Talk:Islip

Proposed merge from Islip, New York

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Islip. -- DarkCrow^Caw 15:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, there are two disambiguation pages, here and Islip, New York. The contents are almost identical, except Islip has two places of that name that do not happen to be in new york, and a "people" section. This is a situation that serves neither editors nor readers. I propose an immediate merge to Islip. --MegaSloth (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Oppose Keep Islip, New York - Islip, New York refers to a specific area of New York and currently has at least 250 incoming links. All of the New York hamlets, towns, airports all refer to the same jurisdcition that has a population of 322,000+. Islip, New York refers to a specific place. Moving it back to include England doesn't make sense. If somebody is looking for the England community they're not going to type Islip, New York.Americasroof (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages should not have incoming links; these need to be fixed. My point is that it will not inconvenience readers looking for places in New York one jot to see two extra links irrelevant to them, while having two separate pages means both must be maintained. If the Islip disambiguation page were larger, or were to become larger in the future, then it might make sense to use the current scheme or to change it to use double disambiguation. --MegaSloth (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I almost did it myself the other day before this proposal came up. It's standard Wiki practice to consolodate small "sub-disambiguation" or small redundant disambiguation pages such as this. It's wasteful to maintain two so similar disambiguation pages. Gjs238 (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It sounds like this a project that has been debated elsewhere to standardize. I do appreciate the good faith effort. This is definitely not as onerous as AFD debate. However, to me this flies in the face of common sense. Towns in the northeast which are the dominant local government outside of major cities are often used to identify fairly large geographical areas that often are not incorporated but which might have a local Census Designated Place identity. Some of those CDP's can be quite large population wise. Since the CDP's have no legal standing, they can be ambiguous. In any event when you refer to Islip, New York you are referring to a specific general area that has a legal standing. I suspect people will continue to write to Islip, New York when they don't know which specific location they are referring to. And this argument applies to all towns in the Northeast. It seems silly if a person is looking for a New York community that they have to look at a disambig page for England (this same argument applied when I saw a simliar effort made on East Hampton and Saugerties). Americasroof (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - it's against the standard in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) for United States placenames S a g a C i t y (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see any problem with merging the two pages. To have two nearly identical pages is wasteful and redundant. However, "Islip, New York", is not a specific place. "Islip, New York" normally pertains to the hamlet, which is unincorporated, but can also refer to the much larger township. The fact that the township and hamlet have the same name has been a source of confusion for as long as I can remember. Greatsouthbay (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islip, New York is a specific place and a legally incorporated place under NY state law, it is a town, the hamlet is unincorporated. Policy and guidelines are quite clear regarding that there be a disamb page for Islip, New York as it would be the name of specific places that readers would be searching for.Camelbinky (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2010 (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.