Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/December

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


USPLACE Collaborative Workspace: PROs and CONs of various positions

NOTE: Please edit this section collaboratively just like an article (no signatures). The idea is to present in one place all reasonable positions with respect to USPLACE, and list the appropriate PROs and CONs for each, as fairly and concisely as possible.

AP list (30 cities) Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington.
New York Times list (59 cities plus New York City) Albany, Albuquerque, Anchorage, Atlanta, Atlantic City, Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Colorado Springs, Dallas, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit, El Paso, Fort Worth, Hartford, Hollywood, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Iowa City, Jersey City, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Memphis, Miami, Miami Beach, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Nashville, Newark, New Haven, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Rochester, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, St. Paul, Syracuse, Trenton, Tucson, Virginia Beach, Washington, White Plains, Yonkers.
  1. All US cities use [[Cityname, Statename]].
    • PRO:
      1. Simple. Predictable. No exceptions.
      2. Using a US city's "full name", which arguably includes ", Statename", is not disambiguation.
      3. Meets WP:Common name; most Americans standardly use "city, state" in both in writing and in conversation, regardless of whether the city name is unique. (If I say I come from Missoula, most Americans will reply "Missoula, Montana?" - even though the name Missoula is unique.)
      4. "City, state" for American cities, with a few clearly-defined exceptions, is the standard followed by WP:Reliable sources such as newspapers.
      5. [[City, State]] is a legitimate national variety of English - similar to the variations in spelling, vocabulary and grammar between British, Canadian, and American versions of English. Wikipedia specifically permits different language usages for different regions and does NOT require encyclopedia-wide consistency.
      6. Does not affect the naming of cities in any other country, because other countries do not follow this standard.
      7. Provides simplicity for use of (City, State) in disambiguation, as in First Presbyterian Church (Nashville, Arkansas) being the clear name of NRHP-listed building. And all 14 other notable Arkansas churches of name "First Presbyterian Church" get same predictable name. See First Presbyterian Church (disambiguation). It would be nightmarish to keep track of which obscure places within Arkansas have a temporarily unique name, until it is found not to be unique.
      8. Only option that finally resolves debate about USPLACE and related titles. Provides a simple system which can only result in confusion if [[Cityname, Statename]] is ambiguous.
      9. With some exceptions, the naming convention for people says not to use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used; for instance, commonly-used concise names like "Elvis" and "Oprah" redirect to articles titled using their full names: Elvis Presley, Oprah Winfrey. A naming convention for cities that did the same (redirecting even an unambiguous City to City, State) would be consistent with this.
      10. It's a slippery slope to more and more contention, if "city, state" convention is weakened. In the U.S. many more settlement articles are settled by following the convention. And the majority of "city, state" convention in titles is within disambiguation, e.g. for "First Presbyterian Church (Podunk, State)". All these thousands of article topics would be opened for more contention, if "Podunk, State" is itself moved to "Podunk".
      11. Treats U.S. cities like many settlements in other countries, where comma convention is used. For example, there are many settlements in Canada where "City, Province" is used.
      12. Achieves helpful separation between contributing, content-building editors vs. editors whose interest is contention about primacy of one place vs. another, as those battles fought at disambiguation pages that can be ignored. Mostly avoids disruption, interruptions of content-building editors.
      13. Diminishes incentive of "pro-United States" editors to engage in battleground behavior and dishonesty in their tactics, not related to content-building, that advance U.S. articles chances of "winning" in battles about primacy for redirects and dab-page treatment, e.g. of battle for primacy of Cambridge, Massachusetts vs. Cambridge in England. (It is expressed below that "If USPLACE dictates Cityname, Statename for a given city, then that city's relative importance is diminished in determining the primary topic for Cityname, so another use is likely to be found primary for that name, rather than making it a dab page (e.g., Cambridge is about the English city, not a dab page, despite how prominent the Cambridge in Massachusetts is). To many, an article being at a title other than its concise name per a guideline like USPLACE is giving up consideration for that topic in determining the primary topic for the concise name." Therefore, pro-U.S. editors should drop the comma convention, in order to fight better against others in the worldwide battleground for primacy of city names?)
    • CON:
      1. Any convention that indicates titles other than the concise common name for the topic, except when necessary for disambiguation, inherently conflicts with normal WP conventions, and is bound to foster discontent and contention. We have a 9+ year history of many people objecting to this format on the grounds that we don't disambiguate concise commonly used names of most other cities for their titles, no matter how obscure they may be, unless there is an ambiguity conflict within WP to be resolved.
      2. While [[Cityname, Statename]] may also be commonly used to refer to a given city, there is no question that [[Cityname]] is more concise, is more commonly used among those familiar with the city, and just as precise, when the city is the primary topic for that name.
      3. People are much more rarely the primary topic of a concise name than are cities, but when they are, and are commonly used as an artist's true name, we do use that for the article title (e.g., Cher, not Cherilyn Sarkisian). This is also true for almost all of our titles. There is no good reason US cities which are the primary topic for their names should be treated any differently.

        Also, the convention to usually use first name as well as last name for the titles of articles about people applies to people of all countries, not just people from the US. And besides, first and last names are both names of the topic (the person); state names are the names of states, not the names of cities or settlements.

      4. Treats U.S. settlement article titles differently from article titles of many (most?) settlements out of the U.S.
      5. If USPLACE dictates [[Cityname, Statename]] for a given city, then that city's relative importance is diminished in determining the primary topic for [[Cityname]], so another use is likely to be found primary for that name, rather than making it a dab page (e.g., Cambridge is about the English city, not a dab page, despite how prominent the Cambridge in Massachusetts is). To many, an article being at a title other than its concise name per a guideline like USPLACE is giving up consideration for that topic in determining the primary topic for the concise name.
      6. Doesn't follow WP:COMMONNAME, especially for cities with unique names, because ", California" is not part of the name of a city like Chula Vista; it's just a convenient and standard way to specify what state it's in, when that's necessary. When it's not necessary, it's normally not included[1] [2] [3] [4] [5], nor should it be in a WP title.
      7. Even when a US city name is qualified by state in reliable sources, there is no evidence that the full state name is most commonly used as is represented by this convention. At least as often the 2-letter or other abbreviation for the state is used.
      8. Indicating additional contextual information (like ", state") is to be in the title of all articles within a certain class (like US places), in addition to the topic's concise name, even when the name is unique, makes it easy to determine titles for articles in the class (it's the same regardless of whether it's concise name is unique/primary), but it also enables article creators to fail to properly manage ramifications of introducing this article to the WP namespace. Even though the article's title won't be at the concise name, the concise name still needs to be checked. If there is nothing there, it needs to be a redirect. If it's a dab page, it needs a new entry. If it's an article or redirect, it may have to be moved or changed based on primary topic considerations. If the convention is to use the concise name when possible, then all this other checking is natural and practically automatic.
      9. Even though it's more "helpful", "informative", "descriptive", etc. to include the state in the title, none of these are criteria in deciding our titles. We do try to make our titles recognizable, but only to those who are familiar with each topic. While most people probably do not know that Funkley is even a city, much less that it's a US city in Minnesota, people familiar with that city certainly do. So, for them, the title is recognizable. With a title of Funkley, Minnesota, people unfamiliar with the city would be able to get that from the title, thus making it more helpful for them, but if making our titles recognizable to those unfamiliar with the topics were a goal, we would have to change the titles of almost every article on WP to meet that goal. For a variety of reasons, we use article leads for that purpose on WP, not titles, and there is no reason to do it for US city articles either.
      10. Support for any variation of the comma convention by default for US settlements may not be an overt intent to make other titles more helpful too (by adding contextual information not necessary for disambiguation to them), but following this convention for this subset of settlement articles does set a precedent to be followed elsewhere, whether that's the intent or not. In the opinion of one or more editors, it is a slippery slope, sliding towards an environment where it's less and less clear whether conciseness (disambiguate only if necessary) or more descriptive/helpful should prevail for any given article title, creating less stability and more debate in situations without deterministic paths to resolution.
  2. All US cities, except New York City, use [[Cityname, Statename]].
    • PRO: Simple. See PRO for #1. Only one well-known exception for which there is especially strong consensus support for dropping the state name.
    • CON:
      1. Unnecessary disambiguation. See CON for #1.
  3. Cities on the AP list (30 cities) which are the primary topic for their concise names use [[Cityname]]; all other US cities use [[Cityname, Statename]].
    • PRO:
      1. Status quo in use for years. This is the current convention, which should only be overturned for good reason, per WP:TITLE.
      2. See PRO for #1. Fairly simple. A few well-known exceptions. Good compromise.
      3. Based on WP:Reliable sources.
    • CON:
      1. Unnecessary disambiguation. See CON for #1.
      2. Uses primary topic evaluation to determine whether the concise name is the title (e.g., Washington is not the title of the article about the city) arbitrarily for only cities on the AP list, rather than for all US cities.
  4. Cities on the AP list or the New York Times list (60 cities) which are the primary topic for their concise names use [[Cityname]]; all other US cities use [[Cityname, Statename]].
    • PRO:
      1. See PRO for #1. Expands current list to more exceptions.
      2. Based on WP:Reliable sources.
    • CON:
      1. Unnecessary disambiguation. See CON for #1.
      2. Uses primary topic evaluation to determine whether the concise name is the title arbitrarily for only cities on the AP or NYT lists, rather than for all US cities.
  5. City entries in Britannica and Columbia without the state in the entry name (~250 cities) and which are the primary topic for their concise names use [[Cityname]]; all other US cities use [[Cityname, Statename]].
    • PRO:
      1. See PRO for #1. Expands current list to even more exceptions than Option 4.
      2. Based on WP:Reliable sources.
    • CON:
      1. Retains ", state" in title as unnecessary disambiguation for all cities which are the primary topic for their respective city names, but not so treated on Brittanica and Columbia. See CON for #1.
      2. Not simple or clearcut. The list of relevant cities may not be readily available. Even the actual number ("~250 cities") seems to be in doubt.
      3. Uses primary topic evaluation to determine whether the concise name is the title arbitrarily for only certain cities, rather than for all US cities.
  6. Cities with population over a certain threshold, like 100,000, and are the primary topic for their concise names, use [[Cityname]]; all other US cities use [[Cityname, Statename]].
    • PRO: Expands current list to even more exceptions than Option 5.
    • CON:
      1. Retains ", state" in title as unnecessary disambiguation for all cities with population below the threshold even if they are the primary topic for their respective city names. See CON for #1.
      2. Purely arbitrary criterion with no basis in Reliable Sources.
      3. Uses primary topic evaluation to determine whether the concise name is the title arbitrarily for only certain cities, rather than for all US cities.
  7. Cities which are the primary topic for their name use [[Cityname]]; all other US cities use [[Cityname, Statename]].
    • PRO:
      1. Simple. Follows WP:TITLE, using USPLACE only when disambiguation is required.
      2. Only option that consistently uses primary topic evaluation to determine whether the concise name is the title for all US cities, not arbitrarily for only certain cities.
      3. Only option that finally resolves debate about USPLACE and related titles. By using the state-qualified long-form of a city name only when necessary for disambiguation, the underlying problem of treating US cities specially is solved. If adopted, then all US city titles could be objectively determined without debate based on whether the city is the primary topic for it's concise city name, a question which is already resolved for all US cities.
      4. Affects only those cities in which [[Cityname]] currently is a redirect to [[Cityname, Statename]].
      5. Contrary to claims to the contrary, has no effect on number of primary topic debates. Whether a city is the primary topic for [[Cityname]] has to be determined regardless of whether [[Cityname]] is being considered as the title for the article or as a redirect to the article.
      6. Referring to a US city which is the primary topic for its name, by its name, is not an unfamiliar system to most Americans.
    • CON:
      1. Less familiar system to most Americans, who standardly refer to cities by "city, state".
      2. Not the way it is done by Reliable Sources such as newspapers and encyclopedias.
      3. Overturns an existing convention which has been stable for years.
      4. May not meet certain title characteristics under WP:CRITERIA, including consistency (titles of similar articles should follow the same pattern) and the requirement that titles put the interests of general readers ahead of the interests of editors or specialists.
      5. Inconsistent with other established conventions like WP:NCP, which with some exceptions redirects concise names (even if unambiguous) to full names (e.g. Elvis).

Discussion about Workspace

I think it's important that the "pro" and "con" arguments be as short as possible - ideally a few words or a single sentence, not an essay with examples and arguments. If it gets too wordy, people will dismiss the entire survey as TL;DR. Some of B2C's pros and cons and rebuttals are already approaching this level; I would hope that B2C would condense them himself rather than having others condense them for him. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Having had a past experience with an RfC in which the pro/con sections which were too long, I concur. The shorter the whole thing is, the better. There will be a discussion area anyway where each pro/con point can be further explained if necessary.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 1, 2012; 16:53 (UTC)
And defer rebuttals to the discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Fully concur with Dicklyon on this. Let the PROs and CONs stand on their merits. Allowing rebuttals inline just allows someone to say loudly I don't agree, therefore I must discredit this position ASAP. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

One point not brought up as a con is that some editors believe that since these names are disambiguated, they can not be the primary topic when compared with other localities. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand that point, or which choice it is a "con" to; but can you reduce it to a sentence and add it to the arguments above? --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
It is a con for most/all of them. Editors use the USPLACE convention to argue that any article that follows this naming gives up is claim to cityname and must stay at cityname, statename. This has been raised in a number of WP:RM discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Completely concur on this issue. In past WP:RM discussions attempting to move unqualified British city names (including Worcester, Dover and Plymouth) to disambiguated titles due to the lack of a clear primary topic, many editors opposing the moves have argued that since American cities must be titled using the CITYNAME, STATENAME convention (whereas British cities can simply be titled as CITYNAME), the British cities have an automatic claim to the unqualified title - even if the primary topic is not clear and a dab page may be more suitable. The best example is probably Worcester, Massachusetts, which is a larger city and gets more page hits than Worcester, Worcestershire; however, the British city remains at the unqualified title based on the above reasoning. IMO, this is a good reason why making USPLACE consistent with worldwide geographic naming conventions would be beneficial. Cheers, Rai•me 16:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why this extensive discussion about a US-specific matter is happening here at all and not, for example at say Wikipedia:WikiProject United States? Ben MacDui 18:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Because this is where country-specific conventions are located. Check the archives for similar discussions regarding other countries that took place here. Plus, one aspect of the debate is whether and how the USPLACE convention fits into the WP-wide titling scheme, which has been of interest to non-U.S. editors. Dohn joe (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
There are some such discussions of course, but I find it hard to imagine this endless and protracted discussion about US places, which keeps cropping up, is of great interest to many editors who are not interested in US places as such. I shall be taking this off my watch list for a while. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to let me know if something of interest on a different topic crops up meantime? Ben MacDui 17:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Question: In option #1, "CON" point #1, it says the dispute has been going on for "10+ years". Since Wikipedia itself has only been around for 11 years, that suggests that the dispute goes back to the very earliest days of the pedia, and I doubt if that can be proven. The current convention ("city, state" except for the AP Stylebook cities) appears to be only 4 years old.[6] I suspect "10+ years" is an untenable exaggeration but I am open to evidence. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. The earliest related discussion I can find (in a few minutes) is from July 2003[7]... so 9+ years. Fixed. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is that after the 2000 census, a bot created articles for most places in the US using the city, state naming. That has been referenced in older discussions on this issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

B2C, you put this back in after I took it out once: under PROs for your preferred solution you listed " Only option that finally resolves debate about USPLACE and related titles. By using the state-qualified long-form of a city name only when necessary for disambiguation, the underlying problem of treating US cities specially is solved. If adopted, then all US city titles could be objectively determined without debate based on whether the city is the primary topic for it's concise city name, a question which is already resolved for all US cities." In the first place, your arguments are getting wordy and argumentative again (you are probably going to have to go through again and again and condense your arguments down to a single sentence; if you don't, someone will have to do it for you). In the second place, people can still argue about the "resolved" question of which city is the primary topic. But most important, your claim that your preferred method is the "only option that finally resolves" the debate is POV and unjustified. It could just as well be argued that the current AP convention is the "only option that finally resolves" the debate, since it has been in place for four years and seems to win every current argument on the subject. Your preferred option is not going to eliminate those "organic, grass roots" suggestions that you are so fond of when they support your side; for example, when somebody in the future tries to change Sleepy Eye to Sleepy Eye, Minnesota, or Cayucos to Cayucos, California. The only recourse to such a suggestion will be for you or your equivalent to charge in and say, "sorry, reject, that's not part of the agreed upon convention" - just as happens now, over your strong objections, when someone wants to remove a state name. In any case, either take out your unjustified claim that doing it your way will "finally resolve the debate", or I will add the same argument as a PRO for the AP convention. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "wordy" - this is a work in progress, not even a day old, and getting the arguments stated is Step 1 - stating them concisely comes later. But thanks for the heads up!

It's true that people will be able to argue about whether a given city is the primary topic for its name, but this is true regardless of whether the city is at its short name or its long name. That part of it has nothing to do with the ongoing 9+ year debate related to USPLACE. I mean, consider Menlo Park. Currently it's a dab page with three places, while the city in CA is at Menlo Park, California. But it being at its long title does not prevent someone from arguing that the CA city is the primary topic, and so Menlo Park should be moved to Menlo Park (disambiguation) so that Menlo Park can redirect to Menlo Park, California. That is, following the comma convention does nothing to prevent, inhibit or settle this type of argument.

--Born2cycle (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Arguing about redirects vs. dab pages will always be possible, but the "primary topic" issue becomes much less relevant if we are using the "city, state" convention. But that wasn't my main point. I was just challenging your smug assertion that the question of primary topic has been "resolved," for all U.S. cities for all time. --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I never said "for all time". That's a straw man.

Smug? The issue is about as resolved as any issue ever is on WP. Even Las Vegas and St. Louis seem to have been resolved, finally. Do you know of any cases where the question of primary topic regarding a US city is not resolved? As far as I know the issue of primary topic is resolved for every single US city in one of the following ways:

  1. It is the primary topic for its concise city name, demonstrated by the concise city name being the title of the article (e.g., San Francisco).
  2. It is the primary topic for its concise city name, demonstrated by the concise city name being a redirect to the article (e.g., Chula Vista → Chula Vista, California).
  3. It is not the primary topic for its concise city name, demonstrated by the concise city name being a title of another article (e.g., Paris, Texas, Paris).
  4. It is not the primary topic for its concise city name, demonstrated by having a dab page at the concise city name. (e.g., Portland, Oregon, Portland).
Actually, I can think of one type of case where the issue might not be as resolved as it could be, but that's because of the comma convention. This was Vegaswikian's point, about cities like Cambridge, Massachusetts, where the comma convention is used to dismiss consideration for the MA city in determining whether another use is the primary topic for "Cambridge". Flawed as their reasoning may be, enough dismiss the view counts of Cambridge, Massachusetts in determining primary topic for "Cambridge" on the grounds that since the convention disallows the article from being at Cambridge, those view counts are irrelevant to primary topic determination, that support for the English city being the primary topic has tended to achieve local consensus support.

Anyway, the inability for anyone to identify any other US cities for which the primary topic issue is not resolved is why I contend that the issue is resolved for all US cities.

I also don't see how it becomes more or less relevant depending on which convention is used. Even for Cambridge, the argument is not that that city is the primary topic and its article should be at Cambridge; the issue is always about whether the English city or the dab page should be at Cambridge, and that's the situation regardless of which convention is used for US PLACE. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason this last option is the only option that finally resolves the issue is explained there: "If adopted, then all US city titles could be objectively determined without debate based on whether the city is the primary topic for it's concise city name". Yes, it's true the question of primary topic can be raised, but, again, that's true regardless of which convention is used. That is, the fact that a previously resolved primary topic decision can be raised again is not an argument against any of the options since it applies to all of the options equally. That's just a fact of life on WP due to consensus can change.

If you want to argue that the current convention resolves the issue because it wins every time it's challenged, go ahead. If that's your idea of resolved, I guess you're right.

Let's run with your Sleepy Eye example, but take it a little deeper than you did. In the current situation if someone proposes moving Sleepy Eye, Minnesota to Sleepy Eye their policy-based argument is likely to be some form of "unnecessary disambiguation", just as it was made (by an admin, by the way, not a newbie, which is significant) for the Cleveland Heights, Ohio to Cleveland Heights move in August[8]. And the only argument to move it back is "follow the rules (i.e., USPLACE)".

But if we change USPLACE to Option 7 above, and move that article to Sleepy Eye accordingly, what policy/convention-based argument might be given to move it to Sleepy Eye, Minnesota? There would be none. And the argument to leave it at Sleepy Eye would be based not only on USPLACE, but also on WP:TITLE criteria like concision, as well as unnecessary disambiguation. Sure a newbie might still occasionally make such a proposal or even a unilateral move, but it would clearly be a no contest situation. And there wouldn't be any basis for anyone to bring up this topic on this talk page either (disagree? what would the basis be?). That's why I say it would be finally resolved (as "final" as anything can be on WP, of course). Does that make sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought you would say, and what it adds up to is this: you and your faction will not accept any result here except option 7. If there is some other result - for example, if USPLACE gets reaffirmed - you will continue to regard it as "contentious" and will argue about it, here and at talk pages, every chance you get. It will be contentious because you will make it so. It makes me wonder whether this proposed RFC is worth bothering with. There is no point in going through with an RFC, if one side is going to refuse to accept the results - on the basis that their preferred version is the only correct one, or as you put it, "the only option that finally resolves debate". --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, reason is predictable. But it's not me nor other regulars that cause the contention that I'm trying to address with #7, and have been trying to resolve for years. I'm almost certain I've never crossed paths with the admin who moved Cleveland Heights in August (as one example off the top of my head), nor do I have anything to do with initiating all the USPLACE related moves every year, or starting discussions on this page, like #About USPLACE, still at the top of this page (as another example).

This is just like the Yogurt/Yoghurt situation, where the regulars like me who favored the move to Yogurt were blamed for all the move proposals that were made each year, year after year, even though it was almost always previously uninvolved editors who were doing it, just like here. And it's not just regulars who strongly support moves like Beverly Hills based on consistency with other titles. If you think the problem here is caused by regulars like me, you're totally missing the problem we're trying to solve, and not understanding why the issue will never be resolved as long as USPLACE stands out like sore thumb calling out for titles in a manner that blatantly contradicts how other article titles are named.

I have a theory that I have not verified. I think what happens to people is that they learn about "unnecessary disambiguation" when they try to move an article to a more informative or descriptive title, and get reverted by a clear consensus saying the move adds unnecessary disambiguation to the title. So, they get it. And go on like that for some time, supporting other titles accordingly, then one day they come upon a uniquely named US city which never-the-less has the state in its title, or they read this convoluted guideline, and they have a WTF moment. As long as this or a similar guideline remains in place, that will never change. As long as any form of the comma convention by default remains a pointless anomaly in the title namespace, people will have these WTF moments, and contention will reign. It has not subsided in the last 9+ years, and I have no reason to believe it will in the next 9. Do you?

To blame me and other regulars who support consistency with other titles for USPLACE articles for this is to ignore the evidence, including what I pointed out with the Sleepy Eye example above. It's not my fault that #7 is the only one that is going to resolve this, nor is it my fault for pointing it out. Cheers! --Born2cycle (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The yog(h)urt contributors shows who was driving that mess. The edits here since you started are on a similar path. To act like your work is settling problems, as opposed to fueling them, seems disingenuous. How much would it hurt to leave this one working as it is? A lot less than this hurt you keep whipping up, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Yogurt is resolved. There hasn't been a peep about the title in the year since it was moved. And, as I always said, that would be the case as soon as it was moved, since once it was moved there would be no basis in policy or conventions to move it again. If I had been listened to when I first pointed that out, it would have been resolved years earlier. The same thing is going on here. Once Option 7 is adopted, there will be no basis in policy or conventions to disagree with it. Don't blame the messenger, even if he is wordy. :-)

By the way, the big break-through at Yogurt occurred after the various arguments were laid out so they could be compared against each other. Maybe there is hope for final resolution here too, finally. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And my point is that the amount of ink and angst expended on yogurt would have probably been 95% less if you had not felt that you had to take every opportunity to argue with everyone who disagreed with you. Would it still be at yoghurt and still get an occasion attempt to move it to yogurt? Who knows, and who cares? It would have been a lot less disruptive and famous. But you can brag on it now, because you finally got your way, but on the rationale that we'll never be able to decide on any basis, so leave it as the first editor did it. Great triumph. But what happens now if you leave USPLACE alone? Continued disruptive move discussions forever? Or the welcome relative peace of having Born2cycle shut the fuck up for a change? Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) B2C, there is no hope for resolution, as long as you (and those who think like you) are unwilling to accept any "resolution" except complete agreement with you. There is no point to this RFC if you think its only acceptable outcome is "once option 7 is adopted". I suggest that this RFC process be aborted as a sham. You have apparently not proposed it in good faith, and you make it clear you will not abide by its result unless it is the result you prefer. --MelanieN (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you even read what I write, Melanie? You repeat your same points as if I said nothing. I accepted the AP list "compromise" several years ago, but that did not resolve the situation. Related RMs still often end up "no consensus". Nothing is resolved. Maybe I'm annoying as hell, but points like the one made at #About USPLACE have nothing to do with me or anything I ever said or did. I also had nothing to do with the contentious Beverly Hills discussion in August, that resulted "consensus is split" Talk:Beverly_Hills,_California#Requested_move_Aug_2012. Maybe all you guys have left is to make this about me. That's a good sign. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Baloney. You have NOT accepted the AP list compromise (commonly referred to as USPLACE). Every time something like Beverly Hills or Cleveland Heights comes up, you rush in and make a federal case out of what could have been a simple "revert per USPLACE" situation. The only reason you had nothing to do with the first Beverly Hills discussion was that you didn't know about it - and as soon as you found out about it, you unilaterally reopened the closed discussion, so that you could continue to hammer away at USPLACE. The truth is that these "contentious" RM's you are so worked up about are not frequent. They come up maybe three or four times a year, and could be resolved very easily by applying USPLACE. But you did not accept USPLACE, and you have made it clear you will never accept USPLACE. And that is why I say this RFC should not proceed unless you retract your insistence that only #7 will satisfy you - and agree to accept the result whatever it is. (As for "you guys making this about me" - take a look at the statistics cited by Dicklyon and it becomes clear that this IS about you to a considerable extent.) (striking that comment as unhelpful and beside the point; what I really want to know is whether you - you personally, Born2cycle - will accept the result and drop your advocacy if something other than #7 is the result of this RFC. Yes or no?) --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
If there is consensus support (not just barely a majority) for a proposal, I will support it, just as I have accepted that there is consensus support for disambiguating US cities with the comma convention rather than with parentheses, even though I personally support the latter.--Born2cycle (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
In other words, if this discussion doesn't result in an overwhelming consensus (which you know is not going to happen), or if is closed in a way you don't like (based on "barely a majority"), you will second-guess the closer, declare the question unsettled, and continue to attack USPLACE. I think that is unacceptable. Either agree to accept the results of this RFC, or don't propose it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
By the way, this is why I think the format of the RfC is to request everyone to list all options that they find acceptable. In other words, even if option X is your 3rd favorite, if it's acceptable to you, then we should be able to recognize that as support for X. But if someone's 3rd favorite is Y, and that's unacceptable to them, then we should also be able to recognize that as not support for Y. In other words, the structure of the RfC should be able to distinguish between those two types of cases. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
And yogurt/yoghurt was festering and burning up untold cycles years before I arrived. I was instrumental in getting it finally resolved. I support solutions that bring finality to conflicts, especially conflicts that have been going on for a long time. Not Band aids. Not temporary fixes. Not incremental improvements. Real solid fixes. And that's what I support here.

I also shy away from conflicts where I don't see a good final resolution. But once I'm convinced that a given conflict can be resolved, yeah, that's what I support. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is about you. Before you showed up Yoghurt, Derek Ross was the bully with as many talk edits as the next three guys put together, and he got his way. Since you showed up, you took over the bully role, maintaining as many talk edits as the next three most active editors for OVER FIVE YEARS until you got your way. Bragging that you intend to keep employing the same tactic here is what MelanieN is complaining about, I think. I concur. Dicklyon (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Abort this RFC; do not proceed with it. It would be an exercise in futility. The person proposing the RFC, who is also the main person causing "contention" against the current system, has made it clear in comments above that he will not accept the results of this RFC unless it agrees with his position (option #7), or unless there is "consensus support" (by his definition) for one of the other options; "barely a majority" (his words) would not be enough to get him to drop his anti-USPLACE campaign. This is the same basis on which he has opposed the USPLACE convention for the past four years - his claim that it was not based on a "real consensus" - and he seems poised to continue the same course unless his option is decided on. He has made his refusal to accept a contrary result clear by inserting into the "PRO" arguments, twice, the argument that option #7 is the "only" option that will settle the question, and by his responses to challenges of that position. (Of course, if his option #7 winds up being chosen, even if it's by "barely a majority" rather than a clearcut consensus, he will insist on enforcing it as holy writ.) It's evident that Born2cycle regards this proposed RFC as a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition. Unless he clearly states, without hedging, that he will accept the result of this discussion as interpreted by the closing administrator, there is no point in proceeding with it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
"What RfC", huh? It seemed obvious that you were proposing this as an RFC because it is based on the RFC model that Kauffner was developing here. And in fact, you yourself referred to it as an RFC just a few lines above: this is why I think the format of the RfC is... So let's not pretend that wasn't in your thoughts. So now it's not an RFC proposal, it's a ... what is it? I don't know how you plan to get "a clear consensus" any other way; there are only half a dozen or so of us currently engaged in the discussion, and you certainly can't overturn an existing convention based on a small sample like that. And in any case I don't see any way to ever develop "consensus" as long as you continue to insist that there is only one possible choice, namely, do it your way. But it sounds like we agree that at least this thing is not ready for RfC any time soon. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
My thinking is that the regulars would prepare the presentation, and THEN someone (not me) would propose an RfC that would solicit input from the broader community. Sorry that wasn't clear. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
See? Now there is an RfC. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
And will you accept the result, even if it isn't the choice you prefer? --MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've had to strike out one of the points Born2cycle provided in the pros and cons list. It asserts that when a person is the primary topic of a concise name, Wikipedia uses that for the article title, but this isn't actually so. Except in cases where the single name is used as a true artist's name, WP:NCP actually asserts the exact opposite convention: Elvis redirects to Elvis Presley, Oprah to Oprah Winfrey, etc. ╠╣uw [talk] 01:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarify: WP:NCP. (Edit summary accidentally typo'ed this as NPC.) ╠╣uw [talk] 02:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
B2C: Your change to note that 1.CON.3 is for a limited case is an improvement, though as it's now stated ("...commonly used as an artist's name...") it's still too broad: Elvis, for instance, is commonly used as an artist's name, but the convention is to redirect Elvis to Elvis Presley. It's only when that commonly-used concise name is the "true artist's name" (as in your Cher example) that the exemption comes into play. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
(I've applied that amendment. Given that NCP more broadly supports redirects from the concise name to the full name, I may also add that as a pro for option A.) ╠╣uw [talk] 11:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Survey (Workshop)

3. But with places that are other than or are not cities, towns or counties named using common name, for example, Mayors of Sacramento gets to use the title List of mayors of Sacramento even though Sacramento would be located at Sacramento, California, Research Triangle Park, Pebble Beach Golf Links, etc. Apteva (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't parse this. Not following. Sorry. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The confusion may be that there are too many 3's. I was choosing B below - use the current system. I was saying we should follow the AP list, but instead of using the state for subarticles, use just the city if there was a primary topic, just to keep the title shorter. Even though Sacramento is the primary topic it uses Sacramento, California, just because of not being on the AP list, but all articles about Sacramento other than the article about the city could use normal primary topic rules just to keep the names shorter, and not throw in a superfluous ", California". Apteva (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC: US city names

After sifting through the comments and doing some work with pencil and paper, I can only conclude that this discussion be ended as maintain status quo (option B). --Kurykh (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2012 (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.

Which U.S. cities require disambiguation by state? Example: Atlantic City or Atlantic City, New Jersey? Kauffner (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources tend to list better-known cities at their concise names, without a state name attached. The capital of Tennessee is given as "Nashville" by Britannica, Columbia, and Encarta. But on Wikipedia it is titled as Nashville, Tennessee because it is not one of the 30 U.S. cities that the Associated Press gives in datelines without a "comma-state" tag; only the 30 cities listed by the AP get concise titles on Wiki, according to WP:USPLACE.

  • The AP list

The cities that "stand alone" in AP datelines are: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland,Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington. (30 cities) Source: Associated Press Stylebook, p. 66.

  • The New York Times list

The cities that stand alone in New York Times datelines are: Albany, Albuquerque, Anchorage, Atlanta, Atlantic City,Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati,Cleveland, Colorado Springs, Dallas, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit, El Paso, Fort Worth, Hartford, Hollywood, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Iowa City,Jersey City, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Memphis, Miami, Miami Beach, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Nashville, Newark, New Haven, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Rochester,Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, St. Paul, Syracuse, Trenton, Tucson, Virginia Beach, Washington, White Plains, and Yonkers. (59 cities, not counting New York City) Source: The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, p. 99.

  • Other encyclopedias

Columbia has an entry for Wichita Falls, Texas, ranked 269 by population, but not for Palm Bay, Florida, ranked 270. Britannica has entries for Wichita Falls and Palm Bay, but not for Centennial, Colorado, ranked 271. Consulting other encyclopedias is the first recommendation of WP:PLACE, and this is also recommended in WP:ENGLISH.

  • General disambiguation guidelines

"If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies," per WP:PRECISION. There are numerous cases where a concise U.S. city name is a redirect. That is to say, the city has been designated primary topic, but its article title remains in name-comma-state format.


Indicate order of preference among the following options:

  • A. Put all articles on U.S. cities, aside from New York City, at [[City, State]].
  • B. For cities on the AP dateline list, use [[City]], where [[City]] is already the title or currently directs to [[City, State]]. Otherwise use [[City, State]]. (Note: this is the current convention.)
  • C. Extend the current convention's list of cities that can omit state to include cities on the New York Times list, in addition to those on the AP list.
  • D. Extend the current convention's list of cities that can omit state to include any city given in both Britannica and Columbia.
  • E. Do not require state unless needed to avoid article title conflict, for all U.S. cities.

Kauffner (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC) As modified by Dohn joe (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Wording tweaks/clarifications. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: The wording of these choices is under dispute as possibly non-neutral; see discussion below. Furthermore, they were changed by the proposer to a far less neutral and more slanted format after discussion had already started. --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
And I have returned it to what I hope is a more neutral and less controversial wording. If anyone objects, please just restore the original wording that the !votes refer to. Dicklyon (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my objections; the wording supplied by Dicklyon is clear, neutral, and uncontroversial. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Survey

  • DE, as nom. Unnecessary disambiguation in large type across the top of an article looks ugly and unprofessional. In a dateline, such disambiguation is merely patronizing. So our list of U.S. cities that can be put at their concise names should include all those that are given this way in newspaper datelines. Britannica and Columbia have entries for these cities, as well as for various others. They include a few cities that I'd rather see in name-comma-state format. But following the style of other encyclopedias is certainly an encyclopedic solution. Kauffner (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ABCDE. The argument that we should follow the titling style of other encyclopedias is inapposite (I may change this word later, as I go through my thesaurus), as they can have more than one article with the same title. WP:COMMONNAME suggests that all except about 5 cities be predisambiguated — and we'd disagree on which 5. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    • So you acknowledge that the basis of the current convention is a technical glitch, i.e. the fact that MediaWiki does not support multiple instances of a title? If so, it follows that every city should be its common name, with disambiguation only as required to avoid title clashes. As far as what the common name for any particular city is, that is something that can be tested with ngram and similar tools. Kauffner (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
      • (Belated comment). Actually, no. That's only one of the reasons why D is inappropriate. If it weren't for the "techical glitch", as you call it, D would be an option. WP:COMMONNAME and the fact that, even for cities with unique names, "city, state" really is how we Americans refer to them. I'd consider moving C further down, as the NY Times list is NYC-centric. I would only consider C(B) as the option below B in my ranking; C for cities moer than 100 miles from NYC, B for cities within 100 miles of NYC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • CBA (changing to BCA per Dicklyon's reasoning below and per WP:TITLE: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.") per WP:Common name and WP:Reliable sources. I have not seen the list of cities that fall under "D" and I am not sure that such a list is readily available, or even exists. NYT (option C) and AP (option B) seem like the most readily accessible and easy-to-understand Reliable Sources for this purpose. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • BCA BAC (demoted C based on discussion; seriously, Yonkers?) – I favor B mainly because it is the current guideline, which was worked out as a compromise. Adding a few more, or a few less, to the list of exceptions might be OK, but I see no good reason to do it. I agree with Arthur Rubin on the inappositeness of following other encyclopedias on this; there is really no good reason to be removing the state from a few hundred selected city article titles; it would be that harder to track and implement. I see no evidence of any "consternation and confusion by dozens if not hundreds of people about using the comma convention" as Born2cycle claims; just a few cases that are easily cleared up by pointing out the guideline, and a few fanned into big messes by Born2cycle himself. Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • B: Oppose change from existing US Names standard This has been repeatedly addressed and a new RFC serves no good. No good to nonstop argument; a settled standard exists. No gain to wikipedia article creation is possible from this debate. STOP THIS and go back to working on articles. OPPOSE the RFC. OPPOSE any change. OPPOSE any further discussion for 5 years. --doncram 22:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • EDCB - Unnecessary disambiguation - it would be best to make US naming guidelines consistent with international naming standards. We do not follow newspaper stylebook standards for other countries - the AP stylebook also lists only a few worldwide cities that can be listed without qualifiers, but there will certainly be no debate as to whether Gort should be moved to Gort, County Galway to follow WP:RS. I also don't believe that cityname, statename is the WP:COMMONNAME for almost all American cities as stated by many users in the above discussion. States are added to city names only when additional clarification is needed - just as "the singer" would be added to Lenka if a person is unfamiliar with the subject matter at hand. Cheers, Rai•me 22:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • B On the grounds that if it ain't broke don't fix it. I can live with idea that a Massachusetts village should take the place of a major metropolis in Lincolnshire. A is just plain silly, and C has become arbitary. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Edcba. I submit that almost 10 years of consternation and confusion by dozens if not hundreds of people about using the comma convention even where the city is the primary topic for City and City redirects to City, State, is far more than sufficient evidence that this guideline is broken. Since the other choices are just slight variations on this, for the better or worse, I find them all almost equally unacceptable for the same reasons. It should be obvious to anyone that has paid any attention to all the USPLACE-related unilateral moves, RM proposal discussions usually ending in "no consensus", and no consensus discussions on this talk page over the years, that the current guideline is broken and that this issue will not be resolved until we stop treating US city article titles differently from other WP article titles, including most other city article titles. Only E resolves this issue, so far as I can tell. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • B On the grounds that if it ain't broke don't fix it per ClemRutter, Dicklyon, MelanieN, Doncram. C as second choice if it can expanded to replace one stable list with a longer NY Times one including Sacremento and Atlantic City. Very strongly oppose E for exactly the reason that Born2cycle supports it, that it will open the door to endless unstable lengthy RMs. A complete waste of time. Complaints that Australia, Canada or UK don't have a similar stable fix aren't any logical reason for removing the stable fix from the biggest pool of Anglo-Saxon geo names. If it is removed the knock-on effect will destabilize other Anglo-Saxon geoname countries' articles as well. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • E American cities should be treated the same way every other countries' cities are treated. People who say "American cities are referred to by city, state" are wrong. Pure and simple. We say Tallahassee, Sacramento, Atlantic City, and plenty of others without needing to disambiguate by adding the state name. And people who say that allowing more exceptions will create more work are just being lazy. Using either the NY Times list or the encyclopedia ones would be acceptable, as they at least eliminate some obvious ones that don't need disambiguation such as Jersey City and Virginia Beach.Hot Stop (Edits) 04:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • BCEDA. B has served us well for several years. There's been scattered disagreement on one side from those who want most pages at [[City]], and on the other side from those who seriously argue for titles like "New York City, New York". However, consensus does not require every single user to agree. B is probably our best solution in the interest of reducing both conflict and unnecessary disambiguation. C contains some examples that make sense to me as [[City]] titles, such as Miami Beach. But IMO the main caveat to the New York Times Manual of Style list is that it's designed specifically for audiences in the New York metropolitan area, explaining the presence of ambiguous titles like Albany and Rochester (Albany, Georgia and Rochester, Minnesota are just as "primary" as their New York State doppelgangers IMO). I would support E in an ideal world, but it'll create disruption due to a massive forest fire of move requests, so it wouldn't work on Wikipedia. D is a no-go because Wikipedia doesn't and shouldn't "do what other encyclopedias do", and it's inherently based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. A is exactly where we were before the AP solution came into effect. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. szyslak (t) 05:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify on the point about Rochester and Albany, the idea would be to restrict the list to only those cities if other conditions (a current redirect or clear primary topic) were met. So if C or D were the 'winner' here, prime topic would need to be determined for those cities. Hot Stop (Edits) 05:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Understood. In fact, what you describe is basically what we do now, except that we use the AP list. I still stand by my point that the NYT list is geographically biased toward New York City and environs. szyslak (t) 05:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Agreed. It probably under-represents other areas (the South for one). Hot Stop (Edits) 06:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Because of the "where City is already a redirect to City, State" qualifier in the RfC, Albany and Rochester are not relevant to this RfC as both are dab pages, not redirects to any articles about cities with titles in the City, State form. IOW, the WP community has already decided that there is no primary topic for these two names. Albany and Rochester would remain dab pages under all options being considered here, even E, just as Washington remains a dab page under the current guideline, despite being on the AP list. And titles of articles about all cities with either name would remain disambiguated with their state name under all options here. To illustrate one's opposition with examples, choosing a relevant one would be more, well, illustrative. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Can we please keep all discussion in the "discussion" section below, to keep this "survey" as clean and readable as possible? If someone has a qualification or point about one of the options, they can include it in their comments, but ideally all responses would go in the "discussion" section instead of here. Would you folks be willing to move your comments there? --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • BC, Oppose E: Status quo is good here. E gives license to any random editor claiming their pet city is the Primary Topic which will lead to endless, unproductive and possibly contentious RM discussions with no net benefit to the encyclopedia. If not one of the ~19,300 US Place names ever changed again, WP would not be harmed in anyway and all the volunteer energy saved could be used to improve content. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • E. Strongly oppose A, oppose BC, neutral on D, and disagree with Mike above that E would open doors to numerous contentious RMs. When a primary topic concern exists for any given US city, it should be considered and resolved on its own merits. Within the framework of primary topic discussion, it makes absolutely no difference what naming convention is otherwise used because a true primary topic case should override any of them regardless. Interestingly enough, it is actually the A/B variants which stand in a way of a considering primary topic concerns properly by introducing artificial constraints in the form of the "State" disambiguator, as the Nashville case so amply demonstrated. Also, why would there be "endless contentious" debates in cases where XXX is currently (and has been for ages) nothing but a redirect to "XXX, State"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 5, 2012; 14:25 (UTC)
  • Oppose any change - If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Carrite (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • AB, strongly oppose E Though A is the simplest, the status quo (B) works. It can be stated and defined very easily without the need for any judgment calls. Option E would lead to many needless debates, as each individual city has to be treated individually. It would not result in some sort of "final resolution", regardless of the claims that it would. Option E complicates, whereas the status quo is simple and straightforward. In any case, WP:TITLE allows for the use of other naming criteria. We have a functioning standard that has been in place for years; let's leave it alone. Omnedon (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • EDC The original <city, state> format was the result of a bot creating the place articles en masse. Other place articles that evolved more naturally do not have this artificial constraint. Allowing place articles to be titled under the more general Wikipedia-wide article titling criteria will result in sufficiently precise names. I am also okay with titling using the same convention as other encyclopedias (as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia) as a second option. Barring that, I can live with an expansion of the current AP exception list using certain criteria of significance. I do not necessarily care for the NYT list as it is regionally biased but I am using that choice as a proxy for some kind of expansion of the current AP list. --Polaron | Talk 17:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Maintain the status quo under the guise that the titles are stable, and the system isn't broke. In my experience, Americans use "City, State" as the place names on first mention in regular conversation unless the context makes it clear which state is involved. Imzadi 1979 → 18:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • BDEAC. The AP treatment is fine, and is far better than The New York Times. The audience for the encyclopedia is global, but the NYT is decidedly a U.S. (and New York) publication, whereas the AP is much more global in scope, and thus probably reflects a global perspective more accurately. It works, and I haven't seen strong arguments for why it needs to be changed. I don't feel particularly strongly about the other options, but it would certainly make sense to leave open the possibility of consensus leading to divergence from the AP in specific cases, because that's how we operate here. In sum, there's no need for hard and fast rules, but the AP is a good starting place. --Batard0 (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • DCB. The list certainly needs expanding and while E sounds like the most open and reasonable I agree with other posters that it could likely begin an endless stream of rm's. If we have authority figures like encyclopedias and newspapers we should take advantage and use then to help us out here since too often our rm's boil down to something out of a Republican/Democrat style clash, where no consensus is reached and we've wasted our time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • E. Unfortunately, the option of always having City, State was not given. Op47 (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ABCDE. Places in the USA are typically referred to as City, State overall. There's something called "consistency" that is valuable for an encyclopedia: people should be able to assume that all articles about a certain class of topics will be titled in the same way. If we decide on E, people like Born2cycle, who have already been responsible for a long stream of RMs, will begin an endless stream of fights to get one city or another declared the primary topic. By saying that all places get the state name, we avoid the need for RMs entirely, except for disruptive RMs that effectively seek to declare consensus irrelevant, and those can be quashed by any admin. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • EDCBA I see no reason why US cities should have unnecessary disambiguation. Let's go with COMMONNAME and use the simplest standard. David1217 What I've done 01:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • BCADE. In common speech across the U.S., "City, State" is quite a standard way to discuss a place; certainly contextually just "City" is used a lot as well, but one hears "Boston, Massachusetts" or "Kansas City, Missouri" as often as just "Boston" or "Kansas City". The existing convention works fine, defaulting to "City, State" for nearly all cities, excepting a limited number which are completely unique or dominant, the AP style guide OR NYT standards are reasonably short lists. --Jayron32 06:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • AB. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • BCA D is distant fourth option. E is unacceptable. older ≠ wiser 12:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC) -- PS BCA are each about equally acceptable to me. There is preference for B as the status quo. C is an acceptable expansion of the same rationale for B. I put A in third position for pragmatic reasons in that I didn't think there was really much of a chance it would gain consensus. But in many ways, A is the best choice in that it avoids the complexities of "if X, then Y, unless Z" type of qualifications needed with the partial lists. older ≠ wiser 15:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ABCDE, for many of the reasons already well stated above. As a convention, A is entirely consistent, extremely simple, easily understood by even new or casual readers/editors, and reflects common usage. The others (particularly E) are in my opinion none of those things. (That said, I would consider B an acceptable path, since the exceptions its introduces are tightly constrained and explicitly defined, and as the current convention it's served us well for many years). ╠╣uw [talk] 13:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong E, then A, weak DCB - E is best per WP:COMMONNAME, which as far as I can tell is the standard for the cities of most other countries on WP. "City, State" is unnecessary diambiguation in cases where "City" redirects to "City, State". - BilCat (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support A, support B- This is an English encyclopedia, not American. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
In that case, you may want to advocate against guidelines such as WP:CANSTYLE as this is an English encyclopedia, not Canadian. Or MOS:PHIL, as this is an English encyclopedia, not Filipino. --BDD (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
What an inane argument -- this isn't an American site, so let's continue to follow one rule for America and another for every other country? Hot Stop (Edits) 07:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • BCAD, strong oppose on E. E is far too broad considering how many settlements there are in America, and as someone who edits a lot of the smaller places I think it would be an absolute nightmare to implement. For instance, would we need to disambiguate by state if two places share the same name but one is much larger than the other? How about if there are two common names for a place? How about if a place doesn't have an article yet? How about if a place is just a neighborhood and may never have its own article? Granted, these occur to some extent within states, but there are generally fewer places within a state that share a name for various reasons. Also, common usage in the US is City, State for all but the larger places, thanks to the postal service, newspapers and the like, which E doesn't reflect. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Strawman, strawman, strawman. This move only affects prime topics. Hot Stop (Edits) 07:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTVOTE. Hot Stop (Edits) 07:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • BCDEA. Status quo still seems best to me, though expanding the list of non-disambiguated cities seems OK to me. E honestly doesn't seem all that much different, anyway, given that a large cumber of cities will require disambiguation. Still as opposed to A as always. I think it's absurd that cities like Los Angeles and Chicago would need a disambiguator and even a bit patronizing. And for those talking about consistency: it's hardly consistent to say that globally recognized cities need a disambiguator only if they are in the United States. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • AB Running through the AP and NYT lists shows that nearly every entry requires place disambiguation (Cleveland and Honolulu were the only ones I came upon that did not before I gave up). At least half I checked require disambiguation by country. In the interests of neutrality and simplicity I think it would be best to use "state, city" for the main articles. We would still have to determine whether Boston goes to the disambiguation page or to the city in Massachusetts; personally I think the Irish would prefer the former. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • DCBEA' seems the best compromise order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ABC. The comma conventions serves a purpose beyond simple disambiguation; to frame the argument as solely about "unnecessary disambiguation" is to erect a straw man. Powers T 18:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • C. The current list is good, but a bit too restrictive, IMO. The NYT list is more reasonable and common-sense-compatible. Kaldari (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • E. The evidence supporting the proposition that the United States, uniquely, requires mandatory disambiguation is thin and unconvincing to say the least. I can see no reason why the standard article naming conventions (i.e. COMMONNAME, PRIMARYTPOIC etc.) that apply across the encyclopedia should not apply in this case as well. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support B; second choice A; strongly oppose E. This primary-topic nonsense has degraded navigation for our readers. Tony (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ABCDE. The City, State convention is quite common even when it is superfluous, as in New York, New York. The AP list is reasonable. The NYT list clearly has a regional audience in mind. The disadvantage of E and D is is the large number of potentially contentious RM's for fairly little benefit. The disambigated forms are (sometimes) unneccessary and some readers find them annoying or patronizing as this discussion has made clear (though others like myself do not find them so), but they are neither misleading or inaccurate. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • EDCBA. Let's avoid unnecessary disambiguation, please. There really is absolutely no need to refer to 'Chicago, Illinois', 'New Orleans, Louisiana' or 'Seattle, Washington' (rather than just Chicago, New Orleans, Seattle) and I'm baffled that some people genuinely think Wikipedia is improved by such superfluous verbiage. Robofish (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The current scheme (B) already avoids the state on Chicago, New Orleans, and Seattle. Did you not do your homework? Few editors have suggested moving in that direction (A), but most are also not approving of going hard over the opposite way, to E. Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • C oppose E - I have tremendous respect for the New York Times and their list seems reasonable. Although I have at numerous times defended the AP list guideline at WP:Requested moves, I have always secretly thought it unreasonable. Oppose E because it helps to know what state Funkley is located in. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes! And, it also helps to convey that Funkley is a city or town, rather than something completely different. It would be even worse when applied as a shorter form of disambiguation. E.g., like for a nearby city, Bemidji, there is a NRHP place requiring disambiguation: Great Northern Depot (Bemidji, Minnesota). I would hate to see editors moving articles to names like Great Northern Depot (Bemidji) or Smith House (Funkley). (What's a Bemidji? Is a Funkley some kind of adjective describing the house, like a color or method of construction?...) --doncram 21:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Doncram, I entirely agree. In response to B2C on his con #9 -- the application of the "comma convention" has always been, in this discussion, in terms of its application to US cities, not to every article in Wikipedia. It is positive in this context; that's what's being stated. This seems again like the slippery slope fallacy, in which it is said, "If we do this here, we must do it everywhere." That's not the case, and that's not even being suggested. Omnedon (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ABCDE. It doesn't seem to me that this naming convention is as unusual on Wikipedia as everyone makes it out to be. Take a look at the form of titles of the towns listed in List_of_Canberra_suburbs or List_of_towns_in_Alberta. If this is indeed the predominate naming convention for articles about towns in federal countries, then given how long and how widely it seems to have persisted without any sort of massive outcry, I can't say that I see the need for any change at all.
Even assuming that those two lists (the first I came up with; not the product of an extensive search) are out of the ordinary, I think there is a reason that the US would have an atypical geographic naming system: the US has a strong federal system. Comparing the "City, State" convention to a "City, Country" convention in a less decentralized country is akin to comparing apples and oranges. I don't have a strong preference between A and B, although I greatly prefer those two to the NYT with its inclusion of Yonkers. I feel like NYC is pretty obviously in New York state so it really doesn't need the NYC, NY format, but the cities in the AP list are pretty well-known also. AgnosticAphid talk 10:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • EDCBA It's clear from the endless RMs, debates and arguments that the current arrangment is broke so does need fixing. We shouldn't pre-emptively disambiguate where these are not the standard names for referring to the city. Using the simple and common name forms would also make for a more level playing field with the ticky subject of disambiguation - having an article at Townville, Statename implies that the place is commonly called "Townville, Statename" and not "Townville". Timrollpickering (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • B or C. All of these have pros and cons, but B and C seem equally acceptable. A is plain silly. D is attractive in principle, but not practical to implement because it requires access to two encyclopedias and because contention is likely to arise when Wikipedians discover that (for example) my city of less than 30,000 people has undisambiguated entries in both encyclopedias.[9][10]. E is unacceptable because it would mean endless "primary topic" debates that boil down to the questions like whether Editor A's state is more important than Editor B's state. --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • B or failing that A or D. C is regionally biased, E would be highly counterproductive. --Avenue (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ADB, avoid C for regional reasons, avoid E because of the possibility of lots of unneeded busywork. I really think A is the best way to go here, though, because everyone in the US is familiar with the City, State convention.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • B Aside from the quixotic search for perfection that consistency implies, I don't find the current system at all problematic. I agree that E would be counterproductive. --Bejnar (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • A and only A. It is the only form that will permanently end all disputes about which list to use, or what is the primary topic. The proposal E is a sure way to continue hundreds or thousands of discussions indefinitely. Anything else is relying on lists that are intended for a national audience,and the enWP is international. We're concerned with what the readers would call it, and there is only one form we can be certain will be understood immediately by all possible readers now or in the future. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • B or A Let's stick with what has worked, still works, and results in the lowest amount of argument and/or research to get the job done. Life is not complicated by the addition of the state to all the cities. The other choices do complicate things. As stated above, let's focus on more important things in the encyclopedia. Angryapathy (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Option A is the simplest and still is the rule for the vast majority of U.S. cities. B is a compromise. I would strongly oppose moving any further down from A. Jonathunder (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • EDCB - disambiguation is unnecessary if there is only one city with a name. –sumone10154(talk) 22:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • EEEEE. There's no reason to have a special rule for US cities. We have articles on little Welsh villages with just the name as the title and it works just fine. Formerip (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
These three comments are essentially the same. As I noted in my comment, it doesn't seem like these US pages are actually special. The first two lists of Australian and Canadian towns I found were formatted exactly the same way: city, province. And there is a reason why state or province names would be emphasized in those countries -- they have federalist systems.AgnosticAphid talk 07:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
It is simply not true that places in Australia or Canada are treated the same way as the United States. Neither Australian or Canadian places are required to be disambiguated if they are unique or clearly the primary topic. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles "Cities1 which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name can have undisambiguated titles" From the Australian guideline on this page: "... but the undisambiguated Town is also acceptable if the article has a unique name or is the primary topic for that name". Both Australian and Canadian places were originally treated in the same way as US places. Both have moved away from that model. Why can't the US? In the case of Australia, while the guideline has changed, there has not been a mass renaming process. Instead, there has been a gradual migration to remove unnecessary disambigation. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • E - There is no substantive reason to treat the naming of articles on US place names any differently to the way we name all other articles. We have millions of articles that somehow manage to get by without special treatment, what is it about unique and primary topic placenames in the US that requires different treatment? Nothing. - Nick Thorne talk 00:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • E - Should be straightforward, and consistent use throughout all of the Wikipedia, there is no reason why US City articles should be any different, there is no reason to dictate using City, State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunitedfront (talk • contribs) 00:55, November 20, 2012‎ (UTC)
  • EAD, on two conditions: 1) that E be implemented by a bot to eliminate the concern about hundreds of RMs, and 2) "City, State" be required 100% of the time as a redirect to eliminate editor doubt. I've been on the fence on this, well, since I first came across the debate. I can really see strong arguments for both A and E. On the one hand, "City, State" is almost obligatory in many contexts in normal American usage. On the other hand, "City" is also common usage in many contexts. Plus, "City, State" is not the actual name of any city, and so that automatic usage goes against basic WP titling policy. Back on the first hand, "City, State" will be used by about 80% of U.S. articles anyhow, so A means consistency within similar articles. But E means consistency with WP articles in general. So I'd be okay with either A or E. The problem I see with all the "compromise" choices - B, C, and D - is that they're all ultimately arbitrary, which is what leads to the perennial debates. The idea behind the status quo is that some U.S. cities are well enough known not to require the state in the title. But once you allow a few, drawing the line is subjective - even when you use a source such as the AP. In reality, there is not much difference between, say, Seattle and Sacramento, except one happens to be on the AP list. Cities on the margin - Nashville, Fort Worth, etc., will always be contentious, because logically, they're no different than the "chosen few" on the AP list. It's the categorical rejection of those otherwise similarly situated cities that brings on the angst. If "B with wiggle room" were an option, that would relieve some of the tension. Which is why, practically speaking, I added D to my list. Any city that already has an encyclopedia article elsewhere would be the most likely target of an RM here, in my opinion. So moving those articles would vastly reduce the number of RMs. Dohn joe (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • AE. I'd either have a bright-line rule that we always include the state (this avoids fights over primary topics, is more consistent with the most common US usage, and also addresses the fact that a large proportion of US city namesare non-unique (even New York); or adopt the general naming standards applicable to other countries. The intermediate proposals are well-intentioned but ultimately generate more work and uncertainty.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • BE --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    Interesting !vote - care to elaborate? Dohn joe (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    My criteria is: use the state when it's necessary, and don't use the state when it's not necessary. Option A puts the state in many articles where it's not necessary (Los Angeles, Houston, Detroit, Atlanta). Options C and D don't put the state when it's necessary (Newark, Trenton, Syracuse, even less known places). The current criteria is the best, option E isn't too bad. Have fun! --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    E is essentially "use the state only when it's necessary (to disambiguate from other uses on WP)". --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

(Meta) discussion: B2C does have a point as to whether the question of which options a person would consider unacceptable (aka harmful to Wikipedia) should be in the list. My position is something like ABCXDE, while B2C's is probably EXDCBA. (He's said he wouldn't accept consensus on anything other than E. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that options B, C, and D are subject to E; Lists B and C only need to be primary in the sence of being places, and possibly even US places (list D doesn't necessarily even meet that), while our guidelines require that the unadorned name has to be primary among all uses to avoid disambiguation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I said, and repeat: I will accept consensus on any of the options. But I'm talking about WP:CONSENSUS consensus, not a slim majority. If my favorite achieves most support but by only a slim majority, I wouldn't expect others to necessarily accept that the issue was resolved. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Prejudicial question – Kauffler's question "Which U.S. cities require disambiguation by state?" is inherently prejudicial in framing WP:USPLACE in terms of "disambiguation" and "require". It would be better to think in term of what should our naming guideline be; e.g. which U.S. city article titles should be of the form "City, State", and which should be simply "City"? Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Prejudicial question – can someone edit it to make it less slanted please? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner, I was going to respond to this on your Talk Page but see Born2cycle has already said what needs saying. And for the record, I already made comment on US placenames on Born2cycle's Talk:Beverly Hills, California RM. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
So you are not apologizing or denying or anything like that, just using this opportunity to blame me some more. If you don't see a problem here, neither do I. I can encourage people to vandalize your posts and see how you like it. Kauffner (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I would make that comment of anyone who set up an RfC with a loaded question. As far as any other edits related to USPLACE I would also counsel anyone against this kind of edit prior to launching a US:PLACE RM. But in neither case did I edit your RfC lede, nor did I return the Talk:Carmel-by-the-Sea archive settings back to normal, that was other editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe the wording of the options as currently presented is prejudicial. I propose the following alternate wording:
    • A. Put all articles on US cities, aside from New York City, at [[City, State]].
    • B. Follow general article naming conventions at WP:TITLE only for cities on the AP dateline list, using [[City]], where [[City]] is already a redirect to [[City, State]]; otherwise use [[City, State]]. (Note: this is the current convention.)
    • C. As for B but include cities on the New York Times list.
    • D. As for C but also include cities listed as "City" in both Britannica and Columbia.
    • E. Follow general article naming conventions at WP:TITLE for all cities that are uniquely titled or are already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that title: use [[City]], where [[City]] is already a redirect to [[City, State]]; if pre-disambiguation is required use [[City, State]].
Nick Thorne talk 04:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
On the last one, not "pre-disambiguation"; just "disambiguation" (pre-disambiguation is never required!)

Also, we should clarify that for B (and thus implying for the variations C and D) that even for those on the respective list, we use City only if the city's name is unique or is the primary topic (e.g., Washington is on the AP list but never-the-less is not about the city). --Born2cycle (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, Nick, but that's no improvement. "Follow general article naming conventions at WP:TITLE" is slanted and a value judgment. Some of us are aware that the general article naming conventions include Common Name and Reliable Source - that they aren't just about disambiguation as others seem to think. I say leave out that phrase and simply show what the format would be. --MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Not just slanted and value judgement, but intentionally so and pointy. I believe WP:USPLACE is completely within the spirit of WP:TITLE, if you don't discount the weights on the recognizability and precision provisions to be near zero compared to the conciseness provision, which is what Born2cycle has been trying to get us to do for the last five years. He has to resort to calling the state "unnecessary disambiguation" to have any case at all. But that's not how I think of the state, so there's really no exception to WP:TITLE needed; just a fair interpretation. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not just me, Dicklyon, who is arguing "unnecessary disambiguation". Countless people were saying that about this guideline before I arrived, and still are.

The recognizability provision at WP:CRITERIA is quite clear about the goal being to make sure the title is recognizable to those who are familiar with the topic. Your effort to remove that wording was not only rejected by consensus, it was unanimously rejected, and yet here you are trying to use an interpretation as if it's not there. Anyone familiar with the city of Chula Vista can recognize what an article with title Chula Vista is about; that's all that is required to meet recognizability, and you know it.

There is also no precision issue that is relevant to WP:TITLE considerations when the use of the name in question is unique, or if the topic is the primary use of that name. There is exactly one topic on WP to which Chula Vista refers; you can't get more precise than that. But you know that too.

Therefore, for a city which is the primary use of City, City, State has no advantages over City in terms of what recognizability and precision mean in deciding WP titles, but concision clearly favors the more concise choice, City. It is that simple.

This is especially clarified if you consider what happens if an article like Chula Vista, California is moved to Chula Vista. The argument that it should be moved back to Chula Vista, California, if based on recognizability and/or precision, much less the claim that those considerations in this case outweigh concision, would utterly fail. That's why such a move, and all those just like it, would result in a finally resolved title. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

  • It's a ridiculous notion to think that consensus can be cobbled together by a massive cacophony of people attempting to string together ranked orders of preference of 5 options. We have a current guideline; if there proposal to change it, it should be made concretely and a yes/no consensus obtained on the change. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • For the purposes of discussion let me see if I can come up with a more neutral formulation than either of the current proposals:
    • A. Put all articles on US cities, aside from New York City, at [[City, State]].
    • B. For US cities on the AP dateline list, use [[City]], provided that [[City]] is already a redirect to [[City, State]]; otherwise use [[City, State]]. (Note: this is the current convention.)
    • C. As for B, but include cities on the New York Times list.
    • D. As for C, but also include cities listed as "City" in both Britannica and Columbia.
    • E. For all US cities, use [[City]], provided that [[City]] is already a redirect to [[City, State]]; if disambiguation is required use [[City, State]].
    • Maybe it should be stated explicitly somewhere that being a redirect is an indication that the name is unique and is the primary use of that title; otherwise it can be kind of unclear why that matters. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

About related use of "(City, State)" disambiguation convention in article names of buildings, neighborhoods, etc. The survey and most discussion so far ignores larger number of article titles given stability by the US NAMES convention (many more than number of city and town articles alone), by the related de facto standard for use of "(City, State)" convention in disambiguating, in article names. See First Presbyterian Church (disambiguation) for a couple hundred examples. There are approximatetly 3,421 disambiguation pages including NRHP-listed places (itemized in Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles), with many thousands of "(City, State)" style entries that should not each become a new battleground, too. I don't welcome change from solid City, State convention that will likely have big unintended consequences of extending contention among editors and confusion for readers. --doncram 16:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Doncram, would you also like to express a preference above in the "survey" section? Comments here are welcome, but they may not be "counted" for RfC purposes. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
They are not related. Blah (city, state) can remain Blah (city, state) even if city, state is moved to city. Likewise, If Blah (city) is unambiguous, then that's fine even if city redirects to city, state. That's why the survey and discussion about titles of US City articles ignores this issue.

There is no basis in convention, much less policy or guidelines, for the notion that the title of an article about something in a city that requires disambiguation needs to use the exact title of that city's article for its parenthetic disambiguation. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

one way that endless discussions will ensue, is about disambiguation where "(city, state)" is settled now I do not believe Born2cycle's suggestion that everyone would keep to (city, state) in disambiguation. Either I suspect B2C would be among the first to start moving settled articles, or that B2C knows full well that others would be attracted to making such moves, which would cause confusion. To B2C: Like if you had your way about "Nashville, Tennessee" moving to "Nashville", and a bunch of obscure places like "Lonoke, Arkansas" moving to "Lonoke", then there would be you or others moving "First Presbyterian Church (Nashville, Tennessee)" to "First Presbyterian Church (Nashville)", and moving "First Presbyterian Church (Lonoke, Arkansas)" to just use Lonoke. And maybe not you, but me and many other editors, would be faced with disorder and all sorts of arguments about in-between places. What if all of the First Presbyterian Churches in Nashville are deemed not currently notable, or if its article is moved to Downtown Presbyterian Church, Nashville or "Old First Presbyterian Church". Then people will be attracted to thinking First Presbyterian Church (Nashville, Arkansas) (currently a redlink, but a valid article topic) should get the honor of the shorter name, "First Presbyterian Church (Nashville)" Wouldn't you say yourself that keeping "Arkansas" would be "unnecessary disambiguation"? And on and on. If not led by you then certainly led by many confused others. And there would be a hodge-podge of changing names that currently seem orderly within First Presbyterian Church (disambiguation). And more RMs constantly as articles are started and/or as individual churches come into and out of notability in faraway, unrelated places. --doncram 00:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The argument that ", Arkansas" in First Presbyterian Church (Nashville, Arkansas) is unnecessary disambiguation is just as valid under any of the options. Switching from one to the other does not affect the strength of this argument. But this is another example of the slippery slope created by the comma convention, encouraging another class of articles to use titles that are inconsistent with those indicated by normal conventions. Thanks for bringing this problem to our attention. I guess in that sense it is related. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have finally realised what I particularly dislike about the current option list and the nature of the subtle bias it imposes on the debate. Option A is not the position that the proponents of the current system are arguing for, it has been included IMO to make the current option appear to be in the middle of the range of options, or at least not at one extreme. If A is to be included in this way, then we should have an option F as follows, for balance:

F Follow standard Wikipedia naming, using standard Wikipedia disambiguation - [[City (State)]] - when required.

This reflects the true position where neither of the two main positions being argued for can be portrayed as the extreme opposite of the other view, which neither one is. - Nick Thorne talk 11:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Limiting comments in Survey section

Discussion about limiting comments in Survey section that was moved from the Survey section. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Can we please keep all discussion in this "discussion" section, rather than as responses and comments directly under people's choices, to keep the "survey" as clean and readable as possible? If someone has a qualification or point they wish to make as part of their !vote, they can include it in their comments, but ideally all responses from others would go here in the "discussion" section, rather than the "survey" section. If any of you have started or participated in threaded discussions within the survey, would you be willing to move your comments here? --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Disagree. General discussion about the RfC should be here. Discussion about a specific comment should be just below the comment being addressed. That's SOP on WP. Don't see why we should be any different here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
B2C, If you plan to follow your usual habit of arguing at length with everyone you disagree with, anywhere and everywhere, you will make this RfC completely unreadable IMO. But let's see what others have to say. --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thinking further about this: I think an RfC is different from a discussion. A discussion is just that; people can participate if they want; you can try to overwhelm them with words and dominate the discussion if you want. But an RfC is saying to the community, "We want your opinion, we invite your opinion" - with the clear understanding that their opinion will be respected and given due weight, rather than swamped under a ton of counterargument. Please reconsider on this point. --MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, if more than one person makes a statement I'd like to address, I'll start a sub-section about that, and link to it from their comment in the survey. I've already done this with the "endless stream" comments. Better? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Better, thanks. If you just CAN'T resist arguing every point with everybody, that at least gets it mostly out of the way, and combines the repetitive points in one place. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Please explain: How will "E" lead to an endless stream of RMs?

Several have indicated that the reason they object to E is because they believe it will lead to "endless, unproductive and possibly contentious RM discussions".

I find this reason to oppose E to be ironic because it's the current USPLACE Guideline that provides grist for "endless, unproductive and possibly contentious RM discussions". That grist is the indisputable fact that the title USPLACE currently indicates for the article of any city which has been determined to be the primary topic for its concise name contradicts the title indicated by the general conventions we use for titling most articles. In general, with few exceptions, a move of an article at X (Y) or X, Y to X, when X is a long established redirect to the article, is non-controversial. It is controversial with US Places because of the current wording of the USPLACE guideline.

For every single US city, without a single exception, the issue of whether that city is the primary topic for its concise name is resolved. That is, City either redirects to the article about the US city, or it doesn't. The practical effect of E would be to move articles from City, State to City only in those cases where City currently redirects to City, State.

Let's take Cambridge, Massachusetts, as an example. Cambridge, currently, is not a redirect to the Mass. city, so it would be unaffected by adopting E. But nothing under the current convention prevents a random editor from claiming that city is the Primary Topic for "Cambridge", and so Cambridge should redirect to that article. Changing the guideline to E would only mean that if his argument achieved consensus support, Cambridge would be the title of, rather than a redirect to, the article.

How adoption of E would create a basis for even one RM, much less an endless stream of RMs, is beyond me. I mean, if there is an argument to be made that the city is the primary topic, then that argument can be made just as easily under the current guideline as it would be under E. Can someone please explain? Ideally with an example of a city that you believe is more likely to be subject to dispute if E is adopted than it is now. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: those "endless" discussions, that you are so concerned about, actually come up maybe two or three times a year. And they wouldn't be "endless, unproductive and possibly contentious" if you would simply allow them to be decided per USPLACE. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Moved from being inserted after Paragraph 2 above. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
We can discuss the significance of the debates that are brought about by the current guideline, but there can be no debate that the current guideline creates an inherent conflict, and thus grist for debate, between what it indicates and what would be indicated without it in every case where the city is the primary topic for its concise name. But the question here is how adopting E would ever lead to any debates. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Having A, B, or C being a formal guideline (which, at least, B2C doesn't accept it to be) would reduce B2C's (and his previous editor name, and one editor before he joined WP) insessint edit warring about US place names. If it were in effect, whenever someone proposes removing the state identifier (using the term "disambiguator" or "pre-disambiguator" begs the question, even though I admit to using the term in the past), there would be a series of !votes saying "follow the guideline", leading to a likely "snow close". Having "E" as a formal guideline would lead to edit-warring over primary names, requiring readjustment of a large number of Wikipedia links whenever the change is made. There are a fair number of "primary topic" battles arguments discussions throughout Wikipedia, and eliminating them by having a guideline (such as "A" or "B"), or potentially even "D", in place, would reduce those. We could still have the "primary topic" argumenst, but it wouldn't lead to RMs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Isn't B a variant of what has been the formal guideline for almost 10 years now? Yet we're not seeing 90, 80 or rarely even 70% support consistent with the guideline, often less, in numerous RMs per year. That's because the title it indicates in all these cases contradicts the name indicated by the formal policy we follow for articles that are not treated as special cases.

Maybe I'm just being dense, but I just don't see how E would lead to edit-warring over primary names. Can you come up with any examples to support this concern? I mean, certainly cities with unique names, like Chula Vista, Carmel-by-the-Sea, etc., etc. are not going to create such problems - there would be no grounds for anyone to argue that they are not the primary topic. Then there are cities with clearly ambiguous names, like Paris, Texas, Portland, Maine, etc., etc. Those too couldn't create problems, because they are clearly not primary, and nobody could even argue that they are. So what's left? We've experimented with cities on the AP list for several years now. Not everyone supported that. Similar concerns were expressed about them, but that did not pan out. Well, sure we've had discussions about Las Vegas and St. Louis, but we've also had discussions about Cambridge and Plymouth. Those discussions about primary topic occur independent of which convention applies by default.

And if there are a few changes in titles once in a while, so what? We deal with that all the time.

And how about this. What if the guideline said that if there is a dab page for a US city name, then the title of the article about that city must have the state in its title, unless that city is on the AP list. Would that alleviate your concerns? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly picture someone (one of those grass-roots folks that you are so fond of) requesting a change of Sleepy Eye to Sleepy Eye, Minnesota simply to make it clear that it is a town - or asking for Hawaiian Gardens to be changed to Hawaiian Gardens, California to make it clearer that it is not in Hawaii. Your reply to such requesters would be "nope, sorry, this is just the way we do it" - and that reply can be given just as well for somebody requesting an exemption from USPLACE. --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a few RMs (like Sleepy Eye or Hawaiian Gardens) would occur with choice E, but it is also true that RMs will probably continue to occur if we stick with choice B (as evidenced by the recent move requests for Beverly Hills and Nashville). In other words, I don't really see how "an endless stream of move requests" would be a problem specific to option E but not B when we have already dealt with two major move requests over the past 3 months. Cheers, Rai•me 22:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The experience from Australia when moving away from mandatory disambiguation was that there were less RMs after the change rather than more. In fact, all the claims made above about the supposed negative consequences of moving away from mandatory disambiguation (i.e. "E") in the US were all made when the same change was proposed for Australia. All those claims were shown to be baseless. I am confident the same will apply in the US. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The crucial difference, Melanie, is that if E was adopted and affected articles retitled accordingly, subsequent proposals like moving Sleepy Eye back to Sleepy Eye, Minnesota and Hawaiian Gardens back to Hawaiian Gardens, California would be rejected for the reason "that's not how we do it", but that reason would be based on policy (WP:CRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME) as well as WP:D and the WP:USPLACE guideline, and there would be no sound policy or guideline based argument to be made supporting such a move. I mean, RM arguments of the form "it's more descriptive" or "more helpful" have been so thoroughly trounced that people rarely try them any more (e.g., see Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School#Nine_months_later).

I really think such proposals would be very rare, and would be easily and quickly shutdown.

Contrast that to the current situation where strong policy and/or guideline-based arguments can be made in both directions - that's the source of all the debate and consternation (e.g., see Talk:Nashville,_Tennessee#Requested_move).

That's why I keep saying E is the only option that even addresses this; plus it resolves it. That's why I find it so ironic that people are rejecting E on the grounds that it will create more debates. I just don't get it.

P.S. I see just above that we have empirical evidence supporting what I'm saying from the Australia experience. Thanks Matt! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The present debate comes out of questioning an existing guideline that's been in place and functioning for some time. Follow the current guideline, and there is no problem. Yes, debates spring up, even with policies and guidelines that might seem unassailable; this is Wikipedia, and it's like no other "place" I know. Having read the claims and arguments to the contrary, I still maintain that adopting option E would indeed generate controversy and difficulty, and would also add unnecessary complexity (which is a separate objection). In the case of US place articles, simple and straightforward is best, and what we currently have is simple and straightforward. Option E is neither. It is problematic, and I do not and will not support it. Omnedon (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree: what we currently have is simple and straightforward; and it works. The only reason there'd be less problem with contentious moves if B2C got his way in throwing it out would be because he'd stop stirring up messes. His Sleepy Eye, Minnesota and Chula Vista, California examples are purely hypothetical, as those pages have never been moved. The Cleveland Heights, Ohio article was moved once, in August, losing the state, and I fixed it in October. That would have been the end of it if B2C hadn't jumped in to fan the flames of argument, provoke a contentious losing RM, etc. The present guideline at USPLACE is not the problem; the vast majority of city articles have never been moved or had their titles disputed; and moves and title questions usually settle quickly with reference to the guideline (the exceptions being largely those where B2C shows up). The problem is that B2C fights the guideline constantly, dominating the discussion every chance he gets, as he is doing here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
(in reply to B2C's comment about B being the guideline for 10 years). Actually, it was A. B2C fought for a few specific changes (Chicago, Philadelphia), as well as E, for a number of years, now. B was considered a compromise position, which B2C is no longer willing to accept. Because of that, I lean toward A to counterbalence !votes which I consider harmbul if implemented. B is acceptable, but I consider A an improvement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
This type of misreading/misrepresentation is at the heart of most of my disagreements with you, Arthur. I wrote: "Isn't B a variant of what has been the formal guideline for almost 10 years now". I was referring to A and all the other incremental changes we had before settling on B by saying that B is "a variant of what has been ...". And A has a proven record of being unstable and the source for contention (and you can't seriously put all or even much of that on me, because it was all occurring before I showed up on WP).

I'm still waiting for a single example of what kind of disputes there would or even could be, if E is adopted. Melanie suggested Sleepy Eye and Hawaiian Gardens, not me. Chula Vista just happens to be a city I know Melanie knows with a unique name; that's why I used it. I just pointed out why they wouldn't be problematic. I'm glad to see Dicklyon agrees. But that still leaves the main question of this section unanswered: what city articles would be opened to more dispute than they are under now with the adoption of E? I mean just saying you "know" it will happen doesn't cut it. Especially considering the evidence from Australia is to the contrary.

I repeat my main point. The situation will be stable if and only if E is adopted because once E is adopted there will be no strong policy/guideline based argument to change any US city article title, unless there really is a good reason (like a new topic in WP using the same name). Refute that, someone. Anyone? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If E is adopted, there will still be the same strong policy based guidelines against it and in favor of B or C that there are now, namely, WP:Common name and WP:Reliable source. Your insistence that "conciseness" is the only policy guideline that matters in choosing titles is getting very, very old. The only reason things might be more stable if "E" is chosen is because YOU are the main arguer and disrupter with regard to US city names. "Choose E because it's the only way to shut B2C up" is not a policy based guideline. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) LOL, I just noticed this: B2C says I'm still waiting for a single example of what kind of disputes there would or even could be, if E is adopted and then in the very next sentence he mentions the two examples I gave! The fact that he dismissed them (to his own satisfaction if no one else's) doesn't mean they weren't offered. --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The situation would/will be stable if editors would/will simply abide by the existing guideline which works perfectly well and which is quite straightforward. And I agree with MelanieN that there is more than just one policy which applies here; in any case, WP:TITLE explicitly allows for variations. Thus, if E is adopted, it will generate conflict. Omnedon (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
For any given US city, one can find numerous sources referring to it either as "City" or as "City, State", with the split often revolving around 50/50, so the "reliable sources"/"common name" statement is really a non-argument. And when several variants of a possible "common name" are identified, our guidelines normally side with a more concise title, as they should. Also of note, the same reliable sources tend to append the name of the country to names of places outside the US—it doesn't mean we should be doing the same.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 6, 2012; 17:48 (UTC)
For any given US city, one can find numerous sources referring to it either as "City" or as "City, State", with the split often revolving around 50/50. I'd like to see some evidence of that; sounds like Original Research to me. On the other hand, options B and C are firmly and provably based in the way Reliable Sources style the names of US cities. That is a "non-argument"? Only to those whose minds are immovably made up for option E. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
This was addressed at #USPLACE_Collaborative_Workspace:_PROs_and_CONs_of_various_positions, CON #6 under Position #1. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
My 50/50 estimate is based on empirical evidence, although, of course, it is by no means scientific. However, the burden of evidence is actually on you, Melanie, since it is you who first posited that the "City, State" variant is so common as to veritably and overwhelmingly drown any other variants, including just "City". Until you provide some evidence to support that view, your assertion is no less "original research" than mine. If it turns out that yours is only empirical evidence as well, then it's yet another reason to rely on the general guidelines, which favor more concise titles.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 6, 2012; 21:33 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Omnedon, almost 10 years of experience with US city titles, and several years with Australian and Canadian titles, shows us that your assumption doesn't pan out in reality. When a guideline indicates titles that differ from titles indicated by conventions regularly used to determine titles for most other articles, the situation is anything but stable. Maybe this is non-intuitive, but that's what the evidence tells us.

Melanie, I didn't merely "dismiss" your two examples. I explained why they would not be problematic under E.

Now, let's assume E is adopted, and, so, all articles about cities at City, State with redirects from City, like Sleepy Eye, Minnesota, are moved to City. You claim that at least some people are likely to propose moving such articles back to City, State based on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS, and that such arguments would be strong. They would not be strong, because the arguments to keep such articles at City would also be based on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS, but other policies and guidelines too.

We agree that under E, the policy/guideline/convention support for the argument to move City → City, State for any city which is the primary topic for City would be:

But the support to keep such articles at City would be:
It would be no contest, every time, and, so, much more stable than the current situation.

Without USPLACE, the argument to use City, State over City when the city is the primary topic for City is nil. That's why B is so weak, and why it has never achieved broad community consensus support (the same reasoning applies to why adopting A, C and D would also retain the contentious environment).

I again mention the late great yog[h]urt debate where for years people argued the solution was to simply accept the status quo and stop arguing. The problem was that there were good strong arguments to change the status quo. Now that the title is changed to yogurt, there are no strong arguments to change it back, and this was known before, just as it is known here: there are strong arguments to change the status quo to E; once E is adopted, there will be no strong arguments to change again. It is that simple. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no actual evidence that option E would lead to stability here. The current situation in re the guideline is stable -- except for certain editors who are determined not to accept it. You are clambering for change of an existing guideline in the face of massive resistance. That's not a formula for stability. What we have works fine. Omnedon (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
For the record, you have not addressed a single point I made in explaining why E would be stable. You're simply dismissing my argument, without basis, and not engaging in the kind of productive discourse that is likely to lead to consensus. You're certainly not providing examples of US city article titles that you believe would be challenged with strong arguments under E. Do you even have an argument? I reject your baseless claim that the current situation is stable. The archives of this talk page, not to mention the talk pages of many, many US city talk pages (including if you dismiss all of my commentary, which is a lot of it), strongly indicates that the situation is not stable. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I have repeatedly addressed your points, as have others. You simply choose to ignore this. I'm not going to repeat myself, except to say that I will not support option E. Omnedon (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I just reviewed all your comments on this page. I had read them all before, and they are all mostly expressions of jdli opinion, like this: "Having read the claims and arguments to the contrary, I still maintain that adopting option E would indeed generate controversy and difficulty, and would also add unnecessary complexity (which is a separate objection).". Nothing of the form, "Adopting option E would indeed generate controversy and difficulty, because ______". The closest you've come to anything substantive supporting your claim that E will not lead to stability is this statement made a few comments back, "WP:TITLE explicitly allows for variations. Thus, if E is adopted, it will generate conflict. ". But even this is a logical fallacy, begging the question. WP:TITLE allows for variations, for good reasons. The question here, put in your terms, is asking what the specific good reasons would be for specific examples supporting variations on WP:TITLE if E is adopted, that would override the list of 5 bulleted items I listed above in the 18:41, 6 November reply to you and Melanie, including with USPLACE clearly indicating use of City as title where the US city is the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
with USPLACE clearly indicating use of City as title where the US city is the primary topic. That is the second time you have said that and it is PLAINLY FALSE. You even linked to the text of USPLACE, which clearly says "Articles on settlements in the United States are typically titled [[Placename, State]] (the "comma convention"). " The only mention of "primary topic" is about the 30 cities on the AP list. B2C, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
If you're trying to drive me insane, it might be working. Context, Melanie, context! In this case the context should have been clear... if E is adopted....
  • If E is adopted, then the wording of USPLACE will change accordingly.
  • If E is adopted, USPLACE will clearly indicate use of City as title where the US city settlement is the primary topic.
  • If E is adopted, US settlement articles at SettlementName, State that are the primary topic for SettlementName will be moved to SettlementName. For example, Sleepy Eye, Minnesota will be moved to Sleepy Eye.
  • If E is adopted, any proposal (subsequent to the above changes) to move Sleepy Eye back to Sleepy Eye, Minnesota will be opposed by an argument that is partially based on USPLACE clearly indicating use of SettlementName as title where the US settlement is the primary topic.
Get it? Does anyone have a real objection to E that is not simply JDLI or based on a misunderstanding? Anything? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Citing USPLACE as if it was supporting your side - when you actually mean USPLACE after you have rewritten it to your satisfaction - is hardly honest arguing. (It's also amusing that you would cite the revised USPLACE as an unanswerable rebuttal to someone who wants Hawaiian Gardens, California - since you refuse to accept appeals to USPLACE in current move disputes.) In any case, you (and to a lesser extent Ezhiki) routinely dismiss all contrary policy based arguments as if they didn't exist ( "just don't like it," "la-la-la-la don't hear you"), and then you claim that there weren't any policy based arguments. Your firm belief that nobody but you has a policy-based argument comes across as "my interpretation of the guidelines is right because it is right, and the rest of you are just illogical or misunderstanding." That's partly why these arguments are so endless and circular - your refusal to ever concede that the other side might have a point. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
When points are actually made, I acknowledge them. You, frankly, are way off in the tules on this one. I honestly don't know how I could have been clearer. Every sentence referencing USPLACE in that way also was clear about context (if E is adopted...).

Adopting any of the options other than B isn't only about changing USPLACE titles; it's also about changing USPLACE wording. Any honest assessment of how stable the environment will be after adopting a new option (which is what we're talking about in this section) needs to take into account the wording USPLACE will have then, not what it has under B. No?

I continue to believe only E will lead to a stable USPLACE environment because nobody has come up with even one example of a city whose title will be more questionable under E than B, and which holds up to scrutiny. I don't merely say what my opinion is, I back it up with the reasons I hold that opinion. If those reasons are shown to be wrong, I'll change my opinion. So, show me.

Oh, as to the use of USPLACE under E to oppose certain move proposals, but IARing USPLACE under B, it's because titled indicated by USPLACE under E would be consistent with that list of policies/guidelines I bulletted above, while USPLACE under B indicates titles contrary to them. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Response to TheCatalyst31

Objections to E keep rolling in. Consider this from TheCatalyst31:

E is far too broad considering how many settlements there are in America, and as someone who edits a lot of the smaller places I think it would be an absolute nightmare to implement. For instance, ...

Why an absolute nightmare to implement? The decision about which articles to move could be made objectively with this very simple algorithm.

FOR all cases of articles with titles Name, State
IF Name is a redirect to Name, State THEN
MOVE Name, State → Name


  • would we need to disambiguate by state if two places share the same name but one is much larger than the other?

Generally, yes, unless one of them is the primary topic (objectively determined by whether City redirects to it currently), in which case it would be moved to City.

  • How about if there are two common names for a place?

A settlement with two names? Well, I don't think any such places exists, most such cases in history were probably resolved by post office designations if nothing else, but that would be just as big a problem under B as under E. I mean, if the two names are A and B, under B we still have to decide whether to use A, State or B, State. If we use A, State, and it is the primary use of "A" (A currently redirects to A, State), then under E we would move the article to A.

  • How about if a place doesn't have an article yet?

I'm pretty sure that problem was fully resolved years ago. But even if one or two have been missed somehow, that's not a big problem to resolve. Every time a new book, film or TV episode is created, its name might conflict with another use on WP. We have to deal with that, including if and when that new topic becomes the primary use for its name. We could deal with a new city name or two every decade, I'm sure. That's nothing.

  • How about if a place is just a neighborhood and may never have its own article?

Nothing changes for such a place going from B to E'.

It's doubtful such a topic would be a primary use unless it was a unique use, in which case under all options Name would redirect to the article about the city that contained that neighborhood. If it's not unique, then normal disambiguation rules would apply to the redirect(s), which would also be no different under E than the other options, so I won't go into those details.

Granted, these occur to some extent within states, but there are generally fewer places within a state that share a name for various reasons.

Again, in most such cases none of the uses would be primary and their titles would be unaffected. The only places that would get a title Title under E are those for which Title is a redirect to that place at Title, State under the current USPLACE wording, B.

Also, common usage in the US is City, State for all but the larger places, thanks to the postal service, newspapers and the like, which E doesn't reflect.

There are plenty of counter-examples to that claim. Chula Vista is not a larger place, but there are plenty of RS references to it without ", California". ", California" is just a convenient and standard way to specify what state it's in, when that's necessary. When it's not necessary, it's normally not included[11] [12] [13] [14] [15], nor should it be in a WP title.

Also, those references, when they do specify , State, are just as likely to be ", CA", or ", Calif.". There is nothing especially common about ", California" in RS usage.

Does that address your concerns about E? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

All your sources for Chula Vista are within California, and most are local news sources from San Diego. All of the coverage is going to be from California anyway, so there's no need to specify the state. Coverage with a national or worldwide scope will at least mention California in the byline, if not the article itself, and WP should not be covering topics from a local perspective. Besides, Chula Vista is a pretty large city by US standards; the ones I'm more concerned with are the ones that have less than 10,000 people or aren't even incorporated to begin with, where nobody more than a few counties away would have any idea what state it's in. As for your last point, according to WP:TITLEFORMAT abbreviations are to be avoided in article titles, and CA and Calif. are abbreviations for California, so ", California" would be the common usage in all three cases.
Also, there are a lot more places than you think which don't have articles yet; I create a handful a day, and there are other editors that are doing the same. There are still many missing articles on census-designated places and communities with post offices. Alternate names are more of an issue than you think, too: there are communities like Womelsdorf (Coalton), West Virginia with two census-recognized names, or others with different census-recognized and post office names, or others which have a different primary name in the GNIS than on their post office, or others with a different primary name in the GNIS than on state highway maps, etc. It's not just a matter of in which cases "Title" redirects to "Title, State", either, because in many cases Title doesn't exist yet.
The other reason this would be a headache is that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of settlements in the US, and if we change the naming convention for all of them, either we'll end up with a lot of inconsistently named articles or someone has to go through and decide individually which ones need to be moved. "Someone" is probably going to be the editors like me who actually work on the articles on smaller settlements, which means we would have to spend a lot of time moving articles for little to no benefit (and in my opinion, a detriment). This is probably doable for cities with over 100K people or that are included in other encyclopedias, but not for every settlement in America. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
All of the coverage is going to be from California anyway, so there's no need to specify the state. Yes, that's my point. When there is no need to specify ", State" in reliable sources, it isn't. We should follow their lead on WP, and only specify ", State" when there is a need for it: to disambiguate from other uses on WP. Providing any kind of context, like location information, is not something we generally do in our titles, unless it is needed for disambiguation. We don't supply the profession of a person in the title, unless their name is ambiguous. We don't specify the year of a film in the article title, unless there is another use of that name. We don't specify the name of a series to which a TV episode belongs in the title of an article about a TV episode, unless the name of that episode conflicts with other uses on WP. We don't specify the larger geographical area in which a place is located, unless disambiguation is needed.

Where, for example, is Koshlauch? I bet you don't know. I bet most people don't even know it's a place (rather than, say, a cabbage dish), much less that it's a tiny village in the Arsky District of the Republic of Tatarstan, in Russia. Yes, sure, almost nobody knows where most unincorporated US towns are. So what? Why does low notability for US places justify the use of specifying the larger geographic region in the title of the article, but it doesn't justify similar title treatment of countless other low-notability topics in WP, including myriads of similar settlements outside of the US? Why the inconsistency in title treatment? (and if the answer to this is MelanieN's argument about "city, state" being the de facto "name" of such places in the US - then say that - instead of justifying it based solely on low notability).

I see by your contributions you do create a lot of new articles about places. I can see why you like the convention. For example, you recently created Annapolis Neck, Maryland. Very good. Much appreciated. But here's the thing. You screwed up, and your error was enabled by the current convention indicating you use Annapolis Neck, Maryland without regard to other possible uses of "Annapolis Neck". As a matter of fact, in this case, there are no other uses. But under E, which would require you to use "Annapolis Neck" if possible, you would have seen that, and created your article at Annapolis Neck.

Do you see there error now? Yep, it's a redlink... suggesting we have no articles on WP about topics with using the name "Annapolis Neck". That's wrong, of course. Now if there happened to be another Annapolis Neck somewhere else, say in Missouri, then we'd likely end up with two articles about places named "Annapolis Neck", but still nothing at Annapolis Neck, which clearly should be a redirect or article at this point. There are countless errors like this caused by this convention. I found this one on my first perusal of your history at random - it was the first one I checked for this problem. Sure, now that I've alerted you, you can go through your history and create all the missing redirects (or dab page entries or hatnote links), but that would be missing the point. I've written more about this in the section below as part of my latest reply to Huwmanbeing and refer you to that instead of repeating myself further.

if we change the naming convention for all of them, either we'll end up with a lot of inconsistently named articles or someone has to go through and decide individually which ones need to be moved. . Not at all. The decision about which to move is so consistent that it follows the simple deterministic algorithm I provided above. By the way, the missing/redlink Title problem could be addressed by first looking (with a bot) for every occurrence of Placename, State for which there is no corresponding Placename. For every such redlink Placename for which only a single Placename, State exists, a redirect could be created automatically (or the article could just be moved right then). Those cases with multiple uses of Placename would be flagged for manual intervention (is one a primary topic? should it be a dab page?). Finding and fixing all these problems in our namespace would be another benefit of moving to E.

In short, the only manual work, besides writing some bot code, involved in moving to E will be for work that should be done regardless. The rest is so deterministic it could be done automatically by bot. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Annapolis Neck is now a redirect, as it probably should be, but you're oversimplifying the general case. Even if we find someone to write a bot (and good luck getting a bot approved for what is at best a controversial proposal), there are going to be exceptions, and there are going to be a lot of cases where a page is moved to a title it shouldn't be at. For instance, consider the town of Plum Lake, Wisconsin. Plum Lake is a redirect to the town but is also the name of a fairly large lake within the town. There isn't an article about the lake, but there could be, and if there is Plum Lake should probably be a disambiguation page. Since lakes don't use the comma convention, it's fairly obvious right now which one the article's about, but if the article gets moved to Plum Lake it's less clear that people shouldn't be writing about the lake in that article. And that's not even considering the possibility of a lake called Plum Lake in another state, or something with that name that isn't a geographic feature. That and the manual intervention will take forever and, knowing how things go around here, probably result in a lot of fighting over what's a "primary topic" and what isn't.
Besides, the comma convention isn't just used for disambiguation; there's something to be said for having a consistent format for article titles if the alternative means half of them will have to be disambiguated anyway (and yes, I do agree with MelanieN's reasoning behind doing this in the first place). US places are hardly the only area where this is done; take a look at mass transit station articles, which have the same problem of most of the titles overlapping with street, city or neighborhood names. (For things like TV episodes and names, disambiguation isn't needed most of the time, so this isn't necessary.) You can't claim something will be more consistent when it will result in two widely-used title formats within a region instead of one. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
For almost every other region in the world - not to mention almost every other article type - we use two formats: one when disambiguation is required (usually the comma convention for place articles) and just the concise common name of the topic when it isn't. If we adopt E it will be more consistent with that. That's an indisputable fact.

The Plum Lake problem is solved in other regions. For example, Schluchsee ("see" means "sea" or "lake") is a lake in Germany with a town on its shore of the same name. The town is disambiguated, Schluchsee, Baden-Württemberg, while many of the other 804 cities and towns in Baden-Württemberg are not. See Category:Municipalities_in_Baden-Württemberg. It's not a problem for Germanplaces (among many, many other countries); why do you imagine it would be a problem for US places? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Aside from Place, State being the common name in America, America is going to have a lot more places with shared names than Germany has, thanks to common surnames and places named for English words. For instance, in the Baden-Wurttemberg category you linked, it looks like only a handful of places need disambiguation, probably about the same proportion of American places that need disambiguation by county within a state. Now consider an American category, Category:Populated places in Greenbrier County, West Virginia. I see Alderson, Alta, Anthony, Asbury, Auto, Bingham, Bowes, Brantville, Burdette, Caldwell, Clintonville, Cobb, Cordova, Cornstalk, Crag, Crichton, Dawson, Dennis, Dickson, Droop Mountain, Duo, Farmdale, Frankford, Frazier, Gardner, Golden, Half Way, Henning, Hickory Grove, Hines, Hopper, Julia, Keister, Kessler, Kieffer, Lawn, Leonard, Leslie, Lewisburg, Lile, Loveridge, Maxwelton, Modoc, Morlunda, Neola, North Bend, North Caldwell, Nutterville, Organ Cave, Oscar, Palestine, Patton, Richlands, Rorer, Rupert, Sam Black Church, Sims, Smoot, Snowflake, Spring Creek, Sue, Sunlight, Teaberry, Trainer, Trout, Tuckahoe, Unus, Vago, Vale, White Sulphur Springs, Williamsburg, and Woodman; all of these would need state disambiguation, and they make up over 60% of settlements in the county. If the majority of places are going to still need the state name anyway, it makes more sense to be consistent and leave the state in all of them. As an aside, while checking all of those places I found a few where Place didn't exist but needed to be a disambiguation page, which is the sort of thing a bot wouldn't handle well at all. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
" If the majority of places are going to still need the state name anyway, it makes more sense to be consistent and leave the state in all of them". That's an opinion. I disagree. My opinion is that it makes better sense, for a variety of reasons previously explained, including to avoid the B problem of not paying attention to what happens to Placename, to disambiguate only when necessary, even if only a minority remain undisambiguated.

As to the case where Place didn't exist (not surprised - this is a predictable artifact of B, as I explained above), I already explained how the bot would handle this. When there is more than one article named "Place, State", and no article named "Place", "Place" would be flagged as needing manual attention. Alternatively, any missing "Place" could be so flagged. Either way, it would help us fix all those problems. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

From the gallery: Since contributions were mentioned by both editors it seems worth adding that TheCatalyst31 has 66.58% of edits in article space, I take my cap off. As regards Annapolis Neck, Maryland, I struggle to see any reason why an User worldwide would not find "Maryland" in the title helpful - in addition to it following US style rather than Russian style. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Scope/definition concerns

I see that the USPLACE naming convention applies broadly to all "settlements in the United States", with particular cities being exempted only in terms of the AP Stylebook list. However, the options presented above in this RfC explicitly refer to "all U.S. cities".

That raises an important question: what qualifies as a city? It's not clear-cut, as the city article notes:

In the United States of America, the classification of population centers is a matter of state law; consequently, the definition of a city varies widely from state to state. In some states, a city may be run by an elected mayor and city council, while a town is governed by the people, a select board (or board of trustees), or open town meeting. There are some very large municipalities that are labeled as towns (such as Hempstead, New York, with a population of 755,785 in 2004 or Cary, North Carolina with a population of 112,414 in 2006) and some very small cities (such as Woodland Mills, Tennessee, with a population of 296 in 2000), and the line between town and city, if it exists at all, varies from state to state.

This means that applying an option like E (which specifically addresses "all U.S. cities") would be extremely problematic and likely fraught with confusion and disputes about what particular subjects the convention does or does not apply to.

Alternatively, if the scope of the RfC is such as to overturn the current USPLACE convention in its entirety (for all settlements and not just cities), then that needs to be made clear. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no intent to change scope. Whatever article falls under USPLACE today using B (all articles about US settlements) would also fall under E, if E were adopted. For example, Fallbrook, California is not a city, but an unincorporated settlement in San Diego County, and is the primary topic for Fallbrook. Under E, this article would be moved to Fallbrook. Why this would be "extremely problematic and likely fraught with confusion and disputes" is beyond me. The algorithm is trivial:
FOR all cases of articles with titles Name, State
IF Name is a redirect to Name, State THEN
MOVE Name, State → Name.
It's really not a big deal. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You can't see that this is in fact a formula for dispute? Really? Having read everything that has been said against it thus far? It is a big deal. Leave the guideline as it is; it works fine. Omnedon (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I have read all of it, very carefully. Have you? I have asked repeatedly for examples of cities that would be disputed if E was adopted. The only ones provide are two by Melanie, and I've explained why they wouldn't be under dispute, twice. No one has pointed out anything wrong with my explanation. If there is anything wrong with it, I would like to know what it is. If there isn't, I still want to know why people are so sure there would be disputes if they can't even provide a single example that holds up to a little scrutiny. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Born2cycle: Your example doesn't make sense. Option E (as stated in this RfC) applies to "U.S. cities". Fallbrook is (as you say) not a city, and so therefor would not be subject to E as it's currently stated.
Your explanation is also rather confusing I'm afraid. The only articles that currently "fall under USPLACE today using B" (B being the option to exempt only those cities on the AP list) are those 30 cities on the AP list. That being the case, applying the E convention to them doesn't yield any change, since those cities are already exempted from the City, State requirement by dint of USPLACE.
The current convention's extremely easy; this new proposal seems about as confusing as one can imagine... ╠╣uw [talk] 19:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You're not understanding. First, I just boldly added the following clarifying note to the top of the RFC:
NOTE: Use of the term "city" in this RfC is synonymous with "settlement" as used in the current USPLACE wording. That is, "city" refers to any US settlement that has an article in WP with either title or redirect of the form Name, State.
If that is not the proposer's intent, he can remove it. But, again, I'm sure it is.

Second, it is not true that "The only articles that currently 'fall under USPLACE today using B' ... are those 30 cities on the AP list". As B itself states, "this is the current convention". The current convention is what USPLACE states today, and what USPLACE states today is that it applies to all settlements in the US. Also, the first sentence in B refers to cities on the AP list. The second sentence applies to all others, "Otherwise use City, State. ".

I have added a parenthetic clarification to my explanation above.

What is being proposed for E is to title US city settlement articles like any other article on WP:

If the US settlement is the primary topic for its name, use Name, otherwise use Name, State.
What is confusing about that? Can you identify even a single article whose title might be in question under this rule? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I see and have reverted that change. Please note that it's highly inappropriate to go back and deliberately alter the central subject of an RfC (particularly someone else's) after it's been opened and received significant comment. The explicit subject of this RfC is naming convention for cities; it cannot now be retroactively changed to all settlements. You are, however, free to open a new RfC of your own on that subject. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Much of the wording in the RfC, including clarifying that B is the current convention, suggests your interpretation, insisting on the formal/official definition of "city", makes no sense. How can B be the current convention if it applies only to cities, or only to cities on the AP list as you said above, since the current convention applies to all US settlements?

All references to "city" in the RfC are obviously informal, and clearly apply to unincorporated settlements as well as to officially incorporated municipalities. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Your ignoring my question above, asking if you can identify even a single article whose title might be in question under "If the US settlement is the primary topic for its name, use Name, otherwise use Name, State", challenges my ability to continue assuming good faith here. I mean, if you still really believe E to be confusing and likely to lead to disagreements, then show us some examples. If you don't, then please agree to stop making spurious claims about E being confusing or leading to disagreements. If you refuse to do either, then I really don't see how you could be working in good faith. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I see you've hidden this subsection and closed it as "do not modify" (while it was ongoing and before I could respond); however, since your edit summary said merely that it was for "clutter reduction" I'm assuming you won't mind if I reopen this in order to keep my response logically grouped with its related predecessors.
Once again, you're entirely welcome to your opinion that "cities" and "settlements" are interchangeable terms; however, that's not my opinion, and it's wrong to assume the opinions of others on that matter. "All cities" is very different from "all settlements"; I for one understand that difference and posted accordingly based on the clearly-worded RfC, so it's honestly too late to move that goalpost within this RfC (though as I pointed out before, you're entirely welcome to open your own request on all settlements if you wish).
As for your questions, I'd be happy to try to address them, though given your loud and repeated assertions that opposing viewpoints lack merit (or indeed have never even been voiced), as well as ready accusations of bad faith on the part of others, I fear that further discussion along these lines may be less than fruitful. However, since you specifically ask what's confusing, I can say that a large area of confusion now is the fact that the RfC and its proposed options explicitly addressed city names, whereas you seemingly are addressing the names of all settlements in the US. If we can't even agree on what we're discussing, that's obviously a pretty sizable point of confusion.
As for your repeated demands for "a single article" that might be in question under E, there would be many... and this is because the rule (as clearly stated in E) applies to "all U.S. cities", and the definition of what constitutes a city is a murky one that varies considerably from state to state.
Still... even if we do accept that E should indeed be applied to all settlements (which I certainly do not), that would itself still be confusing since it would be to do away with a convention based on consistency/predictability of form and replace it with one based solely on uniqueness of geographic name. Consider: a user is creating an article for a (hypothetical) town in Arkansas named Appletown. How should it be named? The current convention provides a simple answer: "Appletown, Arkansas". That this is so is very easily understood: the rule is that a settlement always has the state name attached, unless it's on AP's list of 30.
Under the new convention you'd have no idea how to name the city without doing further research of your own to determine if there are other settlements named Appletown somewhere in the US. And what official resource should one use to determine this? What if one resource recognizes a settlement but another one doesn't? How does one then choose the proper article name? Further still, the result of the application of this convention might be an article on Appletown named "Appletown, Arkansas", while the article on its identical next-door neighbor Appleburg might simply be named "Appleburg" -- an odd difference for similar settlements based solely on the possible differences in uniqueness of the two names, a property not at all obvious to casual readers and quite possibly not even to editors. Such inconsistency and unpredictability of name would, I feel, be harmful; the current convention is far simpler and more consistent, predictable, and desirable.
I could go on. You may not agree with my opinions on the matter, but I ask you to respect them and not merely shout them down or deny their existence. ╠╣uw [talk] 01:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand and respect your opinion. I wouldn't take the time to respond in detail as I am if I didn't.

I'm not shutting down anything. There seemed to be consensus building that the side discussion about city/settlement semantics was relatively unimportant, so I hat closed it. You obviously had more to say, and I'm glad you did, and reopened it accordingly. That's fine with me. I hope it is with you too.

Context matters. Many terms are like city; they have broad and narrow connotations depending on context. I certainly agree that in many formal contexts city and settlement have different meanings, where city refers to only to incorporated municipalities with some kind of government (mayor, council, etc.), while settlement includes unincorporated named places as well as cities. But in other less formal contexts the terms are used interchangeably, a city has the broader connotation too. Frankly, I think this RfC has a lot of problems, and not being clear on this point is just a minor one. I think it's a minor one because I see no reason to believe the narrow/formal definition of city was intended.

Anyway, you say that under E "you'd have no idea how to name the city without doing further research of your own to determine if there are other settlements named Appletown somewhere in the US". Not quite. Your only concern should be with what other uses of "Appletown" are already on WP, and E does require you to do that research. But that's a very good thing. Let me explain.

  1. Under B (current USPLACE) and its variants (A, C, D) that research that you apparently wish/hope to avoid must be done anyway. Indicating a fixed Placename, State format for the title does not alleviate the article creator from the responsibility to find out if there are other uses of that title. Why? To handle any redirect and dab page issues. Regardless of the convention for the article title, the creator must see what is currently at Appletown. Does it exist? If not, it needs to be a redirect to Appletown, State. If it does exist, is it an article, redirect or a dab page? If it's a dab page, an entry for your new article should probably be added. If it's an article or redirect, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC needs to be considered. Should the title of the existing article or redirect at Appletown be disambigated and a dab page created there? Or is adding a hat note link to the top of that article enough? The Placename, State convention for the title doesn't, or shouldn't, alleviate the creator from going through any of this research. But it does (see #3).
  2. Compared to all the research and decision-making you have to do under B (or any of the others) anyway (see #1), the additional part added by E to decide whether to use Placename or Placename, State for the title of the new article is relatively insignificant.
  3. The problem with any convention to default to using Appletown, State is that it makes it easy for new article creators to fail to do the research and decision-making they're supposed to do (see #1). They can just merrily create the new article at Appletown, State and easily not give another thought to the ramifications of that creation on other uses of Appletown in WP, resulting in problems like missing redirects, missing dab page entries, missing hat links, articles with undisambiguated titles that should be disambiguated, etc. All cleanup work that somebody else has to discover and fix. For example, I've seen cases where Placename, State has existed for years, while Placename remained a redlink all that time. That's a bad thing, don't you think?
  4. In contrast, by putting the decision of whether to use Appletown or Appletown, State as the new title on the article creator, E inherently requires the creator to do the necessary research on the usage of "Appletown" within WP. That's a good thing, don't you think?
  5. A closely related issue is summarized at CON #5 under Position 1 at #USPLACE_Collaborative_Workspace:_PROs_and_CONs_of_various_positions, but I'll explain it here:
    If USPLACE dictates [[Placename, Statename]] for a given city or other named settlement, then that place's relative importance is diminished in determining the primary topic for [[Placename]], so another use is likely to be found primary for that name, rather than making it a dab page (e.g., Cambridge is about the English city, not a dab page, despite how prominent the Cambridge in Massachusetts is). To many, an article being at a title other than its concise name per a guideline like USPLACE is giving up consideration for that topic in determining the primary topic for the concise name. That is, because USPLACE requires the Mass. city to be at Cambridge, Massachusetts, and couldn't be at Cambridge even if there were no other uses for "Cambridge" in WP, many argue that its use of "Cambridge" is irrelevant in deciding whether another use of it, that is not prevented from using Cambridge as a title, is the primary topic. And so, all the US uses of "Cambridge" listed at Cambridge (disambiguation) are summarily dismissed, all because of the current USPLACE guideline.
In summary, the "burden" that E seems to put on the creator by requiring him to choose between Placename and Placename, State as a title is insignificant because it's work the creator should be doing anyway, and it forces him to do it. If that results in a title of Appletown even though there is another Appletown not yet covered on WP, so be it. When that article is ready to be created, the first Appletown will be found as part of (1), and dealt with accordingly. Maybe one or the other is the primary topic. Maybe both will required disambiguation. Either way, E will require the right people at the right times to deal with the situation and get it right. The other options make it easy for them to miss all that. I see only an upside here, and no downside. Am I missing something? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The policy still doesn't actually require anybody to deal with the situation, and we will probably end up with a very inconsistently applied naming convention which new editors will either ignore or fail to understand. It seems unlikely that the same editors which leave Title as a redlink after creating Title, State (and I'm guilty of this myself) are going to suddenly mobilize to assess and possibly move every single article on a US city, and when many of the articles will still include the state name anyway, new editors aren't necessarily going to catch on to the new convention. This means that we end up with a lot of the same problems we already had, except now a bunch of articles are violating a naming convention and editors like me are going to get stuck moving pages instead of writing articles to straighten the mess out. It would be nice if people always did the research with this kind of thing, but in practice that will never happen. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Again, why do you (and many others) think US place articles are different? What I'm talking about here is something that happens automatically for almost every article created, because it's natural. If you're creating an article for a topic named Appletown, if it wasn't for the Place, State convention, you would naturally check Appletown first. If it's a dab page, the fact of your new article missing on it is almost certainly enough to get you to edit it and add an entry on it. If it's an existing article, it practically forces you to think about whether you need to move/disambiguate the existing article to make room for a dab page (or your new article if you think its topic is primary for this name), or just add a hatlink to this one. This is all SOP and natural for every article creation on WP, including the creation of place articles for most places outside of the US, and has been since the dawn of WP. And it has worked remarkably well, so far as I know.

What makes you think it would fail for US place articles in particular? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you can't say "if it wasn't for the Place, State convention, you would naturally check Appletown first" when that convention predates Wikipedia (as MelanieN pointed out). Second of all, since it's our example, let's look at Appletown for a second. According to the GNIS, there is one Appletown in the US, Appletown, Maryland; Appletown is also a variant name for Clarksville, Missouri. Let's say I want to write an article on the place in Maryland; under E, what do I call the article? Does it matter that Clarksville is incorporated and Appletown, Maryland isn't, or that Clarksville's population is only 442? How about that the source for the variant name dates from 1933, and may be a historical name? Do I need to research the extent to which Appletown was/is used as a name for Clarksville, Missouri, which may not even be available online, all to write an article about Maryland? The current convention says we just put the article at Appletown, Maryland, and we're done; we can add a redirect, or a hatnote, or a disambiguation page if we feel we need to, or someone who knows Missouri geography can come along and do it later. That seems much less complicated to me, and I'm sure it would to new editors too; we don't want to drive the newbies off by making them understand a complicated title convention before they can write articles. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Right. One simply names Appletown, Maryland's article "Appletown, Maryland". If at some point an Appletown popups up in Missouri, you simply title it "Appletown, Missouri". Easy as apple pie. :) ╠╣uw [talk] 02:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
B2C: Regarding your initial point on research, not so: research particular to USPLACE by dint of B (the current convention) to determine the appropriate name for a new settlement article is essentially nil, because the convention applies the comma convention across the board to all US settlements. The only exceptions where state is not to be appended are those few cities on the AP list, for which articles were all already created long ago.
You are correct that there is always work that must be done when setting up any new article, but that's not work generated by the "comma convention" -- it's simply part of responsible article creation in general, and so doesn't bear on the relative merits of the two approaches. However, your point about renaming is certainly relevant: a US settlement article created under the existing comma convention is named once and remains so named, but an article created under the E convention might well be named one way initially based on the demands of minimum disambiguation (e.g., "Appletown"), then later have to be moved to a new name (e.g., "Appletown, Arkansas") if an article for a second similarly-named settlement is subsequently created ("Appletown, Missouri", say). The current convention makes such shuffling unnecessary.
As for your question about what you're missing, the answer is the other objections raised both by myself and others, which you by and large do not address. For instance, consistency and usability were concerns I cited in the Appletown/Appleburg example above: the current convention would apply the same consistent method of naming to the articles for both settlements: "Appletown, Arkansas" and "Appleburg, Arkansas"; the E convention, however, would potentially require the articles to be named "Appletown, Arkansas" and "Appleburg" (no state) based on the uniqueness of the two names within the US, a situation that while possibly satisfying to the rule of minimum disambiguation does not in my opinion serve the average reader who likely will neither care about nor understand such specialist considerations, and instead be puzzled by why WP's geographic articles have become so inconsistently named. Such inconsistency of title would also be at odds with much common usage. (In the interests of brevity I won't delve into the various other concerns people have raised, including TheCatalyst's point above about the effort required to reevaluate and correct the naming for every settlement in the nation...)
Finally, you wonder why some editors think US place articles are different. If you mean "why are US place article titles treated differently than WP articles in general", it's because they are different. WP recognizes that it may be appropriate for articles on certain classes of subject to follow their own particular naming conventions that vary from the broad norm; for instance, WP:DAB links to various lists that provide detailed guidance for special "naming conventions applicable to certain subject areas". WP:PLACE recognizes that the names of geographic subjects in particular frequently come in varied forms which are appropriate to consider when it comes to determination of title. And WP:COMMON teaches that conformance to a rule (such as minimum disambiguation) simply because it's a rule isn't necessarily proper. ╠╣uw [talk] 02:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Why should the US be different from other countries?

U.S. Why is this only being discussed about American metropolitan entities? Why would we follow a different style for Canada or Mali? It's frankly maddening that there isn't consistency about this throughout the project and it seems like balkanizing one convention just for the States is a bad idea. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Understood and agree. Only option E offers a solution that is not US specific, and would create a precedent that can be used for other countries. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
That's a valid question and one that hasn't yet been fully addressed. There actually is a policy-based reason for treating US cities differently from the rest of the world: namely, that [[City, State]] is a legitimate national variety of English - similar to the variations in spelling, vocabulary and grammar between British, Canadian, and American versions of English. [[City, State]] is the way we name cities in the U.S., both in writing (as proven by the Reliable Source usage cited in options B and C) and in everyday conversation. We do this even when the name is unique; we do it even if the city is fairly well known. We omit the state only if the city is local to both us and the person we are speaking to. If I tell someone I am from Boise, the person will almost always reply, "Boise, Idaho?" We do this partly because this is such a big country and so many cities have similar names, but it goes deeper than that: we do it because the states are fundamental to our thinking. The states are not just a convenient political subdivision here; they pre-existed the country, they have their own history, and they have a significant degree of self government. Even the name of our country reflects the centrality of states in our thinking. This may not be true in other countries; fine, we are not asking them to do it our way. But it is the way we think here, and it is the way we name cities here, and it should be allowed just as the spellings "criticize" and "honor" are allowed. Wikipedia explicitly allows for these regional variations and does NOT require encyclopedia-wide consistency to overrule the fact that different communities may do things differently. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Who is we exactly? There are plenty of cities where we don't disambiguate by adding the state name. Hot Stop (Edits) 16:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and they are dealt with in options B and C. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
At best, the notion that Placename, State is a common name for a US place is an argument for saying that Placename, State is also a name of Placename. It doesn't explain why Placename, State should be favored over the clearly more concise and equally recognizable (to those familiar with the topic) Placename as a title in those cases where the place in question is the primary topic for Placename.

But this notion fails the "What is the name?" test. While it is true that people often answer in the Placename, State form when you ask them where they are from, if you ask them, What is the name of the city you are from?, they are more likely to say just Placename. And not only that, but if the state is already known, it's almost certainly unspecified, strongly suggesting it's not part of the name, but is just additional contextual information specified only when necessary. One of the most widely followed conventions on WP is that additional contextual information is necessary and included in a title only for disambiguation. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that if there's a conversational absence of the state in cases where the state has already been specified or understood from context, that it "strongly suggests" that the state must therefor not be part of the name. That doesn't make sense. After all, once it's established that I'm talking about Tennessee politician Estes Kefauver, I can simply refer to him as "Estes"... but that doesn't mean that "Kefauver" is mere "contextual information specified only when necessary". (It raises an interesting corollary, though: would you contend that any notable individual with a unique first name should have an article titled using only their first name, since appending the surname too would constitute unnecessary disambiguation?)
I'd also suggest it's mere opinion that people are "more likely to say just Placename" when asked the name of their home city/town/settlement; as above, this will likely depend on the context. One may omit the state when it's known (just as one may omit a person's surname when it's known), but I don't think it's likely you'd do that otherwise. Speaking personally, I'd likely answer in the form of "Appletown, Arkansas", unless I was speaking to other Arkansans. By the same token, if asked what someone's name is, I might very well just say "Jane", but that wouldn't mean the person is not in fact named "Jane Doe". ╠╣uw [talk] 11:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Huwmanbeing, much if not most of what you're talking/asking about is addressed at #USPLACE Collaborative Workspace: PROs and CONs of various positions, including the issue about using just the first name of people best known by first name only. The example of Cher is even given there. It would be really helpful if you became familiar with all those arguments so that we didn't have to start from scratch here. If you have any questions about them, I'd be happy to talk about that.

Also, please remember this section is specifically about Melanie's specific argument - and that my comments are specifically targetted at refuting that argument, and only that argument. Please do not interpret my response in this section as a full blown general argument favoring E over A/B. There is much more to it, as summarized in the section I just linked. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

B2C: Not only does your response not answer my question, but the example you cite in the "pros and cons" list is wrong and should be amended. It asserts that whenever people are the primary topic of a concise name, Wikipedia uses that name for the article title, but this is not so. Quoting WP:NCP: "Don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used. For example, Oprah Winfrey is the article title, and Oprah redirects there. Only if the single name is used as a true artist's name (stage name, pseudonym, etc.) can the recommendations of nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens below be followed." [Emphasis mine.] It would be really helpful if you became familiar with such conventions so we don't have to start here from scratch. :-)
As for Cher herself, that example is a red herring: Cher isn't merely best known as Cher -- it's her full, legal name. ╠╣uw [talk] 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • To get back to answering the initial question in this subsection "Why should the US be different from other countries?" the answer is "Because the U.S. is not other countries". The U.S. is not France, so the conventions for naming places within the U.S. are different than France. The U.S. is not Russia, so the conventions for naming places within the U.S. are different than Russia. We can repeat this exercise ad nauseum. The reason why people, particularly U.S. residents (though not 100%) are so overwhelmingly in favor using the "City, State" standard while non-U.S. residents (though not 100%) are more in favor of reducing it to just "City" is an WP:ENGVAR issue. In the U.S. people most frequently consider the name of the state an integral part of the name, and not just a simple disambiguator only used when confusion arises. Not wanting people in the U.S. to think this way about how they name places doesn't make it go away. It is the reality of how it works in the U.S., and wishing it away just so that we can make Wikipedia more internally consistent doesn't make it stop happening. The "City, State" usage in the U.S. is common, ubiquitous, and universal within the U.S., even if it is unusual in other countries. The reason "Why should the US be different from other countries?" is that the U.S. just is different in this regard. You aren't going to change the culture and geographic linguistics of the U.S. merely because you don't like it, and Wikipedia needs to reflect existing reality, not some ideal of uniformity that doesn't exist. --Jayron32 20:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • My comment toward the end of the voting section addresses this issue. I don't think that it's really as special as everyone makes it out to be and anyway there is a difference between different countries and the amount of significance they attribute to subnational entities. AgnosticAphid talk 11:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this RFC about Born2cycle?

Since the start of the RFC, Born2cycle has made more posts here than the next two THREE most active participants combined, as he usually does in move-related disputes. What would it be like to actually be able to get comments from others in a Request For Comments, instead of having the discussion dominated by the same one voice as always? Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The current problem I'm dealing with from Born2cycle is that he's now twice tried to go back and amend the original request after-the-fact. The RfC is very explicitly about naming conventions for cities, but he's attempting to alter it to instead cover all settlements (which is very different both in nature and scope). This strikes me as highly inappropriate (particularly since it isn't even his own RfC); it's akin to asking a poll question, then going back and changing the question after the respondents have answered... ╠╣uw [talk] 20:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I see that as only a minor distraction; but it does amp up the noise. Dicklyon (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying you agree with Huwmanbeing that the use of "city" in the RfC refers specifically to incorporated municipalities and not to unincorporated settlements? How do you explain equating B with the current convention given that absurd interpretation? Why don't you have the integrity to just say you agree with me on this? It's this kind of b.s. that stretches out the discussions. And yeah, much of that is me pointing out the b.s., and why it is b.s. But blaming it on me is ridiculous. Every discussion is going to have one person who is the most active. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I probably agree with you on settlements, but I haven't really studied the issue yet; I think it's a distractor. And I don't think you needed to jump in and deal with it by changing the RFC and making a big issue of it. Especially since E is going down in flames and we're not changing USPLACE, based on my computerized forecast... Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
When all else fails, start questioning the guy who cares? Yay strategy!
But here's a thought: perhaps if the participants approached this RfC from the standpoint of logical reasoning and answered B2C's inconvenient questions directly and to the point, then perhaps the whole thing would have been so much shorter? From what I'm seeing, there is nothing logical about such "reasoning" as "that variant will create problems, I'm sure, just don't ask me why" or "this variant worked for ages and causes no problems la-la-la-la don't hear you". If there's anything that amps up the noise, it's repeating the same old points over and over without addressing the question. Sadly, this picture is all too familiar in processes such as this one...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 6, 2012; 21:20 (UTC)
"The guy who cares"? Who do you mean? I would venture to guess that most or all of us here care, or we wouldn't bother to comment. It is B2C that has just essentially accused someone with whom he disagrees of having bad faith. We attempt to answer his questions, but he seems determined not to be answered. Omnedon (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Expressing a JDLI opinion is not addressing anything. It is WP:Stonewalling to retain the status quo. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Concur with that. Note that I'm not nearly as involved as B2C in the matters of article titling, yet the "answers" to his questions some people gave so far leave me shaking my head in disbelief. When reasoning is being refuted, it hardly benefits the discussion to repeat it over and over again in hopes the other side simply goes away, yet a good number of the threads above consists of nothing but such tactics.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 6, 2012; 21:42 (UTC)
When it comes to "repeating it over and over", I would have to say that B2C is the one who has done that throughout this discussion. Despite being provided with answers to his questions, he repeatedly claims they have not been answered. As to the request for specific examples where titling would be a problem, that's not the basis of my objection. It's much broader than that. The system we have now is best, based on clarity, consistency, ease of use (both for editors and readers), common usage, and so on. To replace it with option E would be to add needless complexity, of the type that Huwmanbeing and TheCatalyst have recently described. Yes, all of the options can all be stated briefly in principle; but while options A and B are extremely simple in practice, the practical outcome of option E is needless complexity. This is the primary basis for my objection. As has been stated by other: if it's not broken, don't fix it. Omnedon (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Then how on Earth does the rest of Wikipedia manage, I wonder? The simple fact is that it is the USPLACENAME that is out of step with the overwhelming majority of article titles in Wikipedia. No one has shown a single reason why US cities need to be treated any differently to all other cities all round the world, not to mention all the other articles in the encyclopaedia that somehow struggle on without the assistance of a list on AP. They manage just fine. Asking for a continuance of the current guideline is special pleading unless someone can come up with a substantive reason why cities in the USA are so very different from all other places that they need special treatment. - Nick Thorne talk 03:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Nick, you said this before, and you were answered before, please scroll up. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Answers that do not address the point are not actually answers. - Nick Thorne talk 07:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Nick, to illustrate the second of the two answers that you do not accept address your point:
  • UniquenameTown A, 4,000 population, occurs 5% of GB entries alone i.e. [ -StateName]
  • UniquenameTown B, 4,000 population, occurs 55% of GB entries alone i.e. [ -County/ProvinceName]
Do you see a difference between these two examples? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said, answers that don't address the point aren't really answers. How on earth do you think your "example" even begins to address the question of why articles about US places need to be treated differently from articles about all other places, never mind when compared to articles of subjects on Wikipedia generally. - Nick Thorne talk 10:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Nick Thorne, I believe In Ictu Oculi may be referring to DickLyon's response to the same question in #USPLACE RFC?, way back on 26 October. Omnedon (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Avoiding substantive discussion because of who is involved --Born2cycle (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Nick Thorne: It sounds like your objection is that the USPLACE article title policy differs in some ways from the basic broad standard of naming WP articles, but I don't see why that's a problem. Different kinds of things are sometimes commonly named in different ways, which is why it's appropriate to have conventions that recognize that. WP:DAB itself clearly recognizes that one size does not necessarily fit all, linking to numerous lists that provide detailed guidance for special "naming conventions applicable to certain subject areas". That said, one obviously must be mindful of all WP policies and guidelines, but at the same time common sense dictates that following rules for rules' sake is not in itself sufficient to automatically trump other valid considerations.
To quote WP:PLACE, "our article title policy provides that article titles should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists." As I and others have asserted, the broad and consistent "comma convention" (as USPLACE calls it) seems best for the general reader, who may not understand or appreciate the alternative of a sometimes-state/sometimes-not-state approach dictated by a reliance solely on the specialized concern of minimum disambiguation.
B2C: It's disingenuous to dismiss others' opinions as mere IJDL and "stonewalling to retain the status quo" when valid concerns have indeed been clearly and repeatedly raised. You obviously needn't agree with others' opinions, but do please try to respect them and assume good faith. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
We agree that would be disingenuous. But I didn't do that. Sorry that's how you interpreted it. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Of course you did. Omnedon (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
That's an accusation. Please back it up with evidence, or retract. For evidence, please at least cite the specific opinions consisting of "valid concerns that have been clearly and repeatedly raised" that you believe I have dismissed as "mere IJDL and "stonewalling to retain the status quo". --Born2cycle (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
B2C: Your words in direct response to Omnedon: "Expressing a JDLI opinion is not addressing anything. It is WP:Stonewalling to retain the status quo." Also in direct response to Omnedon: "they are all mostly expressions of jdli opinion." When you make claims of JDLI and stonewalling, it's reasonable to assume you mean JDLI and stonewalling. ╠╣uw [talk] 01:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not denying saying that about JDLI stonewalling opinions. I'm denying that I dismissed any opinions expressing valid concerns. If you think there are such opinions that I dismissed, please specify those opinions. If you can't, please retract the accusation. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
You're not making sense. Describing others' points as mere "JDLI" and "stonewalling" is clearly dismissive, so how is it that you admit saying it yet demand a retraction when someone points out that you said it?
Let me put it this way: if you wish to work constructively with other editors, you shouldn't slight their opinions, nor should you complain if you do slight them and they protest. Valid opinions contrary to your own have indeed been voiced; please accept that. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
B2C, I have explained my objection to option E. It is based on a comparison with options A and B, and their benefits over E: simplicity, clarity, consistency, et cetera. It's all been described. You don't have to like my views; but you don't have the right to apply terms like JDLI and stonewalling to things you don't like, then demand a retraction when this is questioned. You clearly have dismissed my views on that basis. Likewise, you don't have the right to present an ultimatum in which either another editor falls in line with your demands, or else you will assume bad faith. Your accusations form a barrier to discussion. There are varying strongly-held views on this subject, as is indicated here. If anything, your behavior is polarizing, not helping, the discussion. Omnedon (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Huwmanbeing, I admit to characterizing and dismissing certain opinions that disagreed with my own as being JDLI and stonewalling. But this talk page is also chock full of my taking seriously a variety of opinions that disagreed with mine, and me responding to them accordingly. So I take your accusations to heart. What I'm denying is characterizing as JDLI/stonewalling and dismissing any opinion based on valid concerns. If I'm wrong about that I'd really like to know, because I would really really hate to have done that. That's why I'm asking for specific examples of any such opinions that you believe I so dismissed. I mean, if you really think I did it, it should be trivial to point out: "X said Y and that's expressing a valid concern because of Z. Yet you referred to it as JDLI and dismissed it when you said abc". Something like that. If you can't find anything like that, then what on earth are you talking about?

Omnedon, once again I've reviewed all your comments on this talk page, starting with 17:41 2 Nov in the section about counties, which is not even part of this RfC. Your response to the RfC included subjective opinion like "status quo works", without acknowledging much less addressing all the arguments on this page to the contrary, the subjection opinion that E would not lead to a final resolution despite the "claims" to the contrary, ignoring the explanations to the contrary, and the unsubstantiated claim that "E would lead to many needless debates". My response linked to a section where I asked everyone who made this claim to explain this claim. You have not done this. Your first response (Nov 6 6:42) there does nothing to explain how E would lead to any, much less many, needless debates. Simply asserting that E will generate conflicts, is simply that: a baseless assertion. It's not an opinion based on valid concerns. It explains nothing. But I still didn't dismiss it, as my lengthy explanation and response on Nov 6 18:41 demonstrates. Your response to my comment, at 19:00, however, was dismissive, as all you did was restate your (still unsubstantiated) opinion, and addressed nothing in what I explained. Then you had the gall to say you repeatedly addressed my points? WHERE? Please identify the posts with date/time stamp. I cannot find them!

If you think there was a valid point you made that I characterized and dismissed as being JDLI/stonewalling, please identify it. Otherwise, please stop making these spurious accusations. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

B2C, you may read what is written, but you clearly do not comprehend. I have explained why I feel A or B is superior to E. I have given my view and provided my reasoning. Many other editors have done the same. Option E does not have, and is extremely unlikely to receive, consensus support. Please stop attacking other editors, dismissing their views, assuming bad faith, making demands, and the like. Omnedon (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
...and I've just won a bet with myself that a response to B2C will not include a diff with date/time stamp. That's a cookie for me!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 8, 2012; 17:13 (UTC)
Ezhiki, I am not required to provide diffs or timestamps just because another editor demands them. My statements and arguments are present on this page. How does his kind of behavior, or yours, help anything? Omnedon (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm just saying that I can't find any substantiated arguments either; only opinions, assertions without proof or examples, and their repetition. And while you are, of course, not required to give any diffs, having them would sure be helpful. Just in case B2C and me overlooked them, you know. How else do you expect him to shut up? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 8, 2012; 17:29 (UTC)
You have your opinion, B2C has his, I have mine. We are all dealing with opinions here. That I have not provided detailed examples doesn't invalidate mine; as I have stated before, it is a general objection to changing from a functional, clear, simple, consistent, uncomplcated system which is in line with the subject at hand, to a system which is very complex in practice. Many other editors have expressed the same concern. That I can state my objection in a few words instead of in thousands is irrelevant. In cases where other editors have provided a great deal of detail showing why option E is problematic, B2C still refuses to accept what they say, and hammers away at the same claim over and over: that somehow option E is some sort of "final solution". The whole nature of this present discussion demonstrates that it is not. Attacking editors instead of issues is not a solution either. Omnedon (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Omnedon: Quite so. In fact, the points you raise are ones I (and others) share: in favor of B, you've noted its simplicity and clarity of definition, that it requires no judgment calls, has been stable over the long term, is easier both for readers and editors, etc.; against E, I see you noted that each individual article would have to be treated individually rather than subject to the single consistent title convention now used, that E isn't required given that WP:TITLE allows for varying naming conventions, etc. (As for your point that E would likely be controversial and generate conflict, that's now been very clearly demonstrated.)
B2C: It's disappointing to see you focusing so much energy on misleading attempts to discredit other editors' clearly-articulated opinions as baseless and illegitimate, and in such a hectoring way. You're welcome to disagree with other participants' comments, but you must do so civilly and with a recognition that they're entitled to them -- particularly in an RfC where the community's comments are explicitly being solicited. Demanding that refutations of your own elaborate posts are required for others' opinions to be considered anything other than "IJDL", "stonewalling", etc. is inappropriate. Now, please: be civil, assume good faith, and let it go. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What "cities" is this RFC about?

consensus is this is not worth clarifying in the RfC at this point --Born2cycle (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The RfC uses the term "city" while the current wording in the [{WP:USPLACE]] guideline uses the term "settlement". Huwman has found signficance in this difference, and contends that the scope of the RfC is limited to cities, and specifically does not apply to unincorporated settlements. I think that's obviously wrong for a number of reasons.

I have attempted, twice[16] [17], with explanation, to insert the following clarification into the RfC:

NOTE: Use of the term "city" in this RfC is synonymous with "settlement" as used in the current USPLACE wording. That is, "city" refers to any US settlement that has an article in WP with either title or redirect of the form Name, State.

In the first edit summary I wrote:

boldly add clarification about "city" meaning "settlement"

I also explained the addition on this talk page in this edit where I wrote this about the insertion:

If that is not the proposer's intent, he can remove it. But, again, I'm sure it is.

That was reverted by Huwmanbeing, with the following explanation:

Reverting. The RfC made cities the explicit subject; one should not alter the subject of an RfC after it's already been opened and received significant comment.)

In the second edit summary I wrote:

Use of the word "city" in the RfC, such as equating B to the "current USPLACE", is clearly meaning "settlement". To revert, please cite usage in the RfC or comments that suggests city=formal city and not unincorporated settlements

Note that my argument is that the meaning of the RfC is not being changed by this clarification.

But this was reverted, again, never-the-less, with this edit summary:

Reverting. Again, it's inappropriate to change the subject of someone's RfC after it's been opened and received significant comment (your personal opinion about what the requestor "clearly meant" notwithstanding).)

Note that Huwmanbeing makes no attempt in the reverting edit summaries or on the talk page to even address my argument about why I believe the clarification is accurate and appropriate, except to dismiss the whole thing as my "personal opinion". Well, his personal opinion is that it means a formal city, and excludes unincorporated settlements, even though nothing in the RfC supports that interpretation.

So, how do others interpret it? Does "city" in the RfC refer exclusively to formal incorporated municipalities and explicitly excludes unincorporated settlements? Or does it include unincorporated settlements too? If you think it excludes incorporated settlements, how do you reconcile that with the B being equated with the current USPLACE convention in the RfC, which clearly includes all settlements?

Does any one else have an issue with adding the clarification - that "city" includes unincorporated settlements - to the RfC? Since it doesn't change the obvious intended meaning, I don't see what the problem is.

Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Although it says "cities", I assumed it was referring to everything currently covered by USPLACE - in other words the broader category "settlements". I can see why it might be confusing to change to the broader wording now, unless we could get some kind of retroactive consensus that that was what everyone was talking about. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Huwman thinks including settlements makes option E even less palatable. I doubt that anyone else sees a difference or would interpret settlements to be excluded, as MelanieN says. So just ignore him, and leave room for actual comments on the question. Dicklyon (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The issue here is the unilateral changing of the wording of an RFC after many comments have already been made. Whether the change is small or large, it is inappropriate. It involves a judgement call, and a matter of interpretation. It should not be done. Omnedon (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand this objection in general, but as long as the clarifying note is date-stamped and signed and consistent with original intended meaning, and consensus understanding, why is this particular note a problem? I mean, WP:RFC even states: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. " --Born2cycle (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Melanie, for confirming that you also interpreted it to mean everything currently covered by USPLACE. Frankly, I think it's mostly about "city" being short and easy to type. I've tried to go with "settlement" in my last post or two, and it's a pain!

But in case anyone else thinks the RfC is limited to just incorporated municipalities, I think we should clarify sooner rather than later what the consensus interpretation is, which is exactly what my clarifying note would have done.

Good point, Dick. All the other options except only actual cities from the [[City, State] format, while E indicates SettlementName for any settlement that is the primary topic for its name; SettlementName, State when disambiguation is required. But I still favor more clarity over less, especially when the main argument against E seems to be based on that mistaken belief that it would create confusion and grist for disagreement. Exactly the opposite is true (still waiting for counter-examples refuting that claim). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

How about this for a solution: leave it as "cities", and recognize that some people might believe in good faith that it applies only to the narrow legal definition of cities. Let the discussion run its course on that basis. After some kind of resolution is reached here, if necessary there can be a separate discussion about whether to apply that resolution to unincorporated settlements as well. I suspect very few people will argue to have a different standard for unincorporated settlements than for cities. --MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Fine. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Move to close

With only 2 survey !votes on 8 Nov. and only 1 on 9 Nov, we've pretty much degenerated into rehashing old ground. It looks to me like a pretty clear majority in favor of the present compromise scheme, and roughly equal minorities willing to move in opposite directions, no matter how the rankings are weighted. Does anyone disagree? Anything that has been left unsaid? Or can we close it now? Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing new is being said. In addition, recent additions to the "Pro" and "Con" sections have degenerated into argumentative, "us-vs.-them", divisive rhetoric. Seriously! "content-building editors vs. editors whose interest is contention about primacy of one place vs. another"? "incentive of "pro-United States" editors to engage in battleground behavior and dishonesty in their tactics"? This kind of "argument" can only be hurtful to the pedia, and unconstructive as far as this project is concerned; this seems to have gone on too long for anyone to Assume good faith anymore. And then there's "it is a slippery slope" yet again; please see your logical fallacy is.... It's time to put a stop to this. --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree it is ready to close. MelanieN, if you want to edit those loaded comments in the pro and con, down to something more neutral, without losing the points being made, that'd be good. (But it is a fair point to make, I think, that contention and "us-vs.-them" battling is a problem, and that one naming policy vs. another is likely to lead to less or more of that. It cannot be wrong to point out that divisive and battleground-type behavior goes on, in fact, because it does. And it cannot be wrong to point out that one way leads to more separation or more involvement of editors who are simply contributing about the individual cities, and perhaps not interested in concerning themselves with relative standings of their city vs. faraway other cities.) --doncram 21:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to leave them, precisely because I think they illustrate where this discussion is headed. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
RfCs seeking broad community consensus on issues like this typically stay open a month or longer. It hasn't been even one week yet. What's the hurry? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, 10 Nov. brought zero new survey responders. Are you thinking we should do something to publicize the RfC and get more? If so, let do it. If not, let's close it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

{{cent}}

I see it was added on 4 Nov. to Template:Centralized discussion, shown to the right here, which shows up on at least 3 village pump pages and the admins' noticeboard, as well as wherever else anyone includes the template. Is there anything else we should do to publicize it even more? Any particular talk pages you'd like to announce it on? If so, go for it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm the one who added it there. I'd suggest a separate notification on the village pumps and WP:USA for starters. There are probably other wikiprojects that could be notified as well. Watchlist notice? Hot Stop (Edits) 07:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Evidently the bell curve indicates a few more pump notices are only going to attract max 2 or 3 new comments. When it is closed, then really close - lock further RfCs for 12 months. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
This RfC has had many problems. First, the wording was not developed by consensus and changed after !voting began. Second, the arguments for and against various positions, stated differently than in the RfC, were (and are) still under discussion and being developed. Third, the city vs. settlement scope was confusing, at least to one editor, possibly more. Finally, people were solicited to state their preference and not encouraged to state their reasoning. Most did anyway, but many did not. In short, I think this RfC, while attracting too many people to shutdown prematurely, is still rife with too many problems to be considered definitive enough to justify shutting down better RfCs in the near future. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
There's still about another three weeks for this RfC. It seems premature to already be coming up with justifications for disregarding its result.AgnosticAphid talk 21:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
As for the change in wording, I had invited anyone who objects to restore the original wording; I suggest that Born2cycle either do that or shut up about it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Personally I'm not opposed to leaving it open for a bit, particularly if there's reason to think there's significant comment yet to come. It's pretty clear, though, that the responses are petering out, and the threaded discussions themselves slowing. If that continues, then closure would seem appropriate. (Still, if anyone's holding back any salient points that haven't already been beaten to death, let 'em loose.)
I should also note that the great majority of people who participated in the survey did indeed provide at least some reason for their preferences; in fact, it looks like only about three of the 40-some respondents did not, so I'm not sure how that qualifies as "many". ╠╣uw [talk] 01:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
When to close

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs: "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, but they may be closed earlier. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue, and whether editors are continuing to comment." I was not aware of the 30 day default, but the declining level of interest and comments was pretty obvious. At this point, those who have said that more publicity is needed should go about making that happen, if they think that more editors will help to sway the clear opinion of the 42 so far surveyed. It's starting to remind me of Karl Rove in Ohio. Dicklyon (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Bkonrad posted two such notices [18] [19] Hot Stop (Edits) 01:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Those look like clones of the ones I made at WT:AT and WT:D.

Here are the current counts:

A: (12)
B: (14)
C: (2)
D: (3)
E: (14)
Based on raw !vote count, there clearly is no consensus at this point, certainly no strong consensus. That's reason for more discussion. Like I said, I thought the RfC was premature. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It appears to me that you've over-counted the Es and under-counted the Bs. How do you do that? Misinterpret "oppose any change" or "maintain the status quo"? And if you look for where you can find a majority, only B has a majority of responders putting it in their top 2 choices. Only B and C have a majority in top-3, with B ahead. And a super-majority either put E last, omitted it, or explicitly opposed it; a clear minority did that with B. No matter how you count and weight, B, the current widely accepted compromise USPLACE, is the clear winner. But go get some more !votes and let's see... Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Dicklyon: Confirmed, Born2cycle's counts are indeed off. Here are the current survey results, in order and separated by primary choice, with names included for ease of verifiability:
A
  1. ABCDE (Arthur Rubin)
  2. AB (Omnedon)
  3. ABCDE (Nyttend)
  4. AB (Sbmeirow)
  5. ABCDE (Huwmanbeing)
  6. AB (Bzweebl)
  7. A (MrDolomite)
  8. AB (Mangoe)
  9. ABC (LtPowers)
  10. ABCDE (Eluchil404)
  11. ABCDE (AgnosticAphid)
  12. ADB (SarekOfVulcan)
  13. A (DGG)
  14. A {Jonathunder}
  15. AE (Arxiloxos)
 B
  1. BCA (MelanieN)
  2. BAC (Dicklyon)
  3. B (Doncram)
  4. B (ClemRutter)
  5. B (In ictu oculi)
  6. BCEDA (Szyslak)
  7. BC (Mike Cline)
  8. "Oppose any change" (Carrite)
  9. "Maintain the status quo" (Imzadi1979)
  10. BDEAC (Batard0)
  11. BCADE (Jayron32)
  12. BCA (Bkonrad)
  13. BCAD (TheCatalyst31)
  14. BDEA (Heimstern)
  15. BA (Tony1)
  16. BC (Orlady)
  17. BAD (Avenue)
  18. B (Bejnar)
  19. BA (Angryapathy)
  20. BE (NaBUru38)
 C
  1. C (Kaldari)
  2. C (Marcus Qwertyus)
 D
  1. DE (Kauffner)
  2. DCB (Fyunck(click))
  3. DCBEA (Orangemike)
 E
  1. EDCB (Raime)
  2. EDCBA (Born2cycle)
  3. E (Hot Stop)
  4. E (Ezhiki)
  5. EDC (Polaron)
  6. E (Opt47)
  7. EDCBA (David1217)
  8. EADCB (BilCat)
  9. ECD (BDD)
  10. E (Vmenkov)
  11. E (Mattingbn)
  12. EDCBA (Robofish)
  13. EDCBA (Timrollpickering)
  14. EDCB (sumone10154)
  15. EEEEE (FormerIP)
  16. E (Nick Thorne)
  17. E (AunitedFront)
  18. EAD (DohnJoe)
He is correct in noting that there's no consensus for dropping the current convention (B), though how/why that's a reason for further discussion is unclear. Also, given the pronounced split between the A and E alternatives, there'd seemingly be no consensus on what the current convention would be replaced with even if there was. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the only difference among options A through D is that more exceptions are allowed as one progresses from A to D. They all apply the same principle to varying degrees. In option D, the exceptions are a bit harder to define, but it is still based on the same principle. Option E, on the other hand, is entirely different. On that basis, there are now 13 17 votes that specify E as the best option, and 35 38 votes that specify one of the others as the best option. Of course, there are many ways of looking at this. Omnedon (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Please note that simply tallying first-place votes is misleading and ignores much of the information provided by the voters. For instance, it appears to me that a big majority of voters whose first choice is A or D also prefer B to E, so in a head-to-head vote B would have a big advantage over E despite the much smaller difference between them in the number of first-place votes. There are many systems of varying sophistication for resolving preferences such as this; see ranked voting systems. I believe the one commonly preferred by Wikimedia is the Schulze method. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Based on the chart above, I get 32 !votes for B (11+19+2), 18 for E (17+1). The cause of clean, uncluttered municipal titling will just have to wait for another day. Kauffner (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As a general clarification on what an RfC is and when to close it, Wikipedia plugs along day in and day out, year in and year out, churning out articles on diverse subjects. Now and then questions come up that are not easily answered. Often someone is unsure what to do and can not find anyone to help. That is what RfC was created for - a way to solicit broader input for a month in the hope that enough editors would wander by and offer advice that a consensus could develop. RfC does not work well if there are strong opinions, and it does not work well if there are no opinions. Most decisions on WP do not need to be made this week, this month, or even within a year or two - and there are decisions that take multiple years. For those an RfC is useless because it would be re-opened and closed dozens of times. When an RfC clearly seems to be leading to a decision, or clearly not leading to a decision, it can be closed early, simply to allow editors to get on with editing instead of adding pile on votes or simply arguing. All 300,000 bytes here are about this discussion. Is it worth it to spend 300,000 bytes (about 48,000 words, enough for the average novel), when nothing is changed? Despite that, I do not see any reason to close this early, as clearly there are editors who have information they would like to add to the discussion. However, I would like also to remind everyone that in building consensus, discuss the issue, not the editors. So while it is okay to say someone changed the questions, I do not see it as appropriate to name that person. And I see no relevancy to how many posts here anyone has made. And instead of saying you, I would say I, as that is the only person anyone has any influence on. Apteva (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Apteva "Is it worth it to spend 300,000 bytes (about 48,000 words, enough for the average novel)," - no it is not, but it raises the question of how much of those 300,000 bytes are being lost to article space edits. As a general rule in these kind of RfCs active article-side contributors tend to make their point and go back to productive work, so much of these 300,000 bytes is probably simply being lost to alternative Talkshop activities (I include myself, I am annoyed at myself at the need to spend wasted time on Talk pages recently). It would be worth letting the RfC drag on if a shortened RfC would risk a re-run within 12 months. Either way the 35:13 (or 32:16 if D counted with E) response profile is not going to change. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Degenerated

The last E vote is by User:Aunitedfront, a new account yesterday (Nov. 18), who hasn't yet figured out that talk page comments should be signed. I think we're done here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

My comment was meant to indicate that there is no compelling reason to close this now, other than the fact that it has consumed a great deal of time. The discussion is at times borderline bickering but is basically quit civil, and not at a level that appears to need any immediate action. My recommendation is see how it is going in a week, but it can probably be safely removed from central notice now. My further recommendation is to close it by simply removing the RfC tag, and not asking anyone to formally read it and formally close it (silently allow it to be closed as no consensus for any change). Apteva (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with that. I think it should be FORMALLY closed, possibly as "no consensus for change" but better as "consensus not to change" the current guideline of USPLACE. The last thing we need is to let this novel-length discussion peter out without any resolution. There has been a lot of participation ((55 different people to date), and people's input needs to be respected. If it's closed informally, it becomes just another in a long string of inconclusive debates on the subject. If it is formally closed, that should put a period to the arguments - and hopefully suggest to the side which did not prevail that they should accept the judgment here and stop fighting the convention at individual article talk pages. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2012 (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.

International cities on the AP dateline list

The AP also lists 27 cities outside U.S.: Beijing, Berlin, Djibouti, Geneva, Gibraltar, Guatemala City, Havana, Hong Kong, Jerusalem, Kuwait City, London, Luxembourg, Macau, Monaco, Montreal, Moscow, New Delhi, Ottawa, Paris, Quebec City, Rome, San Marino, Singapore, Tokyo, Toronto, and Vatican City. In other words, Warsaw is Warsaw, Poland, Madrid is Madrid, Spain, Baghdad is Baghdad, Iraq, and Paul may have learned something or other while on the road to Damascus, Syria. As I hope these examples illustrate, the AP list must be considered a floor. There are numerous other cities, both in the U.S. and outside, that are most familiar and recognizable when they are given by their concise names. Kauffner (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion that the AP list must be considered a floor. My reasons have been stated above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
AP is an American media source, so it is appropriate to use it as a Reliable Source reference for how to style American names. There are many other media sources in the rest of the world, so it would not be appropriate to try to apply AP standards to the rest of the world. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
100% agree. "Madrid, Spain" may well be used in the US, but it is hard to imagine it is common currency elsewhere. Ben MacDui 14:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
To me these examples illustrate what sources show, that American style, not just AP Style, is adding State/Country more than BBC or Australian Broadcasting Corporation would do. Which is reflected in Google Books as well which seem to follow USPLACE naturally without books knowing that books are doing it. Secondary to the main benefit, that "Some place, Virginia" is more informative than "Some place" on its own. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • So you always favor adding more information to the title? Hey, we also put in a pronunciation guide or the mayor's name. You do realize that there is generally an article attached to these titles in which the name of the state is given? The title should tell the reader the name of the subject, which it can't do if you try to include everything except the kitchen sink. Kauffner (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
What is easily recognizable is in the above discussions seems to mean, what is easily recognizable to me, or to some subset of readers that I have in mind. WP is universal, and the most clearly comprehensible form must be the form that everybody will understand, and nobody possibly mistake, and the only conceivable way of doing that is always to give the name of the country. There are contexts in which even names like Moscow and Paris and London mean something other than the city that some people or even most people may be thinking of. The only stable way to resolve it is to always follow a uniform rule, and there is only one rule which can end all arguments: always use the country. Anything else is guesswork, or unstable. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
In such contexts, it is not going to be hard to explain what is meant. Bickering about article titles is, I agree, a nuisance but this idea seems to me to be unnecessary instruction creep. Ben MacDui 14:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
As is made clear in policy, titles are supposed to be recognizable to those familiar with the article's topic. Lawnside is not familiar to me, but it is to anyone familiar with that New Jersey city, which should include anyone searching for it. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)/Archives/2012/December&oldid=1137425729"