would not prefer this solution); and I would support a standard that avoids disambiguation by default, but also allows that some places are better named City, State by allusion to common name. — HTGS (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Recommend following how it's done for British & Canadian cities. GoodDay (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. A lot of place names in the US are repeated, but I'd like to see some evidence that those that aren't primary topics form a major share of US place page views. However, I disagree that all of the place names listed at the top are primary topics. Daß Wölf 20:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per much of the above. SounderBruce's alternative might be workable, but people come here to try to change this guidance again and again and it always fails to gain traction. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer USA community articles to be titled "City, State" and links to them to make it more obvious, because english readers outside of America as well as geographically-ignorant Americans often aren't aware what state some cities are located, except for a fraction of largest cities such as New York and Los Angeles. I am willing to bet money that numerous people in 2023 wouldn't get a 100% on a test asking them to fill in the blank for state names of the 50 largest cities in United States. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbmeirow Umm, that's a bit racist to Americans. Anyway, the state the city is located in will literally be in the first line of the article, so who cares about having it in the title? You could argue that we should move Caen to Caen, Normandy, under your faulty logic. 157.157.164.28 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This will create a lot more problems than it solves. The current guideline is just fine and meets WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISE, since there are so many names that are repeated across several states (and even the same state). Even places like Orlando, Florida, would decidedly be better off at their current title, since names like Orlando may still be confused with something else, e.g. Orlando (given name). Finally, like Sbmeirow and several other editors above have said, the vast majority of readers won't recognize where a town/city/village/locality is located unless the state name is also given in the title. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support I see no reason why a city which is clearly identifiable by it's short name, such as Dayton, should need the state identifier. The current policy violates WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. CityUrbanism (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should probably be closed with no action as it's a blocked user and the nominator also changed the original RFC. – The Grid (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Grid No point. The RfC has already got quite a lot of support, and there's no policy that states an RfC has to be closed if the nominator is indeffed. 157.157.164.28 (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. USPLACE works well as is. I see no need to change it and the endless debates that would result from changing it about which cities are primary enough to drop the state. City, State is the most common way to refer to localities in the U.S., even the ones listed above that are being used as examples of ones to be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Relying on a style guide is the best possible option. O.N.R. ^(talk) 21:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Old Naval Rooftops Why though? The style guide is outdated anyway. It's not WP:CONSISTENT because other countries use the method the proposer has stated. 157.157.164.28 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support per nom.194.105.229.28 (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - When the City name is clearly the Primary topic and already redirects to the City name, state name article, I think the shorter city name would be better because its more concise. But there may not be that many examples where this is applicable. Eopsid (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedure close this RfC as the user changed the original RfC and they are infinitely blocked. – The Grid (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Grid Who cares? There's no policy that says we have to close an RfC if the proposer is indef blocked. Anyway, the thing they changed it to has been proposed before, so it's not a big deal. 157.157.164.28 (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I care and it's odd for a fresh IP to state anything of the sort. – The Grid (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Grid Hah. I read the guidelines. 157.157.164.201 (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT applies here. – The Grid (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about WP:UKPlace and ceremonial counties

Should articles about UK places feature ceremonial counties as prominently as they currently do, e.g. for disambiguation purposes? A.D.Hope (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that Wikipedia has got ahead of itself a little with the English ceremonial counties. The ceremonial counties are simply areas to which the lord-lieutenants are appointed (as reflected in their full name, 'counties for the purposes of the lieutenancies'), which is quite a minor ceremonial function. On articles about English places, however, they are often featured prominently in the lead and infobox and used for disambiguation.

Anyone who has edited anything to do with English local government will know that it's complicated. There are multiple types of local authority and county and they do change sometimes, which can quickly become confusing. In this context I can understand the appeal of using the relatively stable ceremonial counties, but I don't think the practice is helpful as it inflates their importance. Kendal may still be ceremonially in Cumbria, for example, but Westmorland and Furness is now the more important body as it's the local government area.

Instead, I believe it would be better to follow the example of many articles on Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish places and use only the current administrative area and historic county in the lead, using the former for disambiguation. Some examples:

Melrose is a small town and civil parish in the Scottish Borders, historically in Roxburghshire.
Flint is a town and community in Flintshire, Wales, lying on the estuary of the River Dee.
Ballymena is a town in County Antrim, Northern Ireland.

It's worth noting that both Melrose and Flint use their current administrative areas for disambiguation in the article title, not their Scottish lieutenancy area or Welsh preserved county respectively.

As I say, I can understand how the ceremonial counties have taken on this inflated status on Wikipedia. They don't change much, editors have become used to them, all that sort of thing. Consider, though, if it would be logical to use the shrieval counties in the same way as we currently use the ceremonial ones. They're very similar, but it seems obvious to me that the shrieval counties serve a minor ceremonial function and would not be appropriate to use as a primary disambiguator in a title. It's time to treat the lieutanancy counties in the same way. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes generally the ceremonial counties are the most identifiable way of referring to places in England. In Scotland and Wales unitary districts are generally used but in Northern Ireland ceremonial counties AFAIK are normally used. The other 3 UK countries have unitary districts covering the whole countries while in England we have unitary districts, 2 tier counties as well as London boroughs and metropolitan boroughs both of which appear to operate at the country level yet apparently aren't legally counties unlike unitary districts[2]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why ceremonial counties have come to be regarded as the 'most identifiable' way of referring to places in England, honestly. The lord-lieutenants aren't very prominent, and as far as I know the ceremonial counties are only the areas to which they're appointed.
If the ceremonial counties had a greater administrative role then I'd see the argument for using them as prominently as Wikipedia does, but since their role is minor it seems logical to use local authorities (regardless of whether or not they're counties) and historic counties instead — local authorities because they're the current local government entities, and historic counties because they have a reasonable level of recognition and are geographically stable. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between England and it's other outlying neighbours.

England is larger and has more coverage then the other countries.

Lets say that Lancaster said Lancaster, England and not Lancaster in Lancashire, England. It would confuse the readers as there's multiple Lancaster articles.

Same with York. Yorkshire, New York, City of York and Yorkshire and Humber among other uses. It's better to use the county and country because it helps readers none British to understand better.
DragonofBatley (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point isn't that counties should be removed entirely, but that local authorities are more appropriate than the ceremonial counties in this context. To use your examples, that would give something like:
Lancaster is a city in Lancashire, England.

York is a cathedral city in England, in the historic county of Yorkshire.

York is the primary settlement in the City of York unitary authority in England. It is in the historic county of Yorkshire.

A.D.Hope (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Historic counties are anything but geographically stable. Because historic counties can have multiple definitions, you'd have to decide what date you want the historic counties from. For example do you use the boundaries from before or after the Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844? Also using them would just be confusing for the many towns which have changed counties over the years. I support the current consensus of the ceremonial counties, they aren't perfect but they're better than the alternatives. Eopsid (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Historic counties are way more stable and unchanged compared to ceremonial counties (the latter which have only existed for less than 30 years by the Lieutenancies Act 1997!). Official UK government publications continue to inform that historic counties continue to exist and were never abolished.

This confusion, where members of the public (quite understandably) edit pages to update local government changes/ceremonial county changes, will continue to happen on Wikipedia every single time new legislation changes these volatile boundaries. Hence why using ceremonial counties/local government areas as reference points will never be sustainable. I would support using historic counties as the basis for defining geography in the UK. Administrative areas/ceremonial counties are unstable, and will continue to be constantly chopped and changed by legislation going forward in future. Acapital (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please define historic counties for me? What stable boundaries are we using for them? Eopsid (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go and search on Ordnance survey, the gov.uk website, or something. They produce maps of the historic counties online, it’s not difficult. Acapital (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that the historic counties are generally taken as they were in 1889, which is when they were superseded by what are now called the administrative counties. Where this isn't the case, being more specific would arguably make for a better lead, for example:
Little Compton is a village and civil parish in the Stratford-on-Avon district, in south Warwickshire, England, and is located about three miles east of Moreton-in-Marsh. Until 1844 it was an exclave of Gloucestershire.
A.D.Hope (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So your definition of historic counties are the ones between the Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844 and 1889? Only 45 years. Thats only 20 years more than the ceremonial counties. I wouldnt call those much more stable boundaries. Maybe we should instead define historic counties using the boundaries from 1889-1965. They lasted longer... I don't think ceremonial counties having the potential to change boundaries and having to update articles is a bad thing. Change is inevitable and Wikipedia should reflect that. Eopsid (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change is inevitable, which is why I don't think we should shy away from using administrative areas as the primary means of describing a place's location.

The historic counties never ceased to exist, according to the traditional county groups and more recently the UK government. That means that they've now had the same boundaries for 179 years, as far as I know, and by their very nature they're unlikely to change. This makes the historic counties useful as a secondaty descriptor.

Interestingly, since making my last comment I've done a bit more reading and discovered the 'Historic Counties Standard' developed by the Association of British Counties (a group which has been endorsed by the UK government). The Association specifically criticise Wikipedia for not having a standard approach to the historic counties, so it's probably worth us paying attention to their proposal. It could provide the basis for a consistent treatment of the historic counties, eliminating the problems you mention. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alas we don't let fringe pressure groups decide Wikipedia policies. G-13114 (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about the counties corporate like the County of the City of Coventry. Coventry was a county in itself longer than it was part of Warwickshire. G-13114 (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a dismissive and unhelpful attitude to take. The Association of British Counties can't force Wikipedia editors to do anything, but since they've created this resource we may as well make use of it. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have been through this historic counties nonsense far too often before. Can we PLEASE not go through it again. This pressure group has no status, their definitions of historic counties are fluid to suit their agenda. Historic counties are just that – historic. Not again, please. Nothing has changed since the last time this was raised. Or the time before. Or the time before that. Except that they've become even more historical. Like Hundreds. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Their definitions may be fluid, but ours don't need to be. Wikipedia's treatment of the historic counties is inconsistent, so I don't see the harm in using the Association's publication as one source to help us create a more consistent standard.

I think it's also worth pointing out that my main point is about changing how we use the ceremonial counties, this is a bit of a distraction. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly there is a fringe pressure group on Wikipedia already who suggest in another RFC that reading a map (where one could glean county boundaries) is Original Research. I would link to it but that could be construed as canvassing. –Fredddie ™ 21:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Labelling them all as fringe pressure groups couldn’t be more false and dismissive. The government themselves keep reiterating the historic counties exist, and were never abolished. I’m sure you cannot possibly say the government is a fringe pressure group. Ignoring the fact of the existence of historic counties, and their continued importance in cultural identities across the UK, is clearly just dismissive.

Look at the mess in how Wikipedia county articles are written. You have Yorkshire, where the county page infobox clearly shows its current status as a historic county, then shows a historic county map and the historic county flag. Then you have Oxfordshire where the infobox shows it is a ceremonial county, includes a map of the ceremonial county, then incorrectly includes a map of the historic county of Oxfordshire.

Such inconsistency! No wonder members of the public (quite understandably)feel the need to edit pages to correct county information, only for the edits to be reverted and referred to talk pages. This will continue as long as Wikipedia policies continue to ignore the historic counties. Acapital (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, this inconsistency is one of the things I'm keen to address. I really do think that the way Wikipedia treats ceremonial counties, although surely developed with good intentions, has ultimately only confused things further.

The current administrative areas and the historic counties seem like the natural entities to focus on, at least in the leads of articles about locations. Things like lieutenancy areas and shrieval counties can be mentioned in the body. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So let me just point this out for those saying HC still exist.

When was Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Cumbria, West Midlands County, Greater London, Herefordshire and Rutland created?

Between 1940s-1990s? All these are official counties metropolitan or unitary authorities.

Rutland and Herefordshire are unique in being unitary authorities and counties with no districts or single unitary authorities other then the county council .

Now if we need to delve into hc boundaries let's try and keep it simple.

Do people who live in Manchester primarily southern and northern Manchester still identify with Cheshire or Lancashire? Same with Wirral and Liverpool. Cheshire and Lancashire? Older ones do but not younger ones.

Lancashire still exists in these counties through history and heritage but not local government. Like West Riding of Yorkshire still exists through historical but not local government.

West Yorkshire is one combined authority like Greater Manchester West Midlands County and Tyne and Wear.

But Cumbria and Lancashire are not they. One is a smaller shell of its former county and the other was formed from multiple counties and hundreds being Cumbria.

Cumbria and Humberside is there a comparison? Yes and no, Cumbria has not been abolished and still remains a county of ceremonial and higher lieutenancy like the Duchy of the House of Lancaster. But Humberside is long dead and buried but not its name in radio and local emergency services but the former settlements are back in Lincolnshire and East Riding of Yorkshire as unitary authorities.

So Westmorland and Furness and Cumberland are not counties but local authorities. Cumbria continues to exist the same as it did before being split only thing is the loss of its district's and boroughs as well as county council. But is Carlisle still the largest settlement and county town of the county and unitary authorities? Yes it is

Like Chester is for Cheshire despite the county being unitary authorities and Lancaster is for Lancashire despite Preston being the administrative centre and Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool being seperate unitary authorities.

Cumbria exists and that's the end of it. Not been abolished like Lancashire hasn't and Yorkshire but only changed.

DragonofBatley (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cumbria does exist, but now as a ceremonial county. My point is that ceremonial counties aren't that important, and so shouldn't be prominent in articles about English locations. Historic counties aren't important either, administratively speaking, which is why I wouldn't use them as a primary geographic frame of reference.

Local authorities are the best thing to use as the main geographic frame of reference for a place, because they're both important and current. Ceremonial counties aren't important and historic counties, for all their cultural value, aren't really current. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying that whether a county exists or not depends on whether or not local people “identify” with the county? That is just trying to introduce subjectivity to the discussion, and should be avoided entirely. This should be a factual website. Fact is… that historic counties were never abolished. They continue to exist. The Government has confirmed this. Fact. Whether you like it or not, historic counties exist and were not changed by local government reorganisations. This is a fact. It doesn’t matter how you decide to interpret ceremonial counties or administrative areas or whatever. Historic counties exist and were never abolished… Fact.

Besides, you generalise people and populations, which weakens your point greatly. Have you conducted a survey of how people identify to their counties, and correlate this to age groups? Just go to the places that you mention, and you’ll find that many many people still identify with their historic counties, regardless of age group. In many places around the country, such as East London (Essex) or Manchester/Liverpool (Lancashire), many people still identify with historic county boundaries. Similarly in Cumberland and Westmorland. But this subjective point should not even be a point in this discussion anyway.

Please keep to the facts. Acapital (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what are facts then? Local Authorities are not counties they are that. Authorities or local government. Counties which are historic might not have been abolished but they sure aren't fully recognised from a metropolitan and local government side.

Do we see for instance and here is fact not opinion, Greater Manchester Combined Authority use Cheshire, Lancashire or West Riding of Yorkshire when promoting the Greater Manchester area? No we don't, local councils will have websites or plaques dedicated to the settlement history and county changes but that's it.

Merseyside is another, does the wider Mayor of Merseyside call Liverpool Lancashire and Wirral Cheshire? No they do not but they would recognise the heritage and city history when part of Lancs. So Merseyside don't use Lancashire or Cheshire for their respective sides of the river Mersey like Warrington and Widnes are formerly Lancs but not Cheshire.

historic counties don't exist as solo entities anymore and if we really want to delve into Historic counties never changed, actually that's false as anything because they have.

Let me throw three examples both fact and proof HC are not defined:

1: Measham a village in Leicestershire, was once in Derbyshire but got moved to Leicestershire in 1897.

2: Bristol was once part of Gloucestershire and Somerset but became seperate from them when King Edward III made it a city and county in 1542 when it became seperate from Gloucestershire and Somerset. Nobody identifies as Gloucestershire or Somerset now.

3: Quite an established one, Newcastle upon Tyne became seperate of Northumberland in 1400. Became a city and county in its own right despite Gateshead North Tyneside and South Tyneside as well as parts of modern Northumberland built around the city. Now it's part of Tyne and Wear but was long a city before Bristol and other cities aside from York Canterbury Lincoln and Chester I assume among others.

But those three prove and actually contradict nicely that HCs are not well established and it doesn't matter if people argue hundreds of years etc.

Historic counties have always been subject to change like Manchester bought the land that now houses Wythenshawe. Salford became a city right opposite Manchester. Carlisle was a city and county before joining Cumbria and York and Lichfield with Coventry Birmingham etc were counties and cities before their modern counties.

Can we just keep it consistent and use Cumbria in the article leads. It's not too much to ask or do. Plus informative as people know more about the county and not places fully like Alston Keswick etc unless they been there. DragonofBatley (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least you partly recognise historic counties weren’t abolished. But more importantly, why do historic counties need recognition from local authorities (many of whom are not even named after counties, e.g unitary authorities)? Who cares what an authority thinks about geographical counties. They may be responsible for emptying the bins, but why does that mean they suddenly replace counties.

None of your examples actually helps to show the fact that historic counties do/do not exist. That’s a fact. Who cares what the Greater Manchester Combined Authority or Mayor of Merseyside decide to promote. If the media suddenly stopped referring to all news in London, does that mean London as a city ceases to exist? Nope.

On the other side, why do you not refer to what the Government publications promote? The Government have consistently reiterated and publicised the continued existence of historic counties. Why is that source ignored? Probably because it doesn’t agree with your subjective point of view! Acapital (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to remind you two (@DragonofBatley) that this discussion is primarily about the ceremonial counties and what to do with them. We can always deal fully with the historic counties later if it seems necessary.

You're also being a bit antagonistic toward each other. This is only Wikipedia, don't forget! A.D.Hope (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thats your interpretation of things (non factual but your entitled to the deer in headlights feeling). I actually want Cumbria to remain in the articles along with the UAs. There's my stance on the issue and to quote @A.D.Hope. I'm not being agnostic, I'm saying historic counties have changed and are not set in stone 🪨. There's my opinion. If either of you want to carry on engaging with me, I have a talk page but note it is monitored by some of the editors for context and help if I need it.

I won't discuss further on this topic cause I'm not up for both WP:Personal and WP:War. I'm gonna go back and readd Cumbria to articles that you took it off of when editing them and adding the new UAs for the county and other editors agree should not have been removed in the first place.

DragonofBatley (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input here, and for your work on the Cumbria articles. It is appreciated. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It would be nice if this RfC offered an example of an article in which a ceremonial county is "prominently" displayed. NickCT (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These discussions often fail to debate what is relevant for us WP editors. Whatever we use must be notable enough and be the majority used by reliable secondary sources. If there is rough equality between options we can then use our opinion on what and how to use those options. Londonderry=county and Derry=city is a simple and workable example of that. Lewisham is in the HC of Kent but to say would be wrong because that fact is not notable enough; Bromley is also in HC Kent, something that is notable enough, even if that notablity is only due to the postal address until 1996. Dover is unquestionably in HC Kent, and in all other versions of Kent. There are vast areas of England where the HC is not notable enough to warrant mention in WP. The local govt authority area is notable enough everywhere, even if it changes often. The ceremonial county isn't notable enough. Much of the repeated debate here is based on people's personal opinion. To insist the we should refer to Lewisham, Kent rather than Lewisham, London, is silly, but so is the insistence that HCs have been abolished. A far better word to use would be obsolete, where that is appropriate, such as with Lewisham. I am concerned at some entrenched personal opinions here which although understandable are not helping. For many people, any hint that two answers might be correct is impossible to handle: Lewisham and Bromley are in London or Kent, not in both! The two county name versions that appear to be the most notably used are the local govt area and the historic county. I think the best way forward would be to decide when and how best to refer to a place's HC in the article anywhere except the history section, where it probably should be used whatever. Mention of the HC in the infobox should be avoided because it will simply lead to edit wars about whether it is or is not relevant enough. The infobox should refer only to the local govt area. To end, the word historic in "historic county" does not mean in the past but not the present; it means having a rich history, which itself usually means having been in existence a long time. I am surprised this still confuses many editors. I notice the govt uses the term traditional county, which is clearer. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Reduce mention of ceremonial/historic counties - I'm strugglging to understand this debate. It seems like some kind of weird Brit thing (and you guys are weird). As I understand it, the question seems to be whether it's important to mention that a town used to be inside some county, whose borders were changed or which no longer exists. My strong feeling here is that the answer is no. What matters is where a place is today, not where it was years ago. Being part of some no longer extant jurisdiction is typically something to cover in the history or geography section. Not in the lead or the infobox. NickCT (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the issues NickCT, my friend. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry. I was looking for a simple example and you sorta gave a wall-of-text. I took your "Lewisham, Kent" to mean that Lewisham used to be in Kent, but is now in London. Is that not correct? NickCT (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'll try to explain things neutrally. Articles about English places currently tend to mention three things in their lead:
- The local authority. These are the current administrative areas used for local government.
- The ceremonial county. These are areas which lord-lieutenants are appointed to. The lord-lieutenant is the monarch's representative in an area.
- The historic county. These stopped being used for administration in 1889, but live on as cultural areas.
To give an example, here's the opening few sentences of the article on Sunderland. I've bolded the three areas:

"Sunderland (/ˈsʌndərlənd/ (listen)) is a port city in Tyne and Wear, England. It is the City of Sunderland's administrative centre and in the historic county of Durham."

In this example, Tyne and Wear is the ceremonial county (and the metropolitan county, but that's not helpful to get into here), the City of Sunderland is the local authority, and Durham is the historic county. It's current practice to put the ceremonial county first. If you have any more questions please just ask.

A.D.Hope (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is a little clearer to my now. Quite frankly, I'm still pretty firmly in the no camp. The significance ceremonial and historic counties is going to be totally lost on non-Brits (I wouldn't be surprised if it was lost on a lot of Brits as well). Seems like including this stuff at the top in the lead is just going to confuse folks. NickCT (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an American with a strong interest in geography and maps, I have a fair understanding of the location of traditional counties in the UK (better than Mexican or Indian states, not as good as US states or Canadian provinces), and am also aware that how the UK is divided into local government areas has changed over the years. Mention of the traditional county or ceremonial county would help me picture, in general, where in the UK a place is located. Mention of the local authority is less helpful to me. - Donald Albury 14:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any particular preference between the historic and ceremonial counties? Are you aware of the difference between them, if you don't mind me asking? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No preference. And, I am not as clear on the distinction between traditional and ceremonial counties as I should be. I suspect many Americans are less clear on the subject than I am. I will say that this discussion is about arcana that I suspect most non-UK editors do not worry about. Donald Albury 15:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In summary:
The historic counties haven't been administrative areas since 1889, but still have some relevance as cultural areas.

The ceremonial counties are the areas to which lord-lieutanants are appointed. Lord-lieutants are the King's representatives in a county, but this is a largely cermonial role.

The topic may be a bit obscure for non-UK editors, but it matters inasmuch as which is used will affect most articles about English places. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to understand the degree of relevance implied by "some relevance as cultural areas", note that I would be astonished if more than about 10% of under-40s living in Bournemouth know what historic county they're in. And if you asked "what county do you live in", the vast majority would name Dorset, the ceremonial county. Kahastok talk 15:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have a source on that I'm not sure it is worth noting. I would be interested in any studies about which county people in Bournemouth identify with, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There won't be any surveys. The same reason there's no surveys about whether the Pope is Catholic or whether the world is round. For everyone outside the fringe, the answer is obvious - that Bournemouth is in Dorset. Kahastok talk 15:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bournemouth is in the ceremonial county of Dorset, there's no dispute about that. My point is that the ceremonial counties are inappropriate to use as the primary way of locating an English place. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And my point is that they are better reflective of common usage and therefore more appropriate than any other method as the primary way of locating an English place. Kahastok talk 16:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes them appropriate? The ceremonial counties are only the areas to which lord-lieutenants are appointed, which is a minor function in the grand scheme of things. I don't think that makes them suitable to use as the main way of locating a place. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly this, agreed. Ceremonial counties have an insignificant role. Acapital (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly not this. Historic counties have been just that, historic, for over 130 years. Their function has been replaced by ceremonial counties in the understanding of the huge majority of people. That is why Slough is in Berkshire, not Buckinghamshire, that Bournemouth is in Dorset not where-ever, that Caversham (Reading) is in Berks, not Oxon. And so on and so on. The Lords Lieutenant and High Sheriffs of the various counties are mentioned regularly in local news. They are topical, real-world, here and now. If the infobox for a settlement needs a county, it should be the ceremonial one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The replacement you talk about over 130 years ago, was not even for the creation of the ceremonial counties, which were created in 1997 for the purpose of lieutenancies. So if you want to say that, what were the counties between 1888 to 1997? Besides, historic counties were never abolished, as confirmed numerous times by reputable sources. Slough is in Buckinghamshire, not Berkshire… etc. Acapital (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'historic' does not mean what you assume it means, JMK. I do hope this basic misunderstanding isn't the main cause of what is happening here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Using local authorities leads to oddities like Chester not being in Cheshire, Derby not being in Derbyshire and Nottingham not being in Nottinghamshire. It also means using areas that are little-known nationally (Widnes is in Halton), that are tautological (Derby is in Derby) or that are ostensibly wrong (Twyford is in Wokingham). In some cases, it does not resolve the question (is Buxton in Derbyshire or High Peak?, is Deal in Kent or Dover?) In some cases, local authority boundaries change frequently (Taunton has changed local authority twice in the past four years).
Of the two alternatives, the ceremonial county is likely to be better known and more useful as a geographical reference. The historical county is generally a trivia question, and also raises its own significant problems given just how many settlements straddle historical county borders. Kahastok talk 15:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of your examples strike me as odd:
- Chester is in the Cheshire West and Chester unitary authority
- Derby and Nottingham are in the City of Derby and City of Nottingham unitary authorities, respectively.
- Widnes is in the Borough of Halton.
- Twyford is in the Borough of Wokingham.
- Buxton is in both the Borough of High Peak and Derbyshire.
- Deal is in both the District of Dover and Kent.
- Taunton is in Somerset unitary authority.
These are all accurate descriptions of the local authorities those towns and cities are currently in, there's nothing particularly odd about them.
When it comes to things like 'Chester not being in Cheshire', my preference is to use the historic counties over the ceremonial ones. The ceremonial counties just aren't that important, while the historic counties were important for several centuries and still have roles as cultural units (albeit more prominently in some areas than others). The few settlements which straddle the historic borders aren't much of a problem, Todmorden currently explains this in a single sentence — 'The historic boundary between Yorkshire and Lancashire is the River Calder and its tributary, Walsden Water, which run through the town.' A.D.Hope (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, to confirm, you believe that we should act as though Derby is not in Derbyshire, Cheshire and Berkshire don't exist and everyone knows where Halton is.

And if we're going with historical counties, which are barely known by a large proportion of the population, we are going to have permanent edit wars over whether Bournemouth is in Hampshire or Dorset, whether Lewisham is in Kent or London or Greater London, whether Peterborough is in Cambridgeshire or Northamptionshire or both, whether Bristol is in Gloucestershire or Somerset or neither, whether Manchester is in Lancashire or Greater Manchester, whether Abingdon is in Oxfordshire or Berkshire, whether Stokenchurch is in Oxfordshire or Buckinghamshire and so on up and down the country.
On one side will be the locals who know what county they're in, thank you very much. On the other will be the Wikipedians who have decided to insist that what's important isn't the county they're in now but the county they were in 150 years ago. Kahastok talk 15:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking about the current administrative areas then yes, Cheshire and Berkshire don't exist and Derby isn't part of Derbyshire. Whether people know where the Borough of Halton is or not isn't much of an issue, because there will be a link to the article about the borough, just as there is now in the Widnes article. I'm not trying to be controversial, that's just how the local authorities currently are.

I doubt there will be edit wars, because the examples you list aren't particularly confusing. When talking about the historic counties:
Bournemouth is in Hampshire.

Lewisham is in Kent.

Peterborough is in Northamptonshire, although it would be worth mentioning the Soke somewhere.

Bristol is divided between Somerset and Gloucestershire, although it's worth discussing how to treat counties corporate.

Manchester is in Lancashire.

Abingdon is in Berkshire.

Stokenchurch would probably be considered Oxfordshire, although that would be a legitimate discussion.

The other areas you've listed aren't the historic counties those towns are in, so there's not much debate to be had on that basis. What you might have missed from further up the discussion is that the administrative areas would be the primary designation, so the historic counties would only ever be a secondary description. This is better than the current arrangement, where the fairly minor cermonial counties are the primary designation. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thereby you create precisely the situation I describe - where Wikipedia has decided to take the WP:FRINGE view that all the changes made to the counties in the past 150 years didn't really happen. Resulting in a situation where the county Wikipedia says a town is in is different from the county most of the townspeople think they're in. Kahastok talk 16:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the reason why the historic counties thing is never going to fly. I can't imagine the amount of friction it would cause if anyone actually tried to implement things like Birmingham is in Warwickshire etc. Please accept that this is never going to happen. G-13114 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Birmingham's article does say that it was historically in Warwickshire, at the start of the third paragraph. It must also be one of the few articles not to explicitly name the ceremonial county in the lead (probably because it's the same as the metropolitan county). A.D.Hope (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that the current administrative areas should be the primary areas used to locate English places, so I'm not ignoring the changes of the last 150 years at all. I'm arguably going further than the status quo, which is to use ceremonial counties based on the 1974 reforms.

If you want to argue that the ceremonial counties should continue to be used as secondary descriptors then by all means continue to make your case. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken here, the “new” administrative areas/ceremonial counties did not alter the boundaries of historic counties which continue to exist. The government themselves have confirmed and reiterated the continued existence of historic counties. Hence, there is a distinction between the types of counties, and this discussion is regarding which geographical basis should be used in locating settlements. It might be worth reading up about the different types of counties, before suggesting the locals knowing which county they’re in. Some of us “locals” know the distinction between the types of counties, and therefore we know that our county was not changed by the creation of administrative/ceremonial counties. Historic counties continue to exist. Acapital (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Exactly as you say: in your opinion. But in the real world, the Lord Lieutenant and Sheriff are important ceremonial posts in actual use today. These have real-world current relevance. The historic counties are just that, historic. Just like Hundreds. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the posts were important, which I don't agree they are, are the counties attached to them the most appropriate areas to use as the primary way of locating English places? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And you haven't said or done anything that demonstrates your case to the contrary. Kahastok talk 16:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing lack of agreement with lack of action. I've laid out my case quite a few times now. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
re "leads to oddities" - Doesn't seem super odd to me. Kansas City is not primarily in Kansas. There are probably a million examples of this kind of thing in lots of countries. NickCT (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes see past episodes of the TV show 'The Chase'. Where a UK place is located comes up regularly, either in a question, a contestant saying where they are from, or even something the presenter says. I have observed over time the total intermingling of the different meanings of 'county'. If the programme editors have any background control over what is said, it appears to be to avoid obvious confusion. It also looks as though there is an attempt made to keep 'county' for the historic counties, that now have no use except for cultural reference, and avoid using the word 'county' for legally created administrative areas. If this observation has any merit and if the programme is influenced by government pressure behind the scenes, it does look like there are initial steps being taken to sort of the mess created by the unrestricted use of certain terms, 'county' being the main one. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Intresting observation. Of course, for pretty much the entire rest of the world, a "county" is an administrative region. See my earlier comment about Brits being weird. Words like "county" or "country" mean different things to you guys.

You should stop acting like you invented the language or something. NickCT (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment. In fact this whole RFC belongs at WP:WikiProject UK geography, except that it has been proposed and dismissed there a number of times already, so why it is considered appropriate to bother the whole project with a local squabble seems borderline disruptive to me. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not every Wikipedian has an intricate knowledge of what has been discussed before, or where the perfect place to post a discussion is. It's worth bearing that in mind before making accusations of disruption. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: As WP:ENGPLACE is a section of this page and says "Where disambiguation is required, [[placename, ceremonial county]] is normally used.", this seems the right place to discuss that sentence. Those with no knowledge of, or interest in, UK placenames can read the title of the RFC and decide to read no further. PamD 23:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same thing at all.

To take the analogy though. Imagine that Kansas were explicitly the state of Kansas City. Imagine that the borders of Kansas were defined based on the fact that it was the state of Kansas City, and that Kansas City remained the capital of Kansas. Imagine if, when asked what state they lived in, residents of Kansas City wouldn't dream of saying anything other than "Kansas". Imagine if, when you watched the local or national news and Kansas City came up, or when you heard a traffic report for Kansas City, they would routinely treat Kansas City as part of Kansas. We're beginning to get to where Derby is in Derbyshire, except that we can go on, because, while modern Kansas City is in a separate state from Kansas, Derby is not in any county other than Derbyshire.

And before someone makes the point, no, that is not true of Abingdon and Berkshire, or Bournemouth and Hampshire, or Lewisham and Kent. Despite the fantasies of the Association of British Counties, it is the ceremonial counties that best reflect actual usage by real people.

That said, the above discussion is quite firmly in WP:IDHT territory and I see no need to repeat myself. Kahastok talk 21:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why must this discussion be so confrontational? What's the point of throwing a WP:IDHT accusation out there at the end? A.D.Hope (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer if I referred to it as bludgeoning the process? Kahastok talk 21:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, as that could be uncivil. I've been perfectly polite to you even though we disagree, you should extend the same courtesy. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have personally replied to every single message in this discussion that disagreed with your position, a position that you expounded upon in detail before anyone else posted anything. I suggest you go away and actually read WP:BLUDGEON before dismissing it because it describes your behaviour here pretty accurately.

And it is disruptive. It doesn't matter if it uses polite words - that's the whole point of sealioning after all. It's still disruptive.

We know what you think. You've told us. At length. Over and over again. Other people are allowed to comment and they are allowed to disagree with you. Kahastok talk 22:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely people are allowed to disagree with me, I've never disputed that at all. You've made plenty of comments yourself, so rather than get into a further argument why don't we both just leave this discussion alone for a couple of days? A.D.Hope (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in Connecticut. The town I was in could be said to be part of New England or sometimes the New York metropolitan area. I would never think to start an intro about my hometown with, "X is a town in New England", or "X is a town in the New York metro area". I would always say "X is a town in Connecticut". That's because Connecticut is largest sub-national administrative region in which my town was.

I don't understand why the same rules wouldn't apply to British towns. Why isn't Derby just a town in East Midlands?

Regardless, I actually think the real answer to this question is simply to reflect sources. The question we should all be asking is; do RSs more often introduce Derby by saying "A town in East Midlands" or "A town in Derbyshire"? Then we should just reflect that. NickCT (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an American, I am not sure what the specific distinctions are between the “Ceremonial” counties and the “historical” counties… but both are far more recognizable to me than the modern designations. All should be mentioned, but for disambiguation purposes I would opt for either ceremonial or historical. Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, it wouldn't make sense for WP too deviate from the norm regarding settlements vis-a-vis counties - that is, the ceremonial county is almost always the answer to a question about what county a certain settlement is in. I'll put money on it - if you ask the average person in Derby if their city is in Derbyshire, the answer would seem so obvious to them, i.e. that Derby is in Derbyshire, that you would likely make a mockery of yourself, irrespective of the fact that, yes, Derby is a county itself for administrative purposes, but not for ceremonial purposes, which is the much more commonly used "county" for geographical references. WP's national and international readership should also be considered - for example, whilst Ilkley is administratively part of the City of Bradford, to the average person in the South of England and the United States (for example), Ilkley and Bradford are worlds apart, so its easier to identify the town as part of West Yorkshire (the more widely known ceremonial county) than Bradford, which is likely seen by most people as an urban city, regardless of the outlying rural areas that it might administratively incorporate. So whilst I don't think that we should abandon the current usage of ceremonial counties as they're widely used for geographical references, I'm all for spreading awareness about local authority areas, as they are functionally more important than ceremonial counties, and do affect people's lives whether they're aware of it or not via council tax, highways, public health, social services, housing, school admissions, etc. The outlying towns and villages of the City of Bradford, City of Salford, City of Milton Keynes and Borough of Swindon may want nothing to do with the "cities" that administer them and much rather refer to their settlements using "Town/Village, County" but the influence of their respective councils shouldn't be ignored. As for historic counties, they make exist in people's hearts and minds and some government documents, but functionally they are defunct, and the modern ceremonial counties are much more relevant today. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think using the ceremonial county as the default county is the only real option. The local administrative area have names that are too variable and often not clear to a wider audience. The HC is excellent as the default in most cases but it falls over due to its having no relevance to vast population bases, such as Lewisham, Kent being in GL with almost no reference to being in Kent anywhere (unlike Bromley I hasten to add). However, the default reference county/big local area isn't the problem. The cause of these endless debates is the black and white treatment of counties as stated in the guidelines for treatment of counties. A town can obviously be in more than one region but some editors think that is an impossibility. The notion that Bromley could be in Greater London and Kent sets them off in perturbations. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing RfC on USPLACE

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Please could an admin close the Request for comment on USPLACE? – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 14:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CityUrbanism. I'm not an admin, but I can recommend WP:Closure requests as a way of doing what you want here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now closed by MelanieN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation for building names: commas or parentheses?

For articles about individual buildings (or building complexes), should a disambiguator be comma-separated or placed in parentheses? The guidelines don't address this case explicitly. I keep seeing both being used, even in recent page moves, so it's not clear to me if there is an established consensus or recommended practice on this.

Just a random selection of examples: parentheses are used in the disambiguated articles listed at Church of Santa María and Church of San Salvador, and most of the ones at Union Station, whereas comma-separation is used for the articles at Selimiye Mosque and most of the "presidential palace" articles (e.g. Presidential Palace, Helsinki and Presidential Palace, Warsaw, etc, but contrast with Presidential Palace (Nanjing)). Blue Mosque has examples of both (e.g. Blue Mosque, Istanbul and Blue Mosque (Amsterdam)), and for royal palaces that aren't disambiguated by "of X", there's examples like Royal Palace, Oslo and Royal Palace (Belgrade). And so on.

Feel free to let me know if I should ask this at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation instead, or if there's an earlier archived talk about this. Thanks for any advice, R Prazeres (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is country specific which convention is used. Keith D (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that commas are preferred for human places: suburbs, cities, states—those lines which we have imposed on our globes, and as opposed to natural geographies. I would put buildings into that category. I also recommend notifying WT:DAB of this discussion, as there are many people who spend more time thinking about this than I do. — HTGS (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I've just posted a notice at WT:DAB too. My rough impression is that comma separation would make the most sense too, but it seems less obvious than it is with states and settlements. R Prazeres (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is that WP:TITLEDAB suggests, but doesn't mandate, parentheses. Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title. Commas are preferred in certain situations such as administrative subdivisions: London, Ontario rather than London (Ontario). I don't see a guideline anywhere recommending commas for buildings, but then I don't see one explicitly recommending parentheses either. There may be exceptions if sources refer to the building using a comma to distinguish it, or if there is a big sign on the church gate reading "Welcome to the Church of Santa María (Ateca)". Certes (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally say comma but yes it seems most countries use brackets. In England for churches the location is often part of the common name but comma disambiguation is generally done for most buildings even if it isn't common usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another point in favour of comma is that a qualifier in parentheses generally describes the topic by naming a class of which it is a member, but commas don't. Santa Maria (building) is expected to be a building but San Lorenzo, Florence isn't expected to be a Florence. We can even use both forms, as in San Giorgio Maggiore (church), Venice. Certes (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, I prefer the comma, but I am happy with either, so long as there is a global standard. Blue Mosque, Istanbul and Blue Mosque (Amsterdam) is less than desirable. Shall we make the call? — HTGS (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wellll.... it's borderline, but OK. But what is pulling the trigger? A full-dress RfC? Herostratus (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles for censuses: country name or demonym?

I have proposed moving certain pages that are in subcategories of Category:Censuses by country. A disagreement has arisen as to whether country name or demonym is more appropriate. Contributors here may wish to comment. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for Pennsylvania townships?

Has any consensus emerged for the naming of Pennsylvania townships? I see two nonconclusive discussions from 2011 (mess a and mess b). A breakdown of how it stands now:

1472 with county disambiguator:
- 719 necessary for disambiguation
- 753 unnecessary for disambiguation, at least currently (surely some share names with former and/or renamed townships, but with rare exceptions, a hatnote would suffice)
75 without county disambiguator:
- 72 in form 'X Township, Pennsylvania'
- 3 home rule townships that questionably self-classify as different forms of municipality:

I don't have a particular preference between including the county by default, as with most other states (NJ being the only exception?), vs. excluding the county when possible, as Pennsylvania townships are somewhat unique and are used more in common parlance than those of other states. But I do see both options as vastly preferable to the current status quo (non-uniform, unilateral moves, often back-and-forth, while proposed moves get rejected due to the language on this page), in line with this page's language ("Any change in convention should be determined on a statewide basis."). Star Garnet (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that (because of "Any change in convention should be determined on a statewide basis." and WP:CONSISTENT) we need to settle this. I guess I would lean to laving the county off per WP:CONCISE, except where it is required for disambiguation from a non-township place of the same name (or another township of the same name in another PA county for that matter). Looking at how this sort of thing is handled elsewhere (e.g. placenames in Ireland, which may represent towns/cities, "townlands", parishes, civil parishes, baronies, or something else), we are not disambiguating them except as necessary. The average reader doesn't know what classification a place is or what county it's in before they get to our article about it, so "pre-disambiguating" them all by such a name is dubiously helpful. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For new township articles in Kansas, I use "NAME#1 Township, NAME#2 County, Kansas" for new township articles that I create, but what works best for Kansas may not be what works best for another state, because each state has different types of entities that were defined by each state government, per this U.S. Census Bureau document. My preference is townships and counties should have the word "Township" or "County" in their articles names to make it obvious they aren't a community (city / town / unincorporated community / ...), but I really don't know what's best for Pennsylvania thus is why I'm just passing along what I do and my thoughts, but I'm not going to vote nor mandate something for your state. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbmeirow:: That's great you're working on Kansas townships! I made quite a few of the base articles about 15 years ago but ran out of steam before getting through all of them. I think your pattern is the correct one for Kansas. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Orlady, ErikHaugen, Huwmanbeing, LtPowers, Dohn joe, Born2cycle, Bkonrad, Dicklyon, and InvadingInvader: Pinging the active editors from the discussion 12 years ago and a few others that have shown interest in an attempt to generate discussion at least. I also just saw that a village pump discussion occurred last month showing pretty broad support for a blanket change to the township-naming policy here. Star Garnet (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I would prefer concision over a long-winded form of consistency (i.e., don't add county unless necessary for disambiguation). And it would be better for PA and other jurisdictions to be treated similarly rather than doing something "magically special" for one US state. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Disambiguate only when necessary. Everywhere. Always. Simple. Consistent. —В²C ☎ 06:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that for townships the contrived consistency of always including the county name is not needed and these should only be further disambiguated beyond state name where needed. older ≠ wiser 10:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate only when necessary. Omit the county name if there is only one township of such name in the state. This is probably what will come about anyways because of the current state of affairs open the VPPR discussion, whichwould override the discussion here since it's a much broader consensus (see WP:Local consensus). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Include the county name only when necessary to avoid ambiguity, but also make generous use of disambiguation pages. A large share of the Pennsylvania township names that are used more than once are used in several counties, so a relatively small set of disambiguation pages (such as the ones for names like Jefferson, Jackson, and Washington Township) covers many of the dab instances and should effectively guide folks to the right place (assuming there's a disambiguation hatnote on each of the individual pages). Regarding disambiguation pages for PA, I think the Pennsylvania situation where the same unusual name is applied to a variety of different kinds of places makes it desirable to have generic disambiguation pages like Mahanoy. I am bothered to see that St. Clair, Pennsylvania has a hatnote pointing only to St. Clair, Blair County, Pennsylvania and not to a dab page that also covers the townships whose names incorporate "St. Clair" (Upper St. Clair Township, East St. Clair Township, West St. Clair Township, and possibly others). - Orlady (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Garnet:: Thanks for raising this for discussion; I definitely agree that having each state follow an agreed-upon pattern for its townships is far better than having them hodge-podge. Since townships vary so much from state to state (both in function and in how sources identify them), a single blanket rule for all probably wouldn't be successful, which is one reason WP:USPLACE advises that they be handled on a state-by-state basis.

I think WP:COMMONNAME is probably the most relevant factor to consider. Like you said, townships in some places may be identified as X Township, State, or sometimes X Town, State, little different in practice from how populated places like towns and cities are known. This seems most common in parts of the northeast. In such cases the townships also tend to be named more like actual towns: mostly unique across the state with only limited repetition. (In New Jersey, for instance, name repetition is only about 11%, or 28 out of 241.) Pennsylvania may fall into this category, but I haven't looked at it in detail; have you seen what sources tend to do?

On the flip side, there are a number of states where sources almost never identify townships without reference to their county, unlike the state's cities and towns. In part this seems to be because the townships are less prominent, to the point that many residents may not even know what township they live in, so when they're referred to at all it's as mere subdivisions of their counties. It's also due to the fact that using a township name without the county name simply wouldn't make sense due to the extremely high proportion of repeated names. In Ohio 65% are duplicated (884 of 1362); in Indiana it's over 70% (707 of 1008). If most need the county added no matter what, then it makes sense to add it for all as a matter of consistency, particularly if that's how they're commonly identified anyway. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the older discussions, I'm not sure I have any strong feelings either way. Including the county name for all townships seems to create unnecessarily long titles, but it does have the advantage of consistency given the number that need disambiguating. There are good arguments both ways and I don't know if there's any compelling logical way to decide between the two. Powers ^T 21:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]