Talk:The Bronx/Name and capitalization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:The Bronx  (Redirected from Talk:The Bronx/Name)
Jump to: navigation, search
  • This page consolidates several discussions about the name of the Bronx (or The Bronx, or just Bronx)

They are drawn from talk pages and subpages of Bronx/the Bronx (or The Bronx, an alternative capitalization), and include several useful references.

¶ from History of the Bronx:[edit]

(See History of the Bronx.)

Origins and name of The Bronx[edit]

The Bronx was called Rananchqua[1] by the native Siwanoy[2] band of Lenape (the Delawares to Europeans), while other Native Americans knew the Bronx as Keskeskeck.[3] It was divided by the Aquahung River.

Jonas Bronck (ca. 1600–1649), a Swedish sea-captain working for the Dutch, entering New Netherland in 1639, became the first recorded European settler in the area. He leased land from the Dutch West India Company on the neck of the mainland immediately north of the Dutch settlement in Harlem (on Manhattan island), and bought additional tracts from the local tribes. He eventually accumulated 500 acres (about 2 square km, or 3/4 of a square mile) between the Harlem River and the Aquahung, which became known as Bronck's River, or The Bronx. Dutch and English settlers referred to the area as Bronck's Land.[4] The American poet William Bronk is a descendant of Pieter Bronck, either Jonas Bronck's son or younger brother.[5]

The Bronx is referred to, both legally,[6] and colloquially,[7] with a definite article, as The Bronx. (The County of Bronx, unlike the coextensive Borough of the Bronx, does not place the immediately before Bronx in formal references, nor does the United States Postal Service in its database of Bronx addresses.)[8] The name for this region, apparently after the Bronx River, first appeared in the Annexed District of the Bronx created in 1874 out of part of Westchester County and was continued in the Borough of the Bronx, which included a larger annexation from Westchester County in 1898. The use of the definite article is attributed to the style of referring to rivers.[9][10] Another explanation for the use of the definite article in the borough's name is that the original form of the name was a possessive or collective one referring to the family, as in visiting The Broncks, The Bronck's or The Broncks'.[11]


  1. ^ "Bronx History: What's in a Name?". New York Public Library. Retrieved 2008-03-15. The Native Americans called the land Rananchqua, but the Dutch and English began to refer to it as Broncksland. 
  2. ^ "Harding Park". New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Retrieved 2008-03-15. 
  3. ^ Ellis, Edward Robb (1966). The Epic of New York City. Old Town Books. p. 55. ISBN 0786714360. 
  4. ^ Hansen, Harry (1950). North of Manhattan. Hastings House. OCLC 542679. , excerpted at The Bronx... Its History & Perspective
  5. ^ [1]
  6. ^ See, for example, New York City Administrative Code §2–202
  7. ^ See, for example, references on the New York City website
  8. ^ "ZIP Code Lookup". United States Postal Service. Note that the database also does not use punctuation, and other articles (like the) to improve automated scanning of addresses. 
  9. ^ Lloyd Ultan, Bronx Borough Historian, letter to William F. Buckley, Jr. in "Notes & Asides", National Review, January 28, 2002, retrieved on July 3, 2008.
  10. ^ Steven Hess, "From The Hague to the Bronx: Definite Articles in Place Names", Journal of the North Central Name Society, Fall 1987.
  11. ^ Rev. David J. Born, letter to William F. Buckley, Jr. in "Notes & Asides", National Review, January 28, 2002, retrieved on July 3, 2008.

¶ from Talk:Bronx/Archive 1:[edit]

(See Talk:Bronx/Archive 1)

Bronx County and Borough[edit]

Bronx County and Bronx are now the same article, because they talk about the same place. WhisperToMe 18:30, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Bronx or the Bronx[edit]

I don't agree with replacing "the Bronx" with "The Bronx." Common usage dicates that when talking about the Bronx in the middle of the sentence (like I just did in this sentence), "the" is not capitalized. This is the same as talking about the United States. I'm tempted to revert immediately, but would like some feedback first. --BaronLarf 22:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

My initial reaction was to agree with "The Bronx", but a few google searches changed my mind; I now agree with BaronLarf; it should be "the Bronx". All of the NY Times, the NYC Government, and the US Census bureau seem to use "the Bronx" (except, of course, at the beginning of a sentence). Try searching for "in the bronx", for example. --RoySmith 00:45, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Of course the correct usage is "the Bronx" (lower case "t") if in the middle of a sentence; likewise "the Bronx River", etc. I am changing all of the incorrect "The"s to "the" - don't know why it wasn't done yet. Capitalizing "the" in the middle of a sentence is moronic and is never done. Tvoz 06:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to the Bronck's. I'm going to the Bronx.HardyandTiny 07:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyandtiny (talkcontribs)


Either have this at The Bronx or Bronx County, New York, not Bronx. --Jiang 11:22, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"The Bronx" or the "Bronx" : Citation needed? Rename?[edit]

Per #The Bronx or the Bronx above, I've placed a citation-needed tag within ¶2 as it doesn't seem clear whether "Bronx" or "The Bronx" is the "official borough name"; visiting some of the external links provided plus the first few Google results suggests to me that if there is an official borough name, it's more likely to be "Bronx".

Results from the US Geological Survey's website [2] and from the US Census Bureau's website [3] (NB ACS: 2003 ACS Narrative Profile for Bronx Borough) seem to suggest the same.

In lieu of any official citation otherwise, therefore, perhaps the article ought to be renamed to "Bronx" or "Bronx County" while ensuring (1) redirects are in place; and (2) references along the lines of the above (or, preferably, something (even) more official) are included. "The Bronx" may then be described as a recognized moniker. Thanks in advance for any clarification, David Kernow (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
PS Many (most? all?) of the articles on neighborhoods etc seem to use "Bronx" rather than "The Bronx" in their names.

Your ps is correct. The people who write neighborhood list articles tend to like official names. But this encyclopedia is not prescriptivist. Local usage says that they are wrong, no matter what the first three google links say. The signs on the highway say "Welcome to the Bronx" and I'll hunt down as many refs as you would like for local usage. Jd2718 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me it is "The Bronx". Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 03:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jd2718 and Pacific CH for your input; I've rephrased the article's opening in an attempt to clarify the situation and include a <ref>; hope it's acceptable. Best wishes, David (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Local usage is absolutely inclusive of the word "the" before "Bronx" (capitalized or not is another matter). No doubt about that. However, I don't think that makes anyone who claims an "offical", "prescriptivist", name for the borough (or the county) as simply "Bronx" as wrong. Further, not to get too "Miracle on 34th Street" on everyone, but the US Postal Service considers the name to be "Bronx, New York". Shoreranger 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • New York City has 5 boroughs (Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island). It also has 5 counties, which correspond one-to-one with the boroughs (New York County, Bronx County, Kings County, Queens County, and Richmond County). Staten Island says in the beginning of the article is article is about the borough in New York City. Bronx says, "Bronx" and "Bronx County, New York" redirect here.. The lack of uniformity makes it hard to figure out what the right answer is. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This article should be renamed for two reasons: 1) The official name of the Borough is "Borough of the Bronx," (as distinguished from "Borough of Brooklyn" "Borough of Manhattan" etc.), as seen here in this pdf planning document from the Bronx Borough President's office. 2) Even if 1) were otherwise, this debate goes beyond what is the "official" name listed on some dusty ledgers somewhere and into what is understood in common American culture. Everybody knows that the place is and has been called "The Bronx" in common parlance and in literature and pop culture for generations. To eliminate the "The" in the title is to follow the rule book out the window. People who are unfamiliar with New York but see or hear "the Bronx" in innumerable novels, newspaper and magazine articles, TV shows, movies, websites, etc., will be a little confused by the absence of the definite article from the title. The Interloafer 04:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I couldn't be in any stronger agreement that the article should be moved back to "The Bronx". Alansohn 04:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I was shocked to the "the" dropped from the title of this entry. Nobody ever says "I'm going up to Bronx." or "I'm from Bronx." You say "I'm going up to the Bronx." and "I'm from the Bronx." We should change it back. futurebird 04:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with above comments. Should be renamed. (and then maybe talk about get neighborhoods in Queens renamed, per local usage, Jamaica, NY, etc) Jd2718 04:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, an informal poll of New Yorkers at livejournal favors "The Bronx" futurebird 17:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

BrooklynBen is a native New Yorker who went to school in The Bronx. Without question the word "the" should be placed in front of "Bronx." The legal name of the borough is "The Bronx" and you can find that on any official New York map or resource, such as < > or < >. Whether you capitalize "The" is mid-sentence is debatable, but I certainly would. The name of the borough is The Bronx.--BrooklynBen (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Page Move[edit]

Didn't we talk about this? Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 00:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (2008)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The BronxBronx — This has been moved back and forth now, so a proper debate is warranted. Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear about the usage of when to use definite articles (the) in the name of articles. Only when the word "the" is part of the official name (eg The Hague) should it be used. When in doubt, "the" should be avoided.

Precedents listed on the guideline page include: Middle East, not The Middle East, White House, not The White House, and Netherlands, not The Netherlands. Note all of these examples refer to terms where "the" always precedes them. Thus, the argument that one would never say "I'm going to drive over to Bronx" doesn't hold. You would always say "I'm flying to the Middle East" or "I'm taking a tour of the White House" as well, but those articles drop "the" from the title.

So the only question is to what extent "The Bronx" is official. And I would point to several sources that indicate it is not: this map, where "the" is not even shown, this page where "the" is used but often with a lower case, NOT upper case, and on the official NYC government site, "Bronx" again is listed at the top without "the". So to conclude, although the borough is usually called "the Bronx", it is not unlike any of the examples above where "the" is still omitted from the title. —Bssc81 (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support as nom, as per reasons above. Bssc81 (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per well-written and well-referenced nom. (Well done!) JPG-GR (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Use standard term used to reference to location. Alansohn (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Did you read any of the arguments I listed? If we included "the" in all "standard terms" where it's normally included, we'd have to rename tons of articles (like the ones I listed above, plus move to The Punisher, The Eiffel Tower, The United States, etc. You get the picture. While "the Bronx" is the common name, so are these examples listed, but Wikipedia drops "the" for all of them. Bssc81 (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Ever receive mail from the Bronx? The bottom line reads "Bronx, NY." Oh, by the way, per WP:NCD, too, just like with the Ukraine, the Crimea, and the Sudan. — AjaxSmack 07:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • US Postal Service can (and does) call post offices by any name they choose and has no value as "proof" of a proper name. Half of New Jersey has post office addresses that doesn't match the municipality name or is that of a neighboring municipality, just one example of common practice by the USPS. The value of this mailing address information is probably even lower on the worthlessness scale than exegesis from the text of a visitor's bureau map. Alansohn (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I wasn't speaking of the US Postal Service official usage. I was referring to what residents of the Bronx write on the bottom of their return address on their mail.— AjaxSmack 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
        • That's the form they are required to use by the US Postal Service. Incidentally, the postal usage is referring to "Bronx County" (which never uses "the"), not the borough of "The Bronx".--Pharos (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Abstain I see good arguments in both directions. But FWIW, as long as AjaxSmack brought it up -- my Ukranian students (recent immigrants) forcefully tell me that no one in "Ukraine" says "The Ukraine" -- I've had to train myself out of the habit. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC) former The Bronxite.
I reluctantly move from Agnostic to Support, in part to move past this endless discussion and in part to follow WP:MOS. Part of me feels we ought to alternate the two headings each week, with a redirect to the other spelling, but perhaps this isn't serious enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellagio99 (talkcontribs) 14:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Follow official local usage, which despite a couple of deviations on some city tourism website, is quite clear. Compare The Hague.--Pharos (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • So what do you think about The Netherlands, The White House and The Middle East?Bssc81 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The White House and the Middle East are not official geographical entities, so they're not relevant at all. The Netherlands is more analogous, but local usage in Dutch is not to use the definite article.--Pharos (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Of course they are relevant. It's all about usage, and in that context "the Bronx" is no different from "the Middle East". It doesn't matter than the Middle East is not an "official" geographic entity. Notice also that many other articles using "Bronx" in their names, such as Bronx Zoo and Bronx River, despite always referred to as "the Bronx Zoo" and "the Bronx River" do not include "the". Bssc81 (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I assert that it does matter when the official local authority makes usage plain. You can cherry-pick a map from some city tourism website, but by far the most important map, the one consulted by millions of New Yorkers everyday, is the official MTA New York City Subway map. "The Bronx" is as plain as day; but the "Bronx Zoo" (quite rightly) has no article; there is indeed a difference.--Pharos (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm not going to get into a debate about "cherry picking" and what source is more "important". I'll just note that the numerous sources I listed also included the NYC government's own name for the place. The subway map, I hate to tell you, is not the be all and end all arbiter. Despite this, I will also once more say that none of this negates the fact that Wikipedia standards suggest it should not be in the title, for reasons listed already. Those reasons likely have led the vast majority of other language Wikipedia sites to leave the word "the" (however it is translated) off their titles: eg: here. In any case, I'm happy to wrap up this debate and let the officials decide at this point. Bssc81 (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose "The Ukraine" "The Hague" "The Argentine" "El Salvador" are proper names not formed from common nouns. They get individual treatment, not according to editors, but according to usage (in English), according to government request (Ukraine), to traditional usage (El Salvador). The usage may also change over time (The Argentine). But editors are not here to make changes in usage. Every river is referred to in English as "The X River" but written up as X river. But few cities and named places carry the "the." It is distinctive, unusual, and reflects, in the face of pressure to make names conform, very strong local pressure to retain the "the." It should stay. Jd2718 (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your references to "The Ukraine", "The Hague" and "El Salvador" as it pertains to Wikipedia or this argument. In any case, The Hague, as a few people have noted, is a special case where "Hague" by itself is never proper, because it comes from the English translation of the Dutch Den Haag, where "Den" is always capitalized. Such is not the case with the Bronx. Bssc81 (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
      • My argument, simply, is that politics, usage, history, these determine names. Not wikipedia editors and our conventions. The Real World doesn't always conform. Jd2718 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support because as mentioned below you would not capitalize "The" in the middle of a sentence. Songs of ts steiner (talk) 19:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per very persuasive (and accurate) nom. MovieMadness (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Abstain - my own personal (not grounded in specific policy) beliefs support the move, but to be honest getting the article to GA is more important than the difference between two very similar names. EJF (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
  • I just wanted to add this template above. Now that I see what arguments have been presented against moving the page, I immediately regret starting this poll (for reasons well-documented under WP:POLLS). I hope any administrator who views this page will see the two opposing arguments (as of this post) as seriously flawed.

First, the argument that "Use standard term used to reference to location" - which completely ignored my arguments above that highlight the common use of the word "the" not necessitating inclusion in the article title (see numerous precedents above.)

Second, the argument that we should "Follow American usage, and rewrite the guideline." First of all, "The Bronx" is not unequivocally "American usage". I've pointed out a number of examples where "the" was dropped. And, more importantly, even if it were, that is not a reason to "rewrite the guideline". As noted, there are way too many precedents to have to change from a guideline change to even consider the idea that "American usage" (which this is not in any case) should overrule. I don't know the exact Wikipedia rule that would violate but I'm sure one exists. Bssc81 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Our guidelines are ways to implement our policies. Our naming convention, which is policy, says to do what English does; if it varies, the local dialect of English should be followed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
That page also says only to use "the" when it would be capitalized in the middle of the sentence. "I went to The Bronx" is nonstandard, as a Google search will indicate. Bssc81 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Please look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#Official names, which is the specific naming convention appropriate for official names. "The Bronx" is heavily used by official sources e.g. [4], [5], [6] (in addition to "the" uncapitalized). By the way, you appear to be unaware that Goggle search does not technically distinguish between upper-case and lower-case letters at all--Pharos (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's ignore for a second that your first two "sources" are the same source, and that the third one is from a book from almost 100 years ago. I have posted my own sources so there's no point in arguing whose sources are more "official". To your other comment, I'm not "unaware that a Goggle (sic) search does not technically distinguish between upper-case and lower-case letters at all". I went through several of those sites and discovered that "the" is used in the lower-case in the vast majority of times (including on this Wikipedia article!) No point in sparring any more, just wanted to point that out. Bssc81 (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, my. Looking above, it appears that the first time I chimed in on this debate was over 3 years ago. Are we still arguing about the same thing? Time to move on, folks. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Capitalization of "the"[edit]

The article was inconsistent in its capitalization of the "the" in "the Bronx". Sometimes, in the middle of a sentence one would find "The Bronx" and other times "the Bronx". I expect there are strong opinions on both sides. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style says:

"Proper names of institutions (for example, the University of Sydney, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, George Brown College) are proper nouns and require capitalization. Where a title starts with the, it typically starts with lowercase t when the title occurs in the middle of a sentence: a degree from the University of Sydney."

This is disputed apparently, but until there is a consensus to change it, this is probably a sensible approach to a standard for the article. If the Manual changes, then capitalizing "the" would make sense. Ground Zero | t 20:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Look over the earlier discussions of this topic. The consensus was (like your own view), not to capitalize "The" in "the Bronx" in the middle of a sentence without good reason unless the capitalized "The Bronx" was in the middle of a quotation. Apart from the Bronx itself, the only exception that comes immediately to my mind is in the names of newspapers and periodicals, like The Economist and The New York Times. Shakescene (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

¶ from Talk:The Bronx (as of October 30, 2010)[edit]

This archives the naming sections of Talk:Bronx/Talk:The Bronx as it was October 30, 2010, after the page had been moved back to The Bronx. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


I'd like to know (and really think it would be interesting to include) the reason why the Bronx is always preceded by the definite article "the" as if it were a noun. Names and placenames normally don't take an article; eg "I visited the Manhattan" would be wrong. OTOH "I visited Bronx" (without "the") seems more natural to me but perhaps it would sound wrong to Americans. Certainly it would be appropriate to include an explanation on why (the) Bronx is an exception to this rule. pictureuploader (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because it is named after a river? pictureuploader (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
It's called "The Bronx" because it was named after one of the first settlers in the area, Jonas Bronck. The Bronx River was named after him, and then the area -- which makes sense when one thinks of "going to the Bronck's". Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Rename (2010)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. The "common name" arguments against the move are misguided, since Wikipedia habitually omits definite articles in article titles (as noted by Good Olfactory and Jafeluv). Ucucha 19:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The BronxBronx — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:TITLE this needs to be moved back to Bronx. Mcorazao (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Question What about The Gambia? (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Its common name is the Bronx. (I considered inserting the {{lowercase title}} template, because that is the proper capitalization.) Acps110 (talkcontribs) 23:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The name of the place is "The Bronx". It's coextensive with "Bronx County", which is the correct name of that entity. Nothing to do with regional pride, and everything to do with calling a place what it is called, it's common name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
For instance, in the authoritative The Encyclopedia of New York City, edited by Kenneth T. Jackswon, and published by Yale University Press, in the article on the area, it is consistently referred to as "the Bronx" (no cap on the "T" of "the"). Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Although the name of the article in that encyclopedia is simply "Bronx". Station1 (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. There seems to be a basic misunderstanding about how WP treats leading "the"s in common names. Other users are correct that it's "the Bronx" in written text and phrases, but we simply don't include preceding "the"s in almost all cases for placenames: Netherlands, Northwest Territories, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, Bahamas, Cook Islands, Solomon Islands, etc. (The Gambia is an exception because when "Gambia" is used alone it refers to the river.) Unless the "the" is capitalized in all contexts, as it is with The Gambia, it should not be included in the WP name. We don't write, "I'm from The Bronx"—it's "I'm from the Bronx". Just like we write, "I'm from the Netherlands", not "I'm from The Netherlands". Thus, we need to omit the leading "the" in the article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Good Ol’factory, as he stole beat me to the argument. — ξxplicit 03:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The 'the' is both part of the common name as well as part of the legal name of the borough. 'I'm from Bronx' (to use the example above) is neither used not correct while, I think anyway, it is not uncommon to hear someone say 'I'm from Netherlands'. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That kind of misses the point. The point is that the "the" in "the Bronx" is not habitually capitalized, and in such cases, we routinely omit leading "the"s. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
      • The point is that the Bronx doesn't go without the the. Therefore wikipedia shouldn't drop the the either. MOS or routine notwithstanding. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
        • But that would be quite a major departure from both the MOS and WP practice. Why should this one be different? It sounds to me like this may be a matter of a desire for some sort of exceptionalism, for whatever the reason. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
          • It is useful to note that MOS is a guideline. Guidelines should not be followed blindly. In this case, there is the WP:UCN policy that says we should use the common name as the title (policies are stricter rules than guidelines) and, imao, there is the WP:UCS essay that is also applicable. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
            • And lest we forget, WP:There is no common sense. One man's common sense is another man's idiocy. And guidelines almost always result in the right move. A pretty strong case has to be made to depart from it, and all we really have here is "this is the common name", which completely misses the point regarding leading "the"s in article titles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
              • Ah, but you need a much stronger case to depart from policy. And the common name is 'the Bronx'. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
                • Of course it is. But that doesn't mean the article is called "The Bronx". You are misinterpreting how the policy of "common name" interacts with the standard practice of leading "the"s. The common name is "the Cook Islands"—that doesn't mean we include the "the" in the article name. We can't isolate one policy and simultaneously ignore how that policy is almost always implemented in practice in other similar cases. Unless there's something special about the Bronx which would warrant special treatment—which there is not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
                  • I think you're overstating the importance of 'practice'. Generally, an article title should be in consonance with its common reference and the Bronx is commonly known as the Bronx. Why would we want to drop a part of the common name of an entity just because that part happens to be 'the' merely to satisfy a guideline or to be overly hidebound over practice? --RegentsPark (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
                    • Because we always do it, as does almost every other major encyclopedic work. It's not being "hidebound" to practice, it's just being consistent within WP and within the general style of encyclopedic works in the English language. I have yet to see an explanation as to why the Bronx would be treated differently in this regard, apart from a general attack of the general practice. If we accept that it is the general practice, then let's hear some arguments about why the Bronx is special or should be treated differently. This is not really the forum to decide that the general practice is a bad idea in general. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Common name contains "The". Húsönd 00:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:TITLE. Postal address is "Bronx, NY" (cf. The Dalles). Also refer to User:Good Olfactory's examples above. — AjaxSmack 01:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if 'postal address' is a good argument. Note that Manhattan postal addresses are 'New York, NY' but we haven't renamed the Manhattan article as 'New York'. Also, districts in Queens don't use 'Queens' in their postal addresses (Flushing, NY is in Queens, but you wouldn't know that by the postal address).
I wasn't arguing that postal names should establish titles. I was pointing out common usage without the article and comparing and contrasting it with other examples. Sorry I didn't make that clear. — AjaxSmack 16:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose When I was a boy many years ago, Mr Panzick my 7th grade teacher beat into us that it was "The Bronx". Mr. Panzick was/is always right. Therefore, I honor his memory and wisdom by Opposing. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Of course it's always "the Bronx". You would never say "I'm from Bronx", just as you would never say "I'm from Netherlands". However, as documented at WP:THE, we only use the definite article in the beginning of an article title if the title is usually capitalized in running text. As has been shown above, the common name is not "The Bronx", but "the Bronx". For this reason, the correct article name is just Bronx. Jafeluv (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

legal name of the borough or county[edit]

By City law, the borough is "The Bronx", spelled with a capital "T". Administrative Code of the City of New York, § 2-202 & subdivision 2 ($$ADC2-202$$@TXADC02-202+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=06297916+&TARGET=VIEW (as accessed Jul. 31, 2010)). Subd. 6 refers to "the Bronx" and so does § 2-104 (and probably other provisions) but § 2-202 is the defining provision and subd. 2 defines its boundaries. See also § 2-201 ("The Bronx"). In the City Charter, also titled New York City Charter, as amended through July 2004 ( (as accessed Jul. 31, 2010)), which is the City's equivalent of a Constitution, only § 2 is germane and it isn't specific enough.

I didn't find in the state Constitution or statutes a definition of the county. They refer to "Bronx", but that's not a definition.

Conclusion: The county is "Bronx" and the borough is "The Bronx".

This is germane to very recent edits to the article.

Nick Levinson (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's been my understanding, from the odd official documents or statements I've seen: "The Borough of the Bronx" and "The County of Bronx"; cf. "The Borough of Brooklyn" and "The County of Kings" [— and the king of counties?]. See the discussions at various sections of Talk:The Bronx/Archive 1 about this and about whether to capitalize "T" in the middle of sentences (the consensus was not to capitalize T mid-sentence).
The tricky point, on which I'm far from 100% certain myself, is how best to convey the differences to the first-time reader. Boldfacing "The" might help point out the distinction, but, as the editor who removed boldface might easily argue, it doesn't follow Wikipedia's practice in The United States of America and The Netherlands. However, The Gambia in both title and boldfacing, is a strong argument on the other side (i.e. the recent renaming was over-hastily executed where no consensus was visible.)
[There's a parallel, though different, problem at the article on Manhattan which covers not only the coextensive County of New York, but also to Manhattan Island, which has different, shorter bounds. When someone undid the boldfacing of New York County and Manhattan Island, I reverted since they're equally subjects of that article, but I wish there were a cleaner way of indicating the topics definitively covered by an article.] —— Shakescene (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I like what's in the lede of the Bronx article now, which gives both forms and then uses "the Bronx" in running text. In cases of nontrivial confusion, giving all the forms and their explanations or references in a sentence in the lede or first section is a good solution. For example, The Columbia Encyclopedia (Columbia Univ. Press, 5th ed. 1993 (ISBN 0-395-62438-X)) begins one entry thus: "China, Mandarin Zhonghua renmin gongheguo [central glorious people's united country; i.e., people's republic], country . . . ." (Boldface, italics, and brackets so in original.) I would include not only definitions from organic law but also definitions from outsiders likely to cause people, especially natives, to arrive at other formulations, such as those from history and those from external naming authorities (e.g., U.N. for nations and national naming authorities for localities) and postal authorities. For example, the U.S. Postal Service about a decade ago started insisting that every community in Queens be known simply as "Queens" and threatened to withdraw advertising from a local community newspaper that didn't go along with the renaming. A lot of Queens communities are married to their local names. On the other hand, I wouldn't consider how FedEx or UPS assign routes to their garages since no one outside of those companies is likely to be influenced by that.
As to the law defining Bronx, I'm still mystified that I didn't find better. It's hard to believe that the law is "we know what we mean". Whole states have sued each other in the U.S. Supreme Court over border disputes, nations have gone to war over them, and modern title deeds are much more specific these days (a rumor is one once said, "Start where old Jake shot the cow . . . ."). Three possibilities are that there's a state regulation, perhaps having to do with elections and legislative apportionment, filling in what the state Constitution and statutes omit, that there's case law from adjudication in a state court, perhaps depending on a document that predated the state's first constitution, and that the process of incorporating the county (whatever incorporating means and whenever that was) included writing up exactly what got incorporated. But I'll have to leave all that to other editors. Anyway, as noted, I like what's in the lede now. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving the page[edit]

If this page is going to be moved back to The Bronx, we definitely need a new formal discussion, since it was recently moved to its current page as a result of a discussion (see the section two above this one). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this thankless work! Be bold, but check first, might be the new WPedia motto. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I see people referring to The Gambia, but could someone address why we're not spelling The Bronx like The Hague, as the editor who (prematurely) moved it said? -- (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Reading your question more carefully, I see that you're asking why "the" in "the Bronx" isn't capitalized in the middle of a sentence, which is a slightly different issue. This was discussed (and documentation offered), with a consensus favoring lower-case in the middle of sentences, at Talk:Bronx/Archive 1#The Bronx or the Bronx and Talk:Bronx/Archive 1#"The Bronx" or the "Bronx" : Citation needed? Rename?. I think that many editors, including myself, waver between the two (at least in our minds), but, since there is an established consensus, stick to lower-case "the Bronx" in this article and related ones for the sake of consistency, when not directly quoting from an outside source that uses "The Bronx" (or, for that matter, "Bronx" without an article) mid-sentence. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

While of course always open to persuasion, I'm on the side of moving this back to The Bronx, but since significant numbers of editors can be found on either side of this issue, it should be discussed first. Discussions in earlier years, fairly firmly although not unanimously, established The Bronx as the consensus. I think that the more recent change back to Bronx was founded on a smaller sample of editors and comments, that looked more like "No Consensus" (which keeps the status quo), and was therefore much too hasty. [By way of comparison, most editors at New York City ardently desire that New York not automatically direct to the state, but because a long discussion there produced no consensus, it is stuck that way until and if what I consider a more sensible consensus prevails. See Talk:New York City.] So whenever the time is ripe for another discussion (we don't want to switch back and forth several times a year), I'd certainly support one. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear 108, It HAS been discussed several times before, and I agree with Shakes, The Bronx predominanted. But as life is short, I will just point you to read the archives, vote for The Bronx when asked, but otherwise try to butt out and focus on more important issues such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Yours in Wikipedia. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The Bronx is the better choice (per WP:UCN). Unfortunately, we have many editors who are ardent believers in MOS! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy, screw what the majority says or !votes. The only thing that matters is what is the official name of the jurisdiction. Unfortunately, unless I am mistaken the county is Bronx, but the borough is The Bronx... am I correct in that? If so that leaves us at an impasse, if I am incorrect and both officially have the same name (and I know the county name does not have "the" in it) then it goes by the official name, end of discussion. Common person on the street can call it "shithole" for all Wikipedia cares, WP:UCN does not generally apply to something that is already in English and has an official name so readily available, I believe it should apply more to foreign-name places and in place of official bureaucratic names (eg- Kentucky instead of Commonwealth of Kentucky). As an aside- redirecting New York from the state is a BAD idea and would never get a consensus of those of us that work on the state article and other upstate-related articles regardless of what consensus could get reached on the city article talk page. It is unfortunate that the official name of both IS New York (there are no such entities as New York State or New York City), complain to the English. Maybe Parliment can retroactively do something...Camelbinky (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The website of the Bronx Borough President consistently uses "The Bronx", as seen here. The county is indeed "Bronx County", but the borough is "The Bronx". However in combining forms "Bronx" is often used even when referring to the borough. Thus Ruben Diaz is "Bronx Borough President" not "The Bronx Borough President". As to which should be used - well, like the combining form, it depends on the circumstances. The overriding political entity is New York City, the county is, for all intents and purposes, powerless. Within the city, the dominating local political entity is the borough, although since the reorganization of the city and the elimnination of the Board of Estimate the borough has much less power than it once did. Still, ask any long term resident, and they'll tell you that they live in "The Bronx" not "Bronx". My feeling is that the article should be moved to "The Bronx" as the normal and usual name of the area, the county being basically a jurisdictional non-entity, but care should be taken so that combining forms follow what's used in the real world, and we don't hew exclusively to "The Bronx". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy, who cares what people on the street say? That argument, unless you have a reliable source stating some poll of the people on how they refer to the Bronx is not a valid argument and even with that poll it is only one piece of an argument. Yes, there is a problem between the county and the borough, the borough is older and one can argue that takes some precedence in this debate. The USPS however says that it is Bronx, not "the Bronx", and they are not refering to the county name. That's an argument in the other direction. The very title, whether Bronx or the Bronx is either way breaking convention as we do not put neighborhood or county or borough names as name only; only certain specific cities get that distinction (eg- Paris, New York City). Neighborhoods, counties, etc do not get a pass on this, NYC borough or not. The correct title should be one of the following- Bronx County, New York (based on this being a county article), The Bronx Borough, New York, New York (based on this being an article on the borough, The Bronx, New York (based on this being about the geographical entity commonly refered to as "The Bronx" even when part of Westchester County), or Bronx, New York (based on USPS ZIP code designation). Pick one. Ending this special treatment (and you see it with Hollywood as well) is a good way to end this perennial discussion.Camelbinky (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy, but fortunately it is also not a dictatorship where Camelbinky's word is law, so I'll pass on the choice you would like to shove down our throats, and instead I'll continue to express my opinion about what would be best for the encyclopedia.

The policy is for article names in general to favor common, everyday English-language usage, and for those of us from New York, who grew up in the area, who have some knowledge of the usage of the people who live here -- that would seem to leave you out, I believe -- "The Bronx" is the common name of the area, as well as the legal name of the borough, as pointed out above. As for a disambiguating word, we don't do it as a matter of form, we do it when it's necessary to, well, reduce ambiguity. There is no other "The Bronx", and in fact no other "Bronx", so there is no need for a disambiguating "New York".

Now, may I suggest that you take a moment to chill out, get off of your high horse, and stop attempting to dominate the discussion by brute force. If you wish to continue the discussion, do so civily and with respect for your fellow editors, and stop behaving as if you are some sort of authority od either the common name of the area -- which you clearly aren't -- or on Wikipedia policy, which you are misrepresenting. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I vote the name be "The Bronx". Otherwise we'd be going against the immortal words of Ogden Nash

The Bronx

No thonx

Anyway, I grew up and still do saying "The Bronx" altho I married a girl from "Queens" (and not The Queens). Bellagio99 (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this earlier. Of course it should be The Bronx, then, now and always. I too was born and raised there, and lived there for many years - yes, we do have some knowledge of the proper usage, USPS be damned. Tvoz/talk 05:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
May I point to The Hague. Nobody calls it "Hague". There are historical reasons behind these anomolous usages, which should be respected. We don't steamroll over reality in order to make it fit into pre-determined boxes; or, at least, we shouldn't.Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Beyond my Ken, you obviously don't know the policy on how to name articles. Talking to you not worth it. If anyone has crossed the line of civility it was you. I am a New Yorker, born and raised, dont insult my birthright of being a NYer and say I dont know anything about the region. Second of all- POLICY rules on Wikipedia NOT what the common man on the street says! This is not a "Camelbinky rule" it is a Wikipedia policy. Get it straight. You want to ignore policy fine, but you can't make a decision on Wikipedia yourself that contradicts it. If anyone is trying to be a dictator it is you. I'm following established convention. The Hague is a city, not comparable. You cant even come up with a legit reason for your points, back up your points with Wikipedia policy. You cant or dont know policy well enough. !votes and opinions that arent backed up with policy can and will be ignored when a decision based on consensus is reached. So I suggest you read policy and back up your points with them or you can and will be ignored in the decision reached. Thanks.Camelbinky (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and on the many noticeboards I do work on and the many policy talk pages I work on and the numerous policies I have helped change aspects of I don't recall your name Beyond my Ken... so of the two of us who is misrepresenting their knowledge of policy? Hmmm... I think I've done quite enough work on changing Wikipedia policy that I know what I am saying. Please dont assume I dont know anything.Camelbinky (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
As for your comment about the disambiguation of city, state being not needed, that is FALSE. Again- you showed your ignorance of policy/guidelines. It is in fact the "rule" in Wikipedia, as encoded in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), a guideline in accordance with the policy WP:Article titles. Both of which I suggest you read, as you seem to have not done so. It in fact seems to your entire belief of what Wikipedia does is based on what you believe you have come across and what makes sense to you on how Wikipedia should be run. Well Wikipedia has actual written policy and guidelines that you may want to read. But of course you've turned this into a personal contest between you and me. You may want to read our policies about commenting on the content, not on the commentator; I admit to breaking that "rule" here to after being goaded by you, though that is no excuse so I will stop. But I warn you to stop as well, do not comment about me personally again as this can and will get you a sterner warning on your talk page and further action may be needed. Please stick to the content of points backed by policy.Camelbinky (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

← From the top of Wikipedia:Naming conventions: This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. The five boroughs of New York City are handled as exceptions: none have "county" or "borough" in the titles - they are Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, Brooklyn and (should again be) The Bronx. This is because (quoting from the same guideline): Our article title policy provides that article titles should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. Tvoz/talk 07:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Camel, You've done a huge amount of work in Wikipedia, and I respect you for that. But you've come late to this many-years discussion, and there IS a consensus, that it is The Bronx. Tvoz, BeyondMyKen, Shakescene, myself, and other users (when this was last debated) agree. What happened is that folks were on holiday, and the article got renamed/moved with minimal discussion or consensus. Wikipedian Tvoz has clearly demonstrated that The Bronx is within Wiki policy. Famous poet Ogden Nash has immortalized the The. (See my post earlier in this section.) Surely this is not an issue worth fulminating about, so let's cut back the invective, move/rename the article, and move on ourselves to doing the really useful WikiDeeds that we've all done. Cheers, Bellagio99 (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Query: when do we consider this?[edit]

The only immediate question, in my mind, and one that shouldn't take up too much time no matter which way it's decided, is whether we start the formal process of Requesting Comments on a move back to The Bronx now, or wait for a bit, since the recent move was so recent. Bellagio99 and I have been of the opinion, even though we favor moving back, that it might be a bit hasty to do so, so soon after the recent overhasty renaming. I don't know if Bellagio is still of this mind, or has decided that the best way to get past this is to hold a discussion and decision now.

¶ [And, believe me, there's always been plenty of good work to be done on this article on any scale you feel up to, from individual reference checks to creating long-needed sections on (e.g.) the economy and health care, to a thoughtful, well-consulted reorganization and shortening with spinoffs of sub-articles. (Considering the substantial tasks to be done, however, I don't consider it useful to fiddle with the appearance, to change citation styles, or to seek out discrepancies with the Manual of Style's 40 sub-pages.) I started work on this page as a complete outsider a couple of years ago because the passage of time and successive edits had made it nearly unusable when I first saw it, but the whole over-long article is very much a work in progress. For those who like a challenge, try making "Neighborhoods" both more succinct and more useful and comprehensible to current residents, nostalgic ex-residents, visitors, amateur historians and total foreigners; a freely-usable map would be a good start.] —— Shakescene (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Shakes, that I was unclear. Let's start the formal process of Requesting Comments on a move back Now! I just have forgotten the protocols involved.Bellagio99 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I was busy preparing for my son's wedding in May and was not keeping up with my overly long watchlist, so I regret that I wasn't here to weigh in on this then because it's not clear to me that a consensus to move was really established then and other voices against it might have made a difference. The commenters were evenly split, and at least two more would have opposed (Tenebrae I would assume would have opposed the move, as he/she tried to move it back a few days ago). And this has been discussed before with other editors also weighing in for The Bronx as title. I've been editing this article since 2006, and would never have agreed to the move to "Bronx" - it is not the commonly used name and apparently not even the legal name as reported in this comment. The Hague is certainly relevant here too, although discarded above without any real explanation. So there is precedent, there is context for using the most common name (the other 4 boroughs), and there is no hard and fast policy being violated. I think the common name arguments should not have been discounted as the closer did, and we should go back to the way the article long has been titled and agreed upon. This to me is a separate issue from whether "the" should be capitalized in the middle of the sentence - that argument reached epic proportions with the/The Beatles - and my personal inclination would be for lower case mid-sentence - that's a matter of style. But the name of that article must be The Beatles not Beatles, just as the name of the newspaper article must be The New York Times not New York Times, and, I think, the name of this article The Bronx. Redirect the dissonant names, but title the articles thusly. Tvoz/talk 21:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Who was notified of the proposal to open a Request for Comments, and how
¶ I don't know what the formal process is myself. My inclination is (since we think the earlier move was concluded too hastily) to send a message on the following lines to those who participated in the discussion of last spring's move but haven't yet participated in this one. (Unfortunately, User:Vegaswikian, at least under that name, says s/he's off-Wiki until the end of September.)

Hello, you participated in a discussion last spring that resulted in renaming The Bronx as Bronx. There is now a proposal to open a new Request for Comments on restoring the original name. If you have comments about the timing of such a proposal, please make them soon at Talk:Bronx#Query: when do we consider this? because, unless a there's a consensus against such a Request for Comments, it will begin early this week. Thanks.—— Shakescene (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you think? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
¶ OK, I've sent the above message (or a very close facsimile) to the following folks (copied from my contributions list; no time for formatting)
  1. 16:52, 12 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Station1 ‎ (→Bronx/The Bronx: new section) (top)
  2. 16:51, 12 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Jafeluv ‎ (→Bronx/The Bronx: new section) (top)
  3. 16:50, 12 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Fuhghettaboutit ‎ (→Bronx/The Bronx: new section) (top)
  4. 16:48, 12 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:AjaxSmack ‎ (→Bronx/The Bronx: new section) (top)
  5. 16:47, 12 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Husond ‎ (→Bronx/The Bronx: new section) (top)
  6. 16:46, 12 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Explicit ‎ (→Bronx/The Bronx: new section) (top)
  7. 16:44, 12 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:RegentsPark ‎ (→Bronx/The Bronx: new section) (top)
  8. 16:43, 12 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Beyond My Ken ‎ (→Bronx/The Bronx: new section) (top)
  9. 16:42, 12 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Good Olfactory ‎ (→Bronx/The Bronx: new section) (top)
  10. 16:41, 12 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Acps110 ‎ (→Bronx/The Bronx: new section)
  11. 16:39, 12 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Vegaswikian ‎ (→Bronx/The Bronx: new section) (top)
  12. 16:38, 12 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk: ‎ (→Bronx/the Bronx: new section) (top)
  13. 16:36, 12 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Mcorazao ‎ (→Bronx/the Bronx: new section) (top)
If I missed someone (other than myself or Bellagio99), please let them know. If you feel that contributors to the discussions in Talk:Bronx/Archive 1 should also be notified at this stage, please tell them, too. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I notified the following editors, whose names I found in previous discussion of this subject in the archives, regardless of the opinion they expressed. Some of they appear to be inactive:
05:30, 13 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:EJF
05:29, 13 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:MovieMadness
05:29, 13 September 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Songs of ts steiner ‎
05:28, 13 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Pharos
05:27, 13 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Pmanderson
05:26, 13 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Bssc81
05:25, 13 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:JPG-GR
05:24, 13 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Futurebird
05:24, 13 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Alansohn
05:23, 13 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:The Interloafer
05:22, 13 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Shoreranger
05:22, 13 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Pacific Coast Highway
05:19, 13 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:David Kernow
05:18, 13 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Jiang ‎
05:18, 13 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:RoySmith
05:17, 13 September 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:BaronLarf
Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Start a Request for Comments on renaming now[edit]

  • Support as it has been thus for many years, and change happened quickly & without consensus. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Sure. I'm a strong supporter of WP:UCN and a firm believer that policies should trump guidelines. An RfC will help provide clarity on these issues. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, an RFC now is fine. I too support WP:UCN which means a return to The Bronx. Tvoz/talk 23:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No objection to an RFC, but if it's going to happen, it should be neutrally worded and both sides should be presented. There has been some misrepresentation of the other side in several of the comments above, since WP:THE does not necessarily conflict with WP:UCN. No one has ever disputed that common usage is to say "the Bronx". But that doesn't necessarily mean that the "the" is included as a leading article in the article name. Netherlands, Soviet Union, Cook Islands, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, and countless others serve as examples of this. For a non-WP example, Britannica's entry is at "Bronx", but the text of the article refers consistently to "the Bronx". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree that the wording should be neutral, and the counter-examples you bring up are good and should be discussed in the RfC, but (1) let's not pre-discuss it here, let's keep the comments in this section focused on the question of whether of RfC should be opened, and (2) in one instance you're mistaken, in that a glance at the discussion above will show that someone (not you) has indeed disputed whether "the Bronx" is the common usage. In any event, let's save it for the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I think if you're interested in enforcing that, maybe you should take your own advice in this regard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Acps110 (talkcontribs) 01:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support WP:UCN will give this article a name that makes it more recognizable and less abstract, detached, and out-of-touch seeming. I realize that's rather abstract statement, but frankly, the current title ignores what the residents themselves would call it. It ignores what New Yorkers in general would call it and it ignores what historians, city planners, politicians and everyone else would call it... so, it comes off as a little clueless and overly formal. Yes. That's what the post office uses. But, everyone knows the post office likes to simplify things for its own convenience. The men and women I know who work at The Bronx post office still call it "The Bronx" -- futurebird (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. It should be The Bronx. If WP:MOS argues otherwise, then invoke WP:IAR and make it The Bronx. That's what everybody calls it. That's its official name. That's what the article should be titled. Full disclosure, I live there. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd also add that Good Ol', above, seems to have a good handle on the point. Shoreranger (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The Bronx, like The Hague, is usage. If we had a separate article on Bronx County, it would not use the The; but we don't. The advice against The applies to organizations which may or may not use it indifferently; it is not intended to rewrite the English language. Since this move had no consensus, and is based on a misreading of guidelines, it should be reversed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Your claim is not supported by what is says at WP:THE. It explicitly addresses placenames and says, "When a proper name is almost always used with capitalized 'The', especially if it is included by unofficial sources, we should include it.". That is not the case here, since "the Bronx" is usually not rendered "The Bronx". On the other hand, The Hague almost always is referred to with the capital "The". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, but, as I tried to say with my little joke earlier, with combining or adjectival forms, such as the "Hague Convention", the capitalized "The" is dropped. This is precisely the case with The Bronx. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Good, My recollection after living there is that it ofen spelled "den Haag" which would counter your example. And on Wikipedia, the entry is The Hague similar to what is proposed for The Bronx/Bronx. Just my fallible 2 guilden as I last lived in den Haag in 1978. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe you are right w.r.t. the Dutch usage, but in English (which is really what matters here), I believe it's typically The Hague. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support discussion for article name-change to The Bronx. Also, let me apologize, sincerely and genuinely, for having made the move without checking the discussion board first. It had honestly seemed to me to be a non-controversial move since that's the formal, official name (in the city charter and in the municipal code). I do see editors here quoting from newspaper articles and the like with "the" lowercase, but I just thought an encyclopedia would use the official name for an entry, rather than a colloquialism. I had not meant to disrespect all the discussion that had gone on before. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait before reopening the renaming question (how long?)[edit]

  • Oppose. It's "Bronx County" not "The Bronx County". It's "Bronx Borough" not "The Bronx Borough", therefor it should remain "Bronx". Although many people use "The", to my knowledge it is not official. But I am not sold on either variation, but it is fine the way it is, no need for another discussion. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, what you're opposing is not a name change per se, but the opening of a Request of Comments to discuss a name change. Also, a glance at the discussion above will show that "The Bronx" is the legal name of the borough, but not the county. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
In that case I change my vote to a simple "oppose". Although I'm still near indifferent. Also, the official Bronx Borough President website says it's just Bronx Borough. UrbanNerd (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that's not the case, as I pointed out above. Ruben Diaz is indeed "Bronx Borough President" not "The Bronx Borough President", but he is Borough President of The Bronx, and his website uses "the" at every appropriate time, including here: Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sold on "The" being official. You said that the website uses "the" at every appropriate time but it many instance it is the opposite. "President Ruben Diaz Jr. urged Bronx voters" or "violence and illegal activity on Bronx streets". UrbanNerd (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Are some of these perhaps examples of use as adjective? Jim.henderson (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and, again as noted above, care needs to be taken in combining forms, such as "Bronx Borough President" not to cause awkwardness by unnecessarily using "the", but these examples are not pertinent to the question of what the proper noun is to describe the area. But all this discussion should be made in the RfC, not here, where we're simply deciding whether to have the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and I am opposing due to my feeling that "the" is not official and doesn't need to be discussed, again. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
From Laws of New York:

The borough of The Bronx shall consist of the territory known as Bronx county which shall contain all that part of the city and state bounded on the east by the middle of the main channel ... (etc., emphasis added)

You really should read the discussion that's gone before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Means nothing. The words "county of the Bronx" also exist in that exact same paragraph. Not buying it. Oppose. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:THE distinguishes between places that almost always use "The XXXX" and places that use "the XXXX". The Hague is the former, the Bronx is the latter. (No one writes "I'm going to The Bronx"—it's just "I'm going to the Bronx".) If the leading "The" is not capitalized habitually, WP:THE says leave it out of a place name for a WP article name. This fact renders superfluous the debate you two are having, since the guidelines say the page should be at Bronx regardless of which one of you is correct. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting point, but not nearly as definitive as you seem to think. I'll be happy to address them in the RfC, once that starts up, but right now I have to catch a subway up to Bronx, to catch a late-night symposium on The Hague Convention (or is it the Hague Convention), then I'll take a taxi back here to the Manhattan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
A guideline is definitive if you accept it in a particular situation. If you don't—it's not. So it's definitive for me, but obviously not for you. When it's a matter of opinion and to what degree the guideline is accepted, I'm not sure it makes sense tell someone else it's "not as definitive as you seem to think" unless you say so with the implied caveat "for me". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, your statement above was to the effect that since that guideline says "X", that settles it; clearly, it doesn't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, it does—for me. That's my point and why I mentioned it's kind of weird to tell someone it doesn't decide it for them, unless you're just meaning "I disagree with the application of the guideline in this case". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Other comments on timing and procedure[edit]

Consolidated topics at Talk:Bronx/Name[edit]

Hi, I've copied, without cutting (deleting), all the sections of the talk pages and History of the Bronx that seem to relate in some way to the Bronx's name, capitalization or use of an article at Talk:Bronx/Name. And the material is even vaster than I remember, but should be read by everyone who wants to expound on these matters, since someone else may have done so even more forcefully, with even more persuasive sources, in a previous discussion.

Without wanting to drown this in even further sub-discussions, I'm wondering whether to just BE BOLD and delete these sections from this page (and maybe Talk:Bronx/Archive 1, but not of course History of the Bronx), and move the whole preceding discussion (and future ones) to the new page. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I think you should leave the original material where it is, as a record of the chronology of the past discussion(s), but gathering all the background material together on one page is an excellent idea, as people can be sent there to bone up on what's gone before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
now-moot discussion of timing the Request for Comments which has now opened
Incidentally, I think there's more than enough response at this point to simply open an RfC which is, after all, not a terribly portentious thing, just a semi-formal focused discussion, and it's hard (as seen above) to contain people's enthusiasm for expressing their views. Since you seem to be taking point, perhaps you'd like to do that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thinking out loud, perhaps the RfC should be opened on a seperate sub-page, with a link here to it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Ken, I disagree. Suggest the RFC be opened here, because this is where people go to. Later, when done, it can be hived off and archived into a separate subpage. Just my .02. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No big deal, I was just thinking that there was a lot of verbiage on this page already, and the RfC might be easier to conduct on a nice clean new page, with a big old notice on the top of this page sending folks there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's no big deal, but at the moment what I'm leaning towards doing is this:

  1. Wait at least another day so that those who commented in April and May won't feel that they didn't have a proper chance to object that yet another Rename discussion in less than six months is premature. (I'm not saying here how I'd feel about such an objection, but as one who thinks myself that the May renaming was hastily and wrongly closed, I think it's only fair to let those who participated in the earlier 2010 discussion raise what can often be a valid point. And unlike us obsessed fanatics, not every editor logs in to Wikipedia every day.)
  2. Open the RfC as a new section on Talk:Bronx/Name with a pointer from this page, rather than here or on a new page of its own. Everyone agrees with Good Ol'Factory that those who comment should see a fair representation of the issue and the arguments made on all sides of it. The easiest way, I think, to do so is to put it on a page that has all the arguments and history spread out above the RfC. That's a lot easier and fairer than trying to summarize all that neutrally in one or two paragraphs. The RfC should allow a lot of space to continue the general discussion and then offer choices of
    * Keep "Bronx";
    * Restore "The Bronx";
    * Use another name (e.g. "Bronx, New York"); and
    * Other comments.
  3. (Optionally) Keep the name sections on this page for historical/chronological purposes, but put each of them in a collapse box with a pointer to Talk:Bronx/Name. It's astonishing how much of the space (as opposed to the number of sections) on the talk pages is occupied by some question about the Bronx's name; my guess is something like 40% (I guess I could count kilobytes from history). —— Shakescene (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Bellagio that moving the discussion off this page now for the RfC might reduce the number of people who participate - people wouldn't have a new page on their watchlists and unless they are very attentive they'd very likely miss seeing it, despite the pointer. I think we can survive the space taken up for now, and collapse it after the RfC is concluded. That's how we handled many such lengthy discussions on the political pages I edit, and although a bit unwieldy, it works. Seeing as the previous RfC was, in my view, closed without clear consensus, I think we'd want to be sure that this is as accessible as possible. Just my opinion on this. Tvoz/talk 16:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this discussion has set a record for most postings per three little letters. With appreciation and amusement.Bellagio99 (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the edit history Talk:Bronx/Name, I think it's taken up about 80 kilobytes so far. See below. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing nothing tonight since, like New York, my own state has just completed a hotly-contested set of primary elections. To accommodate the valid concerns expressed here (including my own), I think what I'll do (or someone else could do) for the duration of the Request for Comment is

  1. Take all the comments about name on this (unarchived) Talk page and consolidate them directly above, i.e. so that the most recent non-nomenclature thread ends above the first thread about name.
  2. In between, I'll collapse all the earlier threads from Talk:Bronx/Name (i.e. from Talk Archive 1 and History of the Bronx) into a box. This page will be pretty long in kB for a while and the Table of Contents may look a bit unwieldy, but that would meet the twin purpose of leaving the RfC in the most easily-expected place while having earlier discussion readily available at the click of a [Show], with a very strong exhortation to read or re-read it all first before commenting further. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comments on renaming "(The) Bronx" (September 2010)[edit]

There looks to be pretty strong consensus that the common name uses the definite article. Whether it's capitalised or not is a different matter, but doesn't affect the result of a page move discussion. I'm closing this RfC and moving the page. Thanks to everyone involved for your comments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

Should the title of Bronx remain, or should it revert to its earlier title of The Bronx? —— Shakescene (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see (or re-read) all of the comments above beginning at #Earlier discussions of the name. Someone else may already have expressed your immediate thoughts, or contradicted them, with more force or better sources.

The name of this article was "The Bronx" for several years. A proposal in 2008 to rename it "Bronx" failed for lack of consensus (see above). However, a revived proposal in April-May of this year (2010) was resolved by changing the article's name to its present one of "Bronx" (also see above).

Some editors think that the May 2010 discussion was closed hastily or improperly, and wish to reopen the question now. Only one editor so far has objected to doing so.

Below are spaces for

  • continuing the general discussion;
  • comments in favor of retaining the present title (Bronx);
  • comments in favor of restoring the title to The Bronx;
  • comments in favor changing the title to another name, e.g. Bronx, New York
  • other comments

Please precede your comment with a # and sign it with four tildes, ~~~~.

—— Shakescene (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

General discussion (continued)[edit]

Retain the present title of "Bronx"[edit]

  1. First, the most recent move request (the one which resulted in it being moved to just "Bronx") seems fine to me. It was opened on May 8 and closed on May 25, so it was open long enough. Second, I would've originally supported moving it back, but keeping it here seems in line with other articles like, which don't put the article in front (Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States, People's Republic of China). ~DC We Can Work It Out 04:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support just like the county it is simply "Bronx". It's just easier on the tongue in a sentence to say "The Bronx". UrbanNerd (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support this choice per WP:THE and WP:UCN. The beliefs expressed here that the guideline WP:THE conflicts with WP:UCN are misplaced and wrong, in my opinion. The guideline for including "The" in an article name states: "When a proper name is almost always used with capitalized 'The', especially if it is included by unofficial sources, we should include it." That is the case with The Hague. However, when the "the" is used consistently uncapitalized, we do not include it in the article name. We just drop it—it's an implied article. This is the case with this article: We never see "He went to The Bronx". It's "He went to the Bronx". This is how names are treated for United States, Soviet Union, Cook Islands, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, People's Republic of China, Republic of China, Republic of Macedonia, United Arab Emirates, and many other placename articles. Thus WP:THE suggests the leading article be dropped. To add it back looks unprofessional, in my opinion, and dropping it conforms with the entry for this place in other encyclopedias, such as Britannica, which has their entry at simply ""Bronx", not "The Bronx" or even "Bronx, The". I appreciate the efforts to residents of the Bronx to emphasize that it's always called "the Bronx", but changing the name in this way is not the best way to go about it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support after some thought. While the arguments in favor of "The Bronx" are surely compelling, one could make the same arguments used below about why the "United States" article should be renamed "The United States." So why don't we move the U.S. article to "The United States?" After all, legally it is The United States of America and in almost every case, "United States" is preceded by "the" in common usage... but almost every time isn't good enough. In order to justify "the" being in the title of an article you have to prove it is necessary in every case; that the word "the" isn't just a "helper" word, but an integral part of the name which would be incorrect usage without it. Consider these sentences:
"Sally is a United States Post Office employee."
"United States copyright law is different then the laws of some other nations."
Each of those sentences is proper usage and so we find that the "the" isn't as ubiquitous or obligatory as it may seem. Getting back to the Bronx, "the" isn't always there. The county name has already been discussed. Bronx Zoo is the correct name for the zoo in the borough, even though in most contexts, people will say "the Bronx Zoo." This page on NY1's website says that "families mourn Bronx River drowning victims", not "the Bronx River drowning victims." We refer to one of the neighborhoods in the borough as "The North Bronx" and not "North the Bronx." Blowing a raspberry is the same thing as a "bronx cheer" not a "the bronx cheer." So, yes 99% of the time we hear "the" whenever we hear "Bronx", but the 1% is proof that "the" should not be part of the article name. VictorianMutant (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Restore the title to "The Bronx"[edit]

  1. Support As per lengthy previous discussions, WP:UCN calls for the most commonly used name to be the title of the article. Much evidence has been presented demonstrating that "The Bronx" is what people commonly call the borough. Evidence also presented showing that "The Bronx" is also the legal name of the borough. Consensus has long been that this article should be so titled, and I once again support it. The issue of whether "the" should be capitalized mid-sentence is a separate matter - this is about the common name of the place. Like The Hague, The Beatles, and The New York Times. The previous RfC was closed without consensus so should not have yielded a change in name- I hope we do better this time. Tvoz/talk 07:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support According to the city, the borough is The Bronx, like The Hague. While the city may also refer to "county of the Bronx," it also refers to Staten Island as the "county of Richmond" — so, clearly, the county name is a separate and distinct entity from the borough name. --Tenebrae (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support The borough is commonly referred to as 'the Bronx' and therefore the article should be at that title. This, title selection based on common usage, is a strength of wikipedia and should not be casually made subservient to stylistic issues.--RegentsPark (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support as per Tvoz, Tenebrae, RegentsPark above Bellagio99 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Support WP:UCN – which is policy, and therefore trumps style guidelines – clearly calls for articles to be placed under commonly used names. The name of the area is "The Bronx" - those who say otherwise know not of what they speak. "The Bronx" is enhrined in New York State law:

    The borough of The Bronx shall consist of the territory known as Bronx county which shall contain all that part of the city and state bounded on the east by the middle of the main channel of Long Island sound; ... (etc., emphasis added)

    and is recognized in the style guide of the "newspaper of record" in the area, The New York Times:

    The article ... is part of the name except in mailing addresses, headlines, charts and maps.
    –Allan M. Siegal and William G. Connolly. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (revised & expanded edition). New York: Three Rivers Press, 1999.

    Regardless of the existence of Bronx County, a political entity which was created well after the establishment of the area as The Bronx, or the various adjectival and combining forms which correctly use "Bronx", the common name of the area in question cannot be doubted to be "The Bronx," as anyone with any familiarity with NYC will know. We Manhattanites go "up to the Bronx", not "up to Bronx" (which sounds entirely wrong to New Yorkers), and denizens of the area will tell anyone who asks that they live in "The Bronx".

    Since there cannot be any question as to what the name of the area ia, the only question seems to be: should this article follow policy or not? The answer is "Yes, it should", which is why it should be moved back to "The Bronx", regardless of the arguments of those who will cite style guidelines, which, in this case, are not controlling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

  6. Support as RegentsPark and My Ken above. I have said much more in the past. WP:UCN will give this article a name that makes it more recognizable and less abstract, detached, and out-of-touch seeming. I realize that's rather abstract statement, but frankly, the current title ignores what the residents themselves would call it. It ignores what New Yorkers in general would call it and it ignores what historians, city planners, politicians and everyone else would call it... so, it comes off as a little clueless and overly formal. Yes. That's what the post office uses. But, everyone knows the post office likes to simplify things for its own convenience. The men and women I know who work at The Bronx post office still call it "The Bronx" futurebird (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support: (a) If this were a printed work like Wikipedia 1.0 or the Encyclopedia of New York City, I would of course place, search for and index the Bronx under "B", just as The Gambia, The Hague, The Bahamas and The New York Times wouldn't find themselves among the T's. But this isn't such a printed work, so comparisons with the Britannica are misplaced.
    (b) Unlike the examples cited by Good Ol'factory, there's no assumed or included noun in The Bronx, no lands, republic, states, emirates or kingdom; while you can have a kingdom, land or republic, there's no such thing as a Bronx or a Bronk or a Bronck, so the article is indeed part of the name, at least as a proper noun (the fact that you can make "Bronx" into a proper adjective without an article in, e.g., "Bronx County" or with one in, e.g., "the Bronx Zoo" and "a Bronx cheer" is irrelevant);
    (c) If an article is embedded inextricably into the name as in The Hague or Los Angeles, it should be part of the title. We don't have a city article on Hague, Angeles, Vegas, Paso, Paz, Rochelle, Havre, Cruces or Cerrito, nor humanities articles about Greco, Aqsa or Fledermaus; neither do other reference works. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    (d) Unlike some post-colonial nations such as (the) Lebanon, Sudan, Ukraine and Yemen that have deprecated the definite article as implying some inferior provincial status, the people of The Bronx, like those of The Bahamas and The Gambia, consider it part of their name. While Brooklyn (like Staten Island) has always included admirably-patriotic citizens who mourn the Mistake of '98 and will stoutly challenge any one who dare claim that the Dodgers were ever a New York City team, I know of no Bronx Liberation Front casting off the servile "the" to assert their separate and equal place among the cities of the Earth; if such a group were ever to take power, I'm sure its Québec-style language police, prodded by shadowy terrorist vigilante gangs, would attach the article with Draconian rigor to unarticled businesses, signs and publications. In fact, the Front would be edit-warring here incessantly and angrily to ensure that it was always referred to not as the Bronx Liberation Front but as The Bronx Liberation Front or The Front for the Liberation of The Bronx. [The fate of a hypothetical editor foolish enough to alter their slogan from "Free The Bronx!" to "Free Bronx!" on spurious MoS grounds is far too ghastly to contemplate on an open page.] ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Support: Omitting the word "the" from the title of this article undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as an information source. Why is this coming up again? We went through this a year or two ago, reached a conclusion, and moved forward with inclusion of "The." What is to prevent this from happening again once we've reached a conclusion?
    (A) Common usage. The word “the” being every bit as much a part of the name as the word “Bronx.” As a lifelong resident of the metropolitan area and a current resident of the borough, I can say without fear of contradiction that the borough is universally referred to as "the Bronx" in everyday speech, in literature, in music, in official government communication, for example on the street signs at the boroughs borders that read "Welcome to The Bronx." It is a deeply ingrained, universally used linguistic idiom. For the 1.4 million inhabitants of the borough, and the tens of millions of others who used to live in it or who live in the region or are otherwise familiar with it, the phrase “I am going to Bronx” is every bit as grating, unnatural and absurd sounding as "I am going to the Springfield," or "I am visiting the London."
    (B) History and origin. The article has been a part of the name for some 400 years. The origins of the name date to the early 1600s, when the area was first settled by its first European settler, Jonas Bronck, and his family. People began referring to the area as "the Broncks'." With the phrase "I'm going to visit the Broncks” being no different than "I'm going to visit the Johnsons." As the language evolved, the "cks" was replaced with an "x."
    (C) Respected authority. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, which bills itself as guide used by "The World's Most Authoritative Newspaper," is dedicated to clarifying the nuances and precision of language. It's where you go to find out when to use "ensure" and when to use “insure.” It details the subtle distinctions between the definitions of the words "persuade" and "convince," and when to use each. And as the newspaper of record of the city of which the Bronx is a part, it wades into local geographic terms, telling editors when to refer to the northbound avenue leading to Central Park as Sixth Avenue and when to use Avenue of the Americas. When it comes to The Bronx, the manual is crystal clear. Always use the article.
    (D) Noun vs. adjective. Are there times when the borough is referred to without the definite article? Of course. The word Bronx stands along when it is used as an adjective that modifies or defines another word, for example in "Bronx County" or "Bronx Community College" or "Bronx, N.Y." in postal addresses. One might point to the hit 1993 movie starring Robert DeNiro, "A Bronx Tale," as evidence that the "the" isn't always used. But then just imagine how the movie would have been received if it had been entitled "A the Bronx Tale." The pile-up of competing articles would have been the height of confusion and absurdity. When the place name is preceded by the indefinite article, in this case, modifying the word "tale," you have license to drop the definite article modifying the noun Bronx, in the interest of euphony. The Interloafer (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  9. Support; per WP:COMMONNAME. Acps110 (talkcontribs) 21:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Support; esp. as per RegentsPark, above. When the name stands alone, is it without the article? As Ogden Nash pointed out "The Bronx/ no thonks." Otherwise, it just looks like a non-native's error. Jd2718 (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Support; two weeks ago I found a new little bridge beneath the Hell Gate Bridge from Randalls Island to The Bronx, not to Bronx. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Change the title to another name, such as "Bronx, New York"[edit]

Other comments[edit]

Also please see Talk: Bronx/Name#Start a Request for Comments on renaming now and Talk: Bronx/Name#Wait before reopening the renaming question (how long?) for several editors expressing opinions pro and con about restoring the name of this article to The Bronx. The question there was intended to be whether the RfC should be opened now, but several people expressed their opinions on the actual question at hand as well, and those opinions should be included when considering the outcome of this Rfc. Tvoz/talk 07:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a bit of a loss, now. I interrupted the rather undirected flow of discussion because everyone wants a clear process (even one ending in "no consensus") that included all the concerned editors, but now there's this strange silence. Just imputing or assuming how an editor would comment here from comments in earlier sections, while often soundly based, would just make this reopening of the question rather murky and unsure. It's all too easy to see how the losing side would raise the informality six months from now as a reason to reopen the question yet a third time.
But what should we do? Should we send personal notes to all those editors who were so vocal earlier, but haven't yet registered a comment? When informing contributors to earlier discussions about the possible opening of an RfC, I and another editor both found it took us each about 15-16 minutes to inform a set of around 13 editors. (There's almost certainly an informal notification 'bot somewhere that's available to non-administrators, but it would probably take about as much time to find and operate it as to do this manually.) This RfC has been noticed to the WikiProjects on Cities, New York City and New York state. I didn't tag it to History & Geography in general, because it's probably best just to involve editors who normally use The Bronx or link to it in tables, etc., rather than bring in people who'll argue at great length and with great passion over how to name The Hague, The Gambia, The Netherlands, The Yemen, The Lebanon, The Sudan, The Ukraine, The Times, etc., on general principles. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It should be posted under the general discussion boards to draw as many voices as possible. ~DC We Can Work It Out 20:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:The Gambia, Talk:The Hague, Talk:Netherlands and Talk:The Bahamas. I'd prefer to see comments about The Bronx from those who work on New York articles first, before taking the chance of reopening any of those other disputes on new ground. To reverse positions, I think (although I'm very far from sure) that I'd let the editors of Dutch, Bahamian and Gambian articles work out their own titles based on their own knowledge rather than add my relatively ignorant and meagre tuppenceworth (meager 2 cents). [This is different from my attitude towards the rigid "First name of Country" convention imposed on everyone else by the Royalty WikiProjects that excludes commonsense names like Queen Victoria, so maybe I'm inconsistent.] But I'm no administrator, so you have just as much right as anyone else to tag this according to WP:RfC; I'd prefer prior consultation, but I won't try to reverse anyone else's notification of a broader audience. The present problem is to open the motionless keyboards of those who were so voluble on this subject last week.—— Shakescene (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I added the RFC tag since we should try to get as many opinions as possible, and not just have the same handful of editors make the same arguments they've been making. We don't need to go around spamming talk pages of articles like Netherlands and such for opinions, the RFC tag should be fine. But posting a notification of this on New York and NYC's talk pages (and other NYC related pages makes sense). Also, it might make sense to post a notification at WP:RM since this is in basically a move request. ~DC We Can Work It Out 20:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:New York City#Bronx or The Bronx. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Not to worry, there's no hurry here, the RfC is scheduled to run for 30 days, plenty of time for people to come by and post their thoughts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely - I only posted the opening comment here about the comments on the name page because comments were slow in coming in here and I don't want to see another (what I think was a ) hasty close. Tvoz/talk 22:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The inerloafer raised a good point: can someone tell me if, once this process is over, will the name be subject to random challenges in to the foreseeable future? I had thought that this issue was resolved years ago... and it's come back again. Why? What are the next steps in this process? futurebird (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Future, My WPunderstanding is that anyone can raise any issue at any time (within some limits), but that longterm precedent and consensus have weight. I was surprised that the change was made a few months ago, given that we did have precedent and consensus for THE, but I (and perhaps others) were WP:AsleepAtTheSwitch. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Makes enough sense. I'll use this as inspiration to add some more to the various articles on the Bronx almost all of which need work... futurebird (talk)
WP:CCC might help answer your question. ~DC We Can Work It Out 23:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict/edit conflict]

Amen. See my remarks in the second paragraph of #Query: when do we consider this?. If you go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City#New York City articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release, you can see that this article, for all the weaknesses and deficiencies with which most of us are all too familiar, is high up on the list being selected for inclusion in Wikipedia Version 0.8. I wouldn't fret excessively, were it up to me, over discrepancies with all the transitory pages and sub-pages of the MoS, but I think there's a lot of other work that's still worth doing (business, labor, health care, cleaning up the Neighborhood section, strengthening references, etc.) On the other hand, part of the Wikipedia 0.8 process seems to involve outside editors coming in to conform the style to match the kind of uniformity that fits a printed work far better than the multi-continental on-line collaboration of thousands. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
As for stability and stare decisis, there might be a policy somewhere about how long you have to wait before overturning a formal RfC. But I wouldn't want to press that point too hard myself, since this RfC is less than six months after the last one, and because with enough time and gumption, I want to change an old "No Consensus" that directs New York articles to the state, rather than to a disambiguation. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Slowly, gently and gradually bringing this towards a close...[edit]

I've been staying away from Wikipedia for the past week or so, just glancing at my Watchlist every other day or two. But at the moment the RfC seems stuck at 4 (retain) to 11 (revert) to 0 (other). Since the earlier RfC's seemed to involve a baker's dozen, I think most of us would like a slightly larger group of opinions, even if they lead frustratingly to No Consensus. Does anyone want to re-canvass those who've already participated in earlier RfC's, including the one about starting the present RfC? It's been fairly widely advertised in the WikiProjects and article talk-pages for New York (state) and New York City, and I think there's a week or two still left in the RfC posting for History and Geography. [I can't promise that I'll be back on a regular basis very soon since I'm in the middle of publicising candidates' nights, not in [The] Bronx, but in Providence, Rhode Island. Which is why I'm canvassing others to canvass others.] —— Shakescene (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The previous RFC ended with more comments for keeping the article at The Bronx than for moving it, and with fewer comments than this time. User:Ucucha closed it and moved the article to Bronx with no consensus. This makes three discussions that I see (there might be more, further back), each ending with more support for The Bronx. I'd say go straight ahead. Jd2718 (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I 'agree with Jd. If it didn't suck up so much time, it would be humorous to see how 3 little letters & one precipitous mover have led to so much verbiage (including my own). Let's go back to the "The" and be done with it. Can we make "The Bronx" a protected phrase? ;-) Bellagio99 (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The homoiousios controversy, which Thomas Carlyle remarked was "over a diphthong," was settled after years of shouting, when an emperor convened a council of wise men and turned their recommendation into an edict. Sometimes I think we need an emperor. Of course then I would be carping every time the emperor's wise men screwed up. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Jim, As I recall, many folks died over the Nicenean Creed controversy. See no prospect of that over this one. Bellagio99 (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The previous RfC was open for 28 days (by my calculation), although the renaming happened sooner. We should wait a full month for this one, from some date between September 15th (when it opened on this page) to Sept. 22nd (the final re-listing at RfC/hist). Would anyone like to canvass those who commented on the timing of the RfC, but haven't yet submitted comments of their own? (Those who commented in earlier RfCs in 2008 and May 2010 have already been canvassed, I think.) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree - closing the RfC early is just inviting trouble, and giving people potential grounds to nullify it. Let it run the full term, then hunt up an admin to close it. The clock should be taken as starting on the date of the first comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
So, as they say in the Bronx, nu? Tvoz/talk 01:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I just posted a "last call" for comments on Talk:New York City today (Wednesday afternoon EDT Oct. 20), so maybe if someone can think of a good, neutral, uninvolved administrator we could call in close this up over the weekend.... (On the other hand, I just got two fresh comments on another semi-dormant RfC I started last August, so one never knows. See Template talk:Ahnentafel top/Requested Comments 1.—— Shakescene (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

¶ Following popular demand (or impatience) I've just requested an administrator who I think has no strong ties to New York-related articles to close the discussion (and execute any consensus or non-consensus). See User talk: Thumperward#Closing discussion at Bronx Talk. Speak now if you have any qualms. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I love Shakes' comment on Thumper's Talk page about his being someone "who has no strong involvement with ... the definite article". Wikipedia supplies so much scope for linguistic pleasure -- sometimes. YMMV Bellagio99 (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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.

Cleaning up left-over links to "Bronx"[edit]

Now that we've moved this back to The Bronx, there are still over 500 (but fewer than 1,000) links to Bronx (according to "What links here" at Bronx). How many of these need checking and fixing to avoid broken links? Is there some automated or semi-automated way of doing this? —— Shakescene (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There are no double redirects, so nothing needs fixing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 00:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Tidying up name discussions[edit]

I was planning to move all the Bronx name discussions over to Talk:The Bronx/Name at some reasonable point after the most recent Request for Comments had closed. (I've already collapsed the box on this page that includes previous years' discussions.) When would be a good time to do so and open up some space and kilobytes on this talk page? —— Shakescene (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Soon, I hope. We certainly have discussed enough. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Just did the dirty work, instead of going out early on a nice, sunny but cold afternoon in Providence before Game 3 of the World Series (not played in Bronx) and the last local televised campaign debates. The consolidated archive of discussions about the borough and county's name now takes up about 120 kilobytes, or slightly more than the article about the place itself, its people and its culture (an article that's always pressing its own length limits for smaller memories and slower connections).—— Shakescene (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)