Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (November 2006)

Purpose

The purpose of this subpage is to construct through consensus evolution a comprehensive/official/organized survey about the U.S. city guidelines. In particular, should the guidelines change, and, if so, to what?

Note: This is a work in progress and not an active survey. Please don't vote yet.

Options

There are several outstanding issues, which are summarized here:

Style: Whether to use parentheses or commas.
Rules: Whether disambiguation is to be used pre-emptively or only as-needed.
Exceptions: Whether or not to permit exceptions. If exceptions are allowed, then guidelines for exceptions must be determined.

It might be more productive to discuss the issues separately instead of presenting a crazy-quilt ballot of permutations. Style is relatively independent of the other issues. As-needed disambiguation rules would nullify the need for exceptions. --Ishu 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you have listed as style is really a format style. The style point I have been raising is that of which style US cities are shown in. This is what is normally covered in a sytle sheet or similar document. We are really choosing at the start between a sytle issue or a dab issue, your suggestion moves past any real discussion of the encylopedia sytle to a pre dab one which opens up a can of worms. Vegaswikian 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

Each proposed survey should be of the following form:

==Revision RevisionName==

Proposed Survey

===Proposer's statement===

Proposer's statement --~~~~
===Discussion about Revision ''RevisionName''<nowiki>===

I'll start:

Revision Multi-Choice 1.0

Please decide which of the following are acceptable or unacceptable to you. Vote under the acceptable or UNacceptable section for each option as follows:

# Optional Comment --~~~~

Survey

The U.S. city guidelines should be:

1a) Status quo

The canonical form for cities in the United States is [[City, State]] (the "comma convention") (exceptions include Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York City). Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina).

A United States city's article, however, should never be titled simply "city, country" (e.g "Detroit, United States").

-Vote: 1 is acceptable-

-Vote: 1 is UNacceptable-

1b) Status quo - but no exceptions

The canonical form for cities in the United States is [[City, State]] (the "comma convention"). The only exceptions are those cities that need disambiguation to include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina).

A United States city's article should never be titled simply "city, country" (e.g "Detroit, United States").

-Vote: 1a is acceptable-

-Vote: 1a is UNacceptable-

2) Based on Canada

The canonical form for cities in the U.S. is City, State (the "comma convention").

Places which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name, such as Oklahoma City or Houston, may have undisambiguated titles. Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina).

A United States city's article, however, should never be titled simply "city, country" (e.g "Detroit, United States").

-Vote: 2 is acceptable-

-Vote: 2 is UNacceptable-

3a) Do not disambiguate when unnecessary - use comma convention for disambiguation

The canonical form for cities in the U.S. is City (the "common name convention").

Cities which require disambiguation, such as Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, are disambiguated by adding , Statename to the article title. Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina).

A United States city's article, however, should never be titled simply "city, country" (e.g "Detroit, United States").

-Vote: 3a is acceptable-

-Vote: 3a is UNacceptable-

3b) Do not disambiguate when unnecessary - use state in parentheses for disambiguation

To conform with WP:NAME and WP:DAB, the canonical form for cities in the U.S. that do not require disambiguation is City.

Cities which require disambiguation, such as Portland (Oregon) and Portland (Maine), are disambiguated by adding (Statename) to the article title. Those cities that need additional disambiguation use their county or parish (for example Elgin (Lancaster County) and Elgin (Kershaw County)).

A United States city's article, however, should never be titled simply "city, country" (e.g "Detroit, United States").

-Vote: 3b is acceptable-

-Vote: 3b is UNacceptable-

3c) Do not disambiguate when unnecessary - use appropriate disambiguator in parentheses for disambiguation

To conform with WP:NAME and WP:DAB, the canonical form for cities in the U.S. is City.

Cities which require disambiguation from other cities in the U.S., such as Portland (Oregon) and Portland (Maine), are disambiguated by adding (Statename) to the article title. Cities which require disambiguation from cities outside of the U.S., such as Paris (U.S.A.), are disambiguated with the U.S.A. parenthetic disambiguator. Those cities that need additional disambiguation use their county or parish (for example Elgin (Lancaster County, South Carolina) and Elgin (Kershaw County, South Carolina)).

Cities that require disambiguation from topics other than cities, such as Mount Shasta (city), use a parenthetic disambiguator that differentiates them from the other uses accordingly (usually "city").

-Vote: 3c is acceptable-

-Vote: 3c is UNacceptable-

Proposer's statement

This is a first draft. Feel free to take this and add on to it in your own proposed revisions below. Also, the point allocation scheme should probably be discussed. --Serge 23:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about Revision Multi-Choice 1.0

This proposal ignores the question of a style sheet or MoS driving the article names. The assumption here is that the title is a form of disambiguation rather then a style issue. If you frame the question in certain ways you will influnce the result. Vegaswikian 23:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reason to use the city, state "style" is to "predisambiguate", is it not? That is, if there were no U.S. cities, or hardly any U.S. cities, that shared the same name, there would be no reason for the city, state "style" at all in any case, would there? If so, then the city, state "style" is a form of disambiguation, and there is nothing misleading or inappropriate about framing the survey accordingly. --Serge 23:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wording in the current guideline includes "those cities that need additional disambiguation...". Additional disambiguation (with county) implies there is already some disambiguation with just , state. That's not how it's framed just in the survey, that's how it's framed in the current wording in the guideline in question. --Serge 00:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your option B has been rejected already, so it shouldn't be on the table. Tariq's proposal (without the list) was: "If a major city has a unique name or is unquestionably the most significant subject sharing its name, ....". Your options C, D, and E haven't been formally rejected (yet). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we try to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion in giving participants options? For example, if consensus hasn't changed about option B, then it will get few if any positive votes. Anyway, we should be able to get much more participation this time around, so results may change. I'd rather avoid predicting how popular a particular choice may be. ~~But, if we have too many options, we might want to have a "runoff" between the top 2 or 3...~~ (on second thought, the ability for everyone to vote for multiple "acceptable" option should obviate the need for a "runoff") --Serge 01:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict x2-Use of city, state is a form of style definintion in my opinion. The phrase "those cities that need additional disambiguation..." implies that we are disambiguating. I'm saying that this is a style issue and the current guideline takes a position that may not best serve this wiki. If you accept that point, then the focus changes and it may be easier to reach consensus. When I was watching 60 Minutes this weekend, they always used city-state, even one of the mayors on the show used this form. Makes you wonder that if a national news show does it this way, probably because it is in their style book, then maybe we should be following in their footsteps. Vegaswikian 01:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then all we have to do is add a version which uses your framing. --Serge 02:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)) The use of a multi choice survey is a bad idea. It always leads to a wide spread of opinion and no option getting clear consencus. The only way the everyone is going to aggree to a change is by 66% being achieved and this will never happen with your proposal. I don't hold out to much hope of the "convention" ever being changed. The one by one article moving seems to be the most effective. As more cities get changed over to the international convention it should lead to more people saying "if X gets to name it that way why not our city". josh (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ability for participants to vote for multiple acceptable choices, and to assign "negative" points to the "unacceptable", should allow for achieving clear consensus regarding the most acceptable option among all those offered. --Serge 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the sheer mechanics of tallying the votes accurately (as well as minimizing edit conflicts and confusion as you'd have to be scrolling up and down to read the proposals then remembering which letter corresponded to which proposal), it may be clearer if each proposal had a separate voting approve/oppose sections in which people marked their votes with # counters. Despite a notorious reputation for toxic voting, the structure of the voting at WP:RFA is actually pretty good. And should we have the usual disclaimer about at least being a registered user, and perhaps registered for x months and n edits? Much as I dislike such criteria, sock puppet voting is something to be discouraged. older ≠ wiser 04:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how does it look now? --Serge 06:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better, although I think numbering as 1a/1b 3a/3b may be a little confusing. And when voting begins, each proposal would be in its own section to enable section editing, right? We need to make the directions about approve=+2 and oppose=-1 much more prominent, as that is a little unusual. Also emphasize very prominently that you can vote for as many options as you like (and that to state the obvious that it is not necessary to record a vote for every option). I almost hesitate to suggest this for fear of bickering over endless point/counterpoint, but for the benefit of those editors who haven't been following the voluminous prior discussions, perhaps there should be a section of short bullet point pros and cons for each proposal. 12:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So, we're doing weighted votes? If I really don't like a proposal, I can vote it down -2, -3? That seems like a bad idea that lends itself to fanaticism on either side. I do like the idea of "here are multiple solutions, check all that you find minimally acceptable." I think perhaps we may get rid of the "not acceptable" votes and simply take the option the most people find acceptable. See approval voting. -Anþony (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where?

When the wording for this poll, if we need another poll, is worked out, it should take place on Naming conventions (settlements). Polls on obscure pages are subject to unkindly interpretations. Septentrionalis 06:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the intent. When I have time later this week I'll incorporate all suggestions provided so far into the working version. --Serge 15:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

I was about to add Option F) based on the Australian convention. Is it now 1c), 2b) or 4)? Feel free to move it up to the right place. (I hit an edit conflict, and will be away for at least an hour or two)

F

F) Based on the Australian convention

All articles about cities, towns and settlements in the United States are named [[City, State]] no matter what their status of ambiguity is. A small number of globally-recognized cities are exceptions to this and the article is just [[City]]. The unqualified title [[City]] should always be either a disambiguation page or a redirect to assist readers searching for the article. If two towns in the same state have the same name, the disambiguation should be similar to how the local authorities distinguish the towns.

"recognised" changed to "recognized" as this guideline should be in American English not Australian English. Scott Davis ^Talk 22:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is more likely than voting to lead to a consensus decision that everybody can live with, even if it is nobody's favourite. That does not mean that we shouldn't enumerate the choices so we understand what we are discussing. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G

G) (Tariq part I, as modified by me. If anyone who supported Tariq objections to my rephrasing, please let me know).

The canonical form for cities in the United States is [[City, State]] (the "comma convention"). However, if a major city has a unique name or is unquestionably the most significant subject sharing its name, such as Chicago and Philadelphia, it can reside at a disambiguated location, without the state. Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county, borough or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina). Smaller locations, those which are not well-known outside their immediate vicinity, such as Walla Walla, Washington and Garrett Park, Maryland, should not be moved from "City, State"; they should remain disambiguated or qualified with their respective state names, regardless of the uniqueness of the names of the cities.

An U.S. city's article, however, should never be titled simply "city, United States" (e.g "Houston, United States"), although it is permissible to create a title of this type as a redirect to the properly titled article. Similarly, a title that uses the state's two-letter postal abbreviation should never be the primary article title, although creating a redirect is permitted.

(Although I don't know if the second paragraph is under discussion.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest rewording the bit "...it can reside at..." to sound less like a special concession/privilege granted to certain cities.

However, if a major city has a unique name and is unquestionably the most significant subject sharing its name, such as Chicago and Philadelphia, the article will be at the primary name, without the state.

That's a suggestion for the option G proposers or the poll moderator to adopt if they wish. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that, but considering User:Gohiking's interpretation of tariq's proposal up in the (still active) poll, I think some additional clarification needs to be present. Perhaps emphasizing "major" and "unquestionably" might be adequate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]