Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 11

I don't understand your comment. Are you claiming that NPOV has been violated by the fact that

 ►Chat 

23:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No less than it would be by moving the Atlanta, Georgia article to Atlanta.--Loodog 23:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

 ►Chat 

23:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed what this move reques timplies. Most newspaper organizations (in particular the AP from which this particular set of cities is derived) treat some U.S. city names as recognizable enough to stand on their own. The fact that there is a well-defined list from a particular source would alleviate your NPOV concerns. Ambiguous place names that are not the primary meaning for that name are not covered by this move proposal. --Polaron | Talk 00:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Though I don't agree with this take on my statement about NPOV, I have struck it since it doesn't change my stance - nor do I believe the argument for status quo is damaged by its' removal.
   ►Chat 
  00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose While I think that these cities do all stand alone, they already have redirects going to them. My main concern is the strain of fixing the many links (and not just to the city page itself, but to related pages) that editors will have to do for consistency. Since many city page editors are local, I think this is somewhat unfair burden to them. Vertigo700 00:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note that there is absolutely no need to fix any links per
  WP:REDIRECT. --Polaron | Talk
  01:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I originally posted, my problem is mostly with related articles. An example is the 80+ articles on Seattle neighborhoods titled neighborhood, Seattle, Washington. If the city page was changes to Seattle, then wouldn't all the neighborhood pages need to be changed for consistency's sake? I don't see how redirects and/or bots really help the work that many local editors will have to do. Just noting that these types of broad changes have effects both beneficial and deleterious and in many ways I feel they should be left up to the consensus of the editors of the city pages themselves. Vertigo700 06:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that there is an ongoing discussion about how to deal with neighborhoods here. The trend seems to be away from the usage of the double comma naming style. Feel free to weigh in. --Polaron | Talk 13:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I think this will lead to confusion, inconsistency and editor conflict. All US cities should be in the form city, state. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but all the only "confusion, inconsistency and especially editor conflict" has been caused by the requirement to use city, state. There are no such problems with respect to city names in countries without this artificial requirement. --Serge 00:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. To disambiguate these cities at city, state is contrary to the most fundamental rule in Wikipedia naming: use the most common name used to refer to the subject of the article. In the case of these cities, the most common name is clearly the city name alone. --Serge 00:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support, though conditional per Will Beback. Per
  Atlanta, Georgia, the comma and state name is just unnecessary verbiage at the top of the page. As in, "Los Angeles, California" looks odd, when "Los Angeles" alone would do. Currently, the only exceptions to the CITY, STATE rule I'm aware of are New York City, Chicago and Philadelphia. One thing the three have in common is that if someone looks up those titles, there's not much else they could be looking for. All the cities in the list above meet that standard. Throughout these debates, one of the most common "oppose" arguments I've heard is that there will be a horde of editors demanding that their preferred city be honored with a name lacking a state disambiguator. With such a clear standard, as outlined above, that won't happen ... no more than it already does, anyway. szyslak
  00:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - with redirects there is no benefit to removing the state from the title, other than to make it less informative. --MattWright (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • How is a title without the state name less "informative"? The state name is already in the first sentence, in case people don't already know that, say, Atlanta is in Georgia. Are the titles
    Tokyo, Japan? szyslak
    00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The title is less informative without the state because there is less information. Furthermore, the state name doesn't detract from a user's understanding or clutter the title. Your two examples aren't even from the U.S. and include the country name, not a state name. I'm not saying it should be
      Denver, Colorado, United States. I see no benefit to removing the state name and would prefer all articles for U.S. cities are "City, State". --MattWright (talk
      ) 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Why do we need "more information" in the title? We use the title for identification, not "informativeness". Is reading the first sentence or so of the article really too much effort for our readers? If we applied the strictest interpretation of the U.S. standard internationally, we wouldn't have titles like "London, England" or "Tokyo, Japan". They'd be more like "London, Greater London", "Tokyo, Tokyo Prefecture", "Paris, Île de France" or "Rome, Province of Rome". szyslak 21:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Among other things, it helps us determine quickly if we're looking at a settlement. "
    Fort Wayne" could be a military base or a city. "Fort Wayne, Indiana" is more clearly a city. The only city in this list where that is relevant is St. Louis, which we can't spell out to Saint Louis, unless we're willing to add the state name. ·:· Will Beback ·:·
    00:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose
  Soapy
  00:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why, because
    you don't like it? An explanation is generally a good thing. New England ^{Review Me!}
    00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I did not feel the need to explain why as this discussion has already been gone over in the past and I don't feel we should go through this waste of time every time someone wants something different.
      Soapy
      13:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose As always, Wikipedia articles should be named after the full and proper name of the subject. In the U.S., that's typically "city, state" and I don't care how well known the city is. Redirects hurt no one. Besides, this is a slippery slope. If we allow these cities to be moved, there will always be discussion to move other cities based on the opinion that they are well known enough. Where does it stop? Lets rename Tuscon, Jacksonville, Tulsa, Anchorage, Charlotte and Buffalo too...! Okiefromokla•talk 00:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Which would be all well and good if we didn't already have exceptions to this policy.--Loodog 00:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Not that I agree with any of those exceptions. Okiefromokla•talk 01:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment But it does render a "slippery slope" argument that contends no exceptions should be made, moot so long as they exist.--Loodog 01:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I dont think a slippery slope argument is moot simply because exceptions exist. We should take a stand here and not allow any more exceptions, and hopefully the current exceptions will eventually be corrected. On the other hand, we could allow these further exceptions, and then someone down the line will want more exceptions, then more. Stop the slippery slope here, and stick with the basic accepted naming practice of the real world. Okiefromokla•talk 01:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment But that's the whole point of slippery slope: once you start down the path, there's no stopping. If, after the choice has been made, one contends that it should stop now because it can't be stopped in the future, he is arguing contrary to the events that brought him there in the first place.--Loodog 01:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment Well, right now were on more of a low slope covered in jello. If this suggestion is approved, I think we'll be on more of a slippery mountain covered in ice. At least unless there is a guideline put in place to limit any further moves to the cities currently listed here. But, I just don't see that happening. Okiefromokla•talk 01:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
              • P.S. Don't bother to think too much into that analogy. I just wanted to mention jello. Someone was going to anyway, right? Okiefromokla•talk 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
                • Comment Then we're exposing the fallacy of past arguments only to use them again.--Loodog 01:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The purpose of this move request is simply to bring these cities in line with the wording of the guideline for U.S. cities. --Serge 01:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note that "city, state" is not the "full and proper name" of these cities in any case. Also, there is a well-defined list of cities. It is unlikely that the AP will change their list any time soon. So, there is a well-defined stopping point. --Polaron | Talk 01:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This is NOT a proposal to let any city argue for first name recognition, but to acknowledge those that already have it. You need not let this go any further than: all cities which already have base names redirecting to them get moved to base name'.--Loodog 02:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

But that goes much, much farther than the current proposal -- which is limited to a finite list -- the proposal is quite deliberately limited because the proposal to move all such cities has faced insurmountable opposition in the past -- the current proposal is intended to address the most prominent and examples. older ≠ wiser 02:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely true. Though my intention was to allay fears that this would create a free-for-all on locations for city articles. If this is passed, it will not mean we'll award city name status to every city that wants it or that every city will even have a window to argue it in.--Loodog 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see this as a the "miracle answer" to end the debate and I see no reason for the "City Only" crowd to stop here. In additional to the superior benefits of the City,State convention, I just don't see the "promised peace" coming from this. It like poking holes in a dam so that a little water can get thru on the "promise" that the entire structure won't weaken and bust.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Is there anything that would make this proposal acceptable to you? It's a well-defined set of cities and no more. I just don't see people even trying to move cities other than these given the strong comfort level of most people in the "city, state" convention. How about just give it a try. If the flood of move requests that some people arew afraid of do occur, then reverse the moves. --Polaron | Talk 03:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose "City, State" is a standard US convention for identifying any city and seems well established in Wikipedia. The more exceptions, the harder it is to deal with the process and the ore cross-checking is needed. Furthermore, while the cities proposed for this move are often known by city name alone, not all of them are unique city names. Determining that the non-unique name in one state is so impressivley prominent as to trump any other use of the name in another state seems to me to rather subjective and not appropriate for the Wikipedia. Pzavon 01:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment And yet we've already done it for all these places by having the base page redirect to them.--Loodog 01:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This proposal is for the specific set of cities above and no more. I don't think there would be substantial support for any more. And as Loodog said, since the unqualified names already redirect to the city articles, there has already been a determination that these cities are the most common usage of these names. --Polaron | Talk 03:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly support, for reasons I've discussed umpteen times in the past (although I do have a few reservations for St. Louis). Although it doesn't look like it'll go through, sadly.
  john k
  04:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support for a reasonable compromise for naming well-known cities. I'm sure that other major news organizations' style guides would also concur with the AP one. --Polaron | Talk 04:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support. The only compromise that succeeded at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). As Rmhermen said, "Isn't five years of discussion more than enough?" I am confident that this proposal will bring the debate to a close. Λυδαcιτγ 05:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I really don't feel that adding a list of exceptions, even one based on something like the AP's guidelines, does anything to strengthen the convention and Wikipedia. -- The Bethling^(Talk) 06:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• No objection. Whilst I like the simplicity of "always use comma state" for large English-speaking federations, this is the only proposal to have come up with an objective criteria for creating a limited set of exceptions to it. The settlement naming guideline has recently changed to allow these page moves (and only these page moves), so this vote is really just to ratify the change on the actual articles. Australia has the same guideline with a small number of well-defined exceptions. Canada had the same guideline, and now has a looser version with verbose but subjective exception criteria. Hopefully this set of exceptions will not be the beginning of a slippery slope, but a shift in the foundation to provide a firmer and more robust footing. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The change that was agreed to at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) obviously only achieved consensus because of the limited number of participants. As can be seen here, once the implications of the change is made obvious to the larger Wikipedia community, there is not only no consensus for the change, there is a good deal of opposition. Accordingly, the changes made at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to include the AP list and creating exceptions to the canonical standard should be rolled back.--Paul 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if this move proposal fails, it indicates a lack of support for the change to the settlements naming guideline and it should be rolled back. Sufficient time to discuss here should be allowed before it is decided one way or another, however.

ɑʀкʏɑɴ

22:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would prefer to keep all cities in the City, State format with the exception of New York City. --Hemlock Martinis 21:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • How can you justify one and only one city being granted an exception to the city, state format? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The topic of
      Washington Metropolitan Area which also do not have ", state" added to them. --Scott Davis ^Talk
      03:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I've looked at New York City and I see an article about a city, not about a metropolitan area. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
        • The real problem with renaming
          New York City, New York would be unidiomatic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
          17:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are already at least two too many exceptions to our convention, and no good reasons to add more. —wwoods 13:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Keep the more specific article names. The Atlanta redirect can help people find whichever article is presently the most popular meaning for the term Atlanta. (SEWilco 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC))
• Support. Major cities are referred to most often by their names, not their names and states. This move would also converge our interests with the convention used for Canadian cities. Soltras 18:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. While this works as a compromise, to readers and editors the distinction would appear to be random. Chicago and Philadelphia should both be moved back to city, state form. NYC is probably best left as is due to its unique problems. By using the city state form, editors would stop linking to simply city which either is a dab page or can very well be the wrong city and a reader not familiar with the US states may not realize the error. Vegaswikian 06:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are too many exceptions already, and this change will create another group of exceptions that will appear to be another arbitrary list to most casual editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support. If Wikipedia is to be a user-friendly encyclopedia, and be in line with the other great encyclopedias, these cities must be at the most common name. Also, common sense dictates this move. --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My Great Project 23:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Next step?

It appears that these moves are highly controversial and though some consensus may have been established amongst a group of editors on another article talk page, it does not appear that these moves are not being met with a great deal of support. I would purpose that we "lock" the debate at this time.

There's only been a few hours of debate. Consensus rarely, if ever, emerges after such a short time. szyslak 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is no consensus for these moves, then I would argue that there is also no consensus for retaining the current exceptions. Vegaswikian 02:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nor is there consensus for moving them anywhere else.

john k

04:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable point. :-)

 ►Chat 

02:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Although this particular discussion is about moving only those cities mentioned, it seems that this issue is being viewed by many people as a small part of the larger problem. Someone should offer a compromise of some sort. Some clear guideline needs to be established for U.S. Cities at some point. We need to be able to stop talking about this... It's been going on for years. Is there no compromise someone can bring up? Okiefromokla•talk 02:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Some clear guideline needs to be established for U.S. Cities at some point." There are clear guidelines: for U.S. cities -> "City, State" --Paul 03:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-read

those guidelines again New England ^{Review Me!}

03:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The AP Stylebook paragraph has been added since I last read the guidelines (some time in 2006). Let me guess who might have made that change? :-) The guidelines used to be clear, and could easily be made so again. --Paul 03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Or am I just innocently naive for thinking compromise is possible on this larger issue? Okiefromokla•talk 02:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Alas, this latest proposal was some attempt at a compromise. It doesn't look like it's going to gain too much traction here, however, and really I'm wondering, if we can't come up with at least a minor compromise, how we're to come up with a broader solution.

ɑʀкʏɑɴ

03:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if there was also a guideline clearly establishing the "city, state" set up as concrete naming policy and clearly limiting the exceptions to the policy to gamma or beta world cities (I see from the previous discussion that the above this is of gamma world cities, though some might want to limit it to beta world). Okiefromokla•talk 03:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to really offer an "educated" response - i have no idea how the most other countries establish their "provinces/state". As you can tell, i'm not even sure of the proper terminology. Does

 ►Chat 

03:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant to refer only to guidelines for American cities. Okiefromokla•talk 03:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I just want to take a moment and point out that the list of cities in question was not randomly compiled by any group of Wikipedians. The cities mentioned are all in the AP Stylebook as cities which do not require the state name to appear after them in the dateline of articles. So the AP thinks that these cities (along with several others) do not require disambiguation. New England ^{Review Me!} 03:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as an observer and not an expert - why is the AP stylebook so important? It's hard to say "This convention only applies to the AP stylebook." Does this style book have any impact on laws or regulations that determine how things are named in the first place?

 ►Chat 

03:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

the AP is saying that there is no need to list the name of the state after any of those cities because the American public already knows which state the city is in by the name by city name alone (ie you don't need to put California after San Diego since most people know San Diego is in California). The AP has no say on what a city (or any entity) will name itself, but I'm not sure that's relevant (in theory Boston could change its name to Iraq, and I don't think Mass. can stop it) And while the legal name of a city may (or may not) be city, state, doesn't that mean that European cities should be named city, province (ie Florence, Tuscany). New England ^{Review Me!} 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The AP stylebook, of course, reflects general usage and general knowledge. It is a good list not because it has any authority in and of itself, but because the list was compiled by people trying to do more or less the same thing we're doing, and it came up with a relatively reasonable list.

john k

04:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. As usually, it looks as though there's no hope for a consensus. Sigh. Is there absolutely any possible compromise convention for American cities that those of you who support "City, State" would accept? If not, this will never end.

• I would like to know where this comma clause originated from. To me, it seems based on European editors' false assumption that we Americans will always use the name of a state a city is in if we are in another state (meaning I'll refer say Atlanta, Georgia since I'm in Mass.) New England ^{Review Me!} 05:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It arose out of very early discussions on wikipedia. There was a discussion between a pretty small group of people over whether or not US city names should all be pre-emptively disambiguated with the state name. A vote was held, and this policy was approved by a vote of 3 to 2. (Literally, a vote of 3 people to 2 people - not too many people were around back then). I believe most of the people involved was American, although I'm not certain of this. At this point, the Ram-Bot then went out and created an article for every single inhabited place (city, borough, town, village, township, Census-designated place) that the US Census keeps data on, all using that form (and, indeed, for a while the article on New York was at

john k

06:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The main reason that the comma convention exists in that form is that it has been the standard for U.S. language and publications since more than a century. Why it exists here: a few Wikipedians chose to override Wikipedia policy (parentheses) to bring that comfort to Wikipedia; since it was later propagated through so many articles, it was only natural that others began to copy the same method. The reason for the existence of the "city, state" method is perfectly understandable within the U.S. - because of its sheer size and shared placenames (between states) - but it assumes a foreknowledge of U.S. states. And no, it is not always used there, especially when the topic of discussion between locals is neighbouring towns.

As for the need of pre-disambiguation: it surfaced in recent discussion that 70% of all U.S. placenames will require disambiguation at one point or another - and this is without even considering repetitions of the same in other countries. It would be great to have all Wikipedia placename articles at their unique name, but unfortunately the Wikipedia technology will not permit it. I really think a larger, more world-aware method is needed for all political placename articles, otherwise the conflicts and quabbling will go on forever. THEPROMENADER 07:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

a few Wikipedians chose to override Wikipedia policy (parentheses) to bring that comfort to Wikipedia; -- an amusing misrepresentation and distortion. It is not policy to use parentheses for disambiguation. Never was, not ever. It is one method among several accepted methods. I think you may misunderstand the meaning of unique or are misstating your intended meaning. There is no technical limit to having place names that are truly unique at that name -- the problem arises precisely because so many placenames are not unique. older ≠ wiser 10:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Find me anything in

WP:NAME that suggests using a comma for disambiguation. The word "comma" cannot even be found on the WP:Disambiguation guideline - there too, only parentheses are the only method suggested. The comma's first widepread use was for U.S. placenames, and was, as mentioned above, imposed by a very few on a very many articles - check the (settlements) page history if you need concrete proof of this as well. Derisory adjectives are not suited for describing statements of self-evident and quite findable fact, so save these please, as they do not help discussion any. Yes, "unique" was not the right word to use - "proper" or "base" name would better describe my meaning. THEPROMENADER

10:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is turning things upside down. Your claim is that using parentheses is policy -- where is that precisely? Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic lists options for naming pages to disambiguate specific topics. First on the list, as it has been for a very long time: When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Delta rocket), that should be used. City, state is a "more complete name that is equally clear". 148.168.127.10 12:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty twisted logic - for that to work, first you have to try to argue that "city, state" is a name in itself (that it largely is not - it is a habit that can only vaguely be considered a "name" by that select local few to who that habit belongs), and even then should we ignore the larger more evident fact ("city" is in a "state", as "beer" is in a "glass", but "glass" is not "beer"'s name) and accept this, it still seems that the reasoning was tailor-made for the cited pre-existing Wikipedia guidelines.

I've seen this "reasoning" many times already, but it is anything but: it is an attempt to give semblance of reason to a method whose origins are nothing of the kind: the "city, state" method is comfort defined for those to who use it each day - or it would not exist here. I can't put it simpler than that. THEPROMENADER 13:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your obstinate persistence in denying that "City, State" is in fact a common alternative name is about the only thing that is twisted here. The rest of your comments have already been discused and rebutted ad infintum. Simply because you don't like the method and think it is illogical does not mean that is in fact the case. 148.168.127.10 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We're getting way off track here. Saying that "city, state" is the proper name of "city" isn't even worthy of discussion - to take the "truth" of a vague interpretation and a very local few (if then) over the evidence of the phrase itself is seeking refuge in denial. I'm sure some people do think that "city, state" is a name in itself (and that if the question is phrased carefully enough), but that "truth" is akin to stating "some scientists think the world is flat". Whatever serves your purpose. THEPROMENADER 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I think we are getting off topic here. Its not so much that "City, state" is the official name of the city in most city charters, but rather that "city, state" is the most accurate, proper, and formal way to address a city. In government reports, in news articles (except for certain cities according to the AP), in institutions of higher education, in any kind of official document, "city, state" is how a city is addressed. Accurate and proper are the key words there. See my proposition below. Okiefromokla•talk 16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All the above is great within the U.S. itself, as all the 'positives' you describe are only applicable there. How about the rest of the world? To foreign readers, "State" is but a locator, and not a name. THEPROMENADER 17:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(As there really isn't a set guideline right now... "city, state" is just sort of the de-facto way.) I am just tired of seeing this discussion everywhere. Lets make sure it doesn't happen again, and maybe this can prevent it. Okiefromokla•talk 16:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand the above - "it is because it is"? Again, that reasoning is limited to U.S. cities. If you don't either you make the comma convention standard for all countries, or find a new method that extends to there same, this discussion will always resurface. Wikipideans can limit themselves to contributing within their own knowledge (aka to articles about their own cities) using the logic of their own customs, but they cannot expect Wiki readers to to share their same origins and local knowledge, nor should they expect others to adapt to the same. The method should be suited to the media, not the contrubutors. THEPROMENADER 07:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a little confused now. The comment you responded to just now was actually made before your first response to my other comment, and was meant to be more of a "P.S." and not a response to your response. Indeed, it might be good to have a blanket guideline for naming all places everywhere (as one of the proposals below suggests) but I was only meaning to talk about U.S. cities and how the "city, state" way of adressing cities is the defacto way in Wikipedia and the U.S. Okiefromokla•talk 23:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I wasn't sure whether your comment was an outdented reply to my own. All the same, I don't see much logic in using different "city" disambiguation methods for different countries, especially when it is not immediately clear to the reader to what country each city belongs. THEPROMENADER 06:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposition for compromise

1. Implement a guideline that clearly defines all U.S. city articles must be named "city, state". 2. This will not apply to cities listed in a specific non-wikipedian list of well known cities, so as to prevent this issue from cropping up again, and only well known cities according to this third party can drop the state. If this list should be the current AP list, or a list of official Gamma-World or Beta-World cities, it doesn't matter. Everyone gets what they way this way (with a little compromise on both sides). Okiefromokla•talk 16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's essentially what the currently discussed proposal entails - having the guideline say that City, State is the preferred method, but states in the AP list can be excepted and go by just City. Discussion on the topic endorsed the AP list over the World Cities list as the latter is heavily biased toward economic significance and overlooks cities prominent for cultural or political significance.

ɑʀкʏɑɴ

16:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll point up at what Arkyan said and nod my head in agreement, but I'll also add that the GaWC was ruled out because it puts quite a bit of weight in the economic impact a city has to determine where the city ranks on the Global/World city list, when the only thing we're interested in is the recognizability of the city's name without the addition of the state. As an example, the city of Seattle is fairly recognizable by its city name alone, but it only has two points on the GaWC's 1999 list and doesn't appear at all on the 2004 list. The AP list is the only one that we could find that based the list solely on the recognizability of the city name alone, so that's what we went with. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

But a flaw of the AP list is the vast disparity of context. The AP list is used for newspaper dateline which has the luxury of one single context-to name a location. That is certainly not the case with Wikipedia in which an editor looking for

St. Louis, or St. Louis, or St. Louis, or St. Louis etc. In the context of an AP dateline you always know what you are getting and in that singular context the list makes sense and would serve as a fine naming convention if Wikipedia was an almanac of placenames and locations. But Wikipedia doesn't function in that singular context and a worthwhile naming convention will take into consideration that vast audience that Wikipedia appeals to and the multi-faceted reference that it aims to be.Agne^Cheese/^Wine

17:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The usage of the AP list does not supplant the primary usage clause in

Las Vegas, Nevada) and if there are more, then those can be removed as well. The idea behind the list is that when the average user sees the city name alone the first thing that will pop to most of their minds will be the correct city.--Bobblehead ^(rants)

18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How about we consider each city on the AP list on a case-by-case basis, and see if anyone objects for any reason other than the comma convention? New England ^{Review Me!} 21:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. But let's wait and see how this works out over the next few days. Then we can start trying to move one city at a time. --Serge 23:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support but I don't trust the AP. (SEWilco 17:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC))
• Note - this proposed guideline has been (more or less) given clear wording under proposition #4 Okiefromokla•talk 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise 2

2. The standard for U.S. place names at

If folks are really looking for a simple and consistent solution, this is it.--Paul 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's much of a compromise as it seems to basically be the guideline prior to the recent change allowing for those on the AP list. I haven't seen any serious discussion about moving Chicago, Philadelphia, and NYC back to the City, State format, some have brought it up, but even they admit it's not going to happen. The problem the US convention has had is not that it is unclear, but that there is a faction that want the comma convention followed all the time, a faction that wants

WP:NC(CN) followed using the parenthetical method of disambiguation (Phoenix (Arizona)), and a faction that wants to use the comma convention for disambiguation, but falls somewhere in between the other two factions as far as when to use the convention.--Bobblehead ^(rants)

21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not acceptable (to me, anyway.) If we have that, we need also: "Nothing in this guideline allows or encourages any U.S. city not to be listed at [[City, State]]." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Be reasonable. No one is going to support moving "New York City" to "New York City, New York." You need a grandfather clause to keep article reverse-move wars like this very one from erupting on the exception cities. --Paul 22:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is thoroughly confusing. Anyone have any other ideas for a compromise then? Reading the discussions since my "compromise proposal" earlier, I no longer see a way to forge some kind of agreement between those who don't want these cities to drop the state and those who do. I guess that's why the larger issue has gone on for so long. I will say one thing: having just a few exceptions on an individual basis like Chicago and Philadelphia is not good and something need to change. And I'll tell you another thing: I'm tired of participating in these discussions when its always a split down the middle with not the least bit of a hint that consensus is getting close! Okiefromokla•talk 21:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What is confusing? Those who don't like the [[City, State]] guideline are continuously pushing to subvert the existing standard. This discussion has assumed many forms over the last few years. The changes made to

WP:NC:CITY is exactly the same argument once again, a camels nose under the tent attempt to change the guideline and then get on with the article name moves. The time to have this discussion was five years ago.--Paul

22:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just confused because people's opinions starkly contrast with eachother and its hard to try to envision a compromise that works for everybody. I agree with you, Paul: I opposed the move for the AP list originally. In a perfect world, I would want every article to be "city, state"... Okiefromokla•talk 22:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - Oh yeah and not that it looks like its going to matter but I'll just go ahead and say that I support Paul's proposal for the reasons I have stated all along. Okiefromokla•talk 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support consistency with grandfather clause for stability. (SEWilco 17:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Third Proposal for Compromise

3 All cities worldwide should be moved to [[City, state, province, or county depending on country]]. Before you squash this, consider that the fact that European cities need no qualification leads to many of these debates on US cities. If a universal proposal were adopted, we could have harmony at last. New England ^{Review Me!} 21:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously proposing we move every single city article in the world!? Okiefromokla•talk 22:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It eliminates the double-standard that causes many of these debates to pop up time and time again. New England ^{Review Me!} 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea but wouldn't moving so many articles cause a lot of problems and confusion, not to mention so many more redirects? Seems like such a huge change, I mean you're talking about moving every tiny town from the backwoods of Ohio to the jungles of Indonesia. Like I said, I like the idea... but... maybe hearing some more opinions about it will help. Okiefromokla•talk 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the number of articles to be moved as a problem. If an approach like this is taken, then articles can be moved as dab issues arise or for new articles. A sightly different take that may be more acceptable is to use [city, something] whenever there are two cities sharing the name and leave city as a dab page. This would apply if the conflict something other then a city. Vegaswikian 00:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support for consistency. Lets redirects deal with current popular terms. (SEWilco 17:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC))
• Support for consistency (first choice). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support this would work for me, but I doubt those who wanted to drop the "state" in the first place would like it. Okiefromokla•talk 21:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support and damn glad to see the initiative. I also propose to lose the comma convention as well - City (Country, stateifneeded) would be recognisable across the board for readers the world over, and isolating disambiguation between parentheses would make for a cleaner multi-level disambiguation (if it was needed). THEPROMENADER 00:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I like the idea of common world-wide convention for disambiguating when disambiguation is required, but I don't see the point of complicating this mess by having
  the most widely followed convention in Wikipedia by being at some convoluted names. And if you think moving New York City will be difficult, wait until you try to move Paris or London. No way. --Serge
  01:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think you're going to have to come to the realisation that, because of the Wiki media, and the repetitive nature of placenames, that most placenames will need disambiguation. I am (for the time being) one of
    Paris (France) (where it was once before) if it meant that a reader can a) find and recognise a placename article for what it is at first glance and b) expect the same technique everywhere for placename articles. As for "exceptions": For a coherent debate, it's best to make the rule first, then decide on exceptions to the same only afterwards. Cheers. THEPROMENADER
    06:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The rule has been made, and, again, it is
      the rule may be in the majority of applicable cases. But let's be clear that we're only talking about the exceptions, even though they may be in the majority. --Serge
      20:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
      • No, "common name" was made for situations like
        Gdansk - it how best to choose a name that is proper to the article subject itself. Only by a lengthy stretch of the imagination, and that only with knowledge of local geography and customs, could it even be considered that "state" be even remotely considered as part of "city"'s name, and even then it is a habit more than anything. And this reasoning, and its application for foreigners: never. THEPROMENADER
        22:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The inherent disruption of moving tens of thousands of pages far outweighs any benefits of "consistency". If there were a problem with the non-disambiguated titles, most of them would have been moved years ago. szyslak 09:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wiki years ago was nothing near its size today, and the increasing conflict and discussion created by conflicting articles and guidelines is more disruptive than anything. First let's find a system that works, then worry about how to implement it later. No-one says we have to do it all at once, but even that would be possible with a bot - the same used to propegate "city, state", for example. THEPROMENADER 12:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • We do have a system that works:
      WP:D. Like Canadian city names. --Serge
      20:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry to call a card a card, the
        WP:D. Perhaps you'd be better to state "we have a justification that 'works'" - at least for you locals. THEPROMENADER
        22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Fix the problem in the only way that avoids conflicts. While everyone probably knows where
  Paris, France is and likely more will know here the second one is then the first. This also would end the move debates on what is the primary use for these settlements. The current conventions and discussions ignore the primary use criteria and instead focus on oldest, largest, first to be located at the name space, the site of some event, names derived from or other unsound arguments. Since the locals are in the majority on these discussions, the wrong articles frequently remain at the main name space. Vegaswikian
  18:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Vegas and Promenader. This is easy, straight foward and consistent. Not only will this fix a mountain of current conflicts it also solidifies the settlement naming convention for the future and eliminates needless conflicts over whose city is "better". Far too often the city naming debates are tainted by the egos and pride of locals who happen to edit those page. The most fair and NPOV way is to be consistent across the board. Though I would strongly urge getting wider input from the Wikipedia community for this change. As the AP list moves shows, getting a few editors to agree on the convention page doesn't mean smooth sailing when brought to a larger forum. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agne, if you have any suggestions for bringing this to a wider audience, please do share. We're already near the top of the (convention) peak here! THEPROMENADER 22:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal the Fourth

How about this, we all go over the AP list, and write our objections to each city individually (outside of ones relating to the comma clause) Then, we move all the cities with few or little objections. New England ^{Review Me!} 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this one doesn't address the concern that there needs to be a clear guideline for naming U.S. cities. Okiefromokla•talk 22:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It makes more sense to come to some kind of general consensus regarding a guideline, and then individual problems/exceptions can be discussed as they come up, rather than trying to figure out all the concievable problems and then write a guideline around them.

ɑʀкʏɑɴ

22:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay how about the knew guideline is this: "All US cities should be under the article name CITY, STATE (unless further disambiguation is needed). However, a city that appears on the Associated Press list of 'stand alone cities' may be listed under the article name CITY if and only if it can be established that the city's name has no other major meaning" I've never written guidelines before, but I must admit I like it (wording may be changed if needed to clarify) New England ^{Review Me!} 22:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just like the "sub proposal" for proposal #2 I just made. I think its wording is better. I don't know what were doing here with all these proposals but maybe we can just put that sub propsal I made under this heading instead. I would feel more comfortable with User:New England doing that since he/she is the one making these proposals. Okiefromokla•talk 22:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

One major difference is that yours automatically has cities on the AP list get moved, while mine says they can be moved only if they are on the AP list and if there is no other major meaning (yours seemingly makes moves for Pheonix(AZ) and Washington (DC) a sure thing if the guideline passes, while mine doesn't) New England ^{Review Me!} 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the real compromise is to say the cities listed above are well-known enough that they can be moved to just the city name IF there is a consensus of editors at each city's talk page. The guideline stays the same generally except for the above cities who will now have the option of changing their name. Vertigo700 23:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would accept that too, but in my experience (failed attempts to move Boston and Atlanta) most people opposed to the moves opposed only because of the guidelines in place currently, so I think debates should be about most common usage. New England ^{Review Me!} 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

But if we agreed to a change of policy where the above cities could be left alone, that type of debate would become moot. It would only be about whether the editors themselves think the city name should be stateless based on their own opinions and circumstances. The main thing I would like to avoid is any sort of mass migration of city names without consideration of the consensus of editors who work on the pages and therefore going to have to do some work sorting out links and related pages. Vertigo700 00:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand, New England. My proposal does not mean if the guideline passes the cities on the AP list automatically get moved. My proposal says the AP city articles "can be named on an individual basis" ... meaning editors can determine the status of each city on the list individually. Okiefromokla•talk 00:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this one just perpetuates our problem of inconsistency and no set standard, so I disagree with this one. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? It doesn't create inconsistency. We cap the number of cities that can appear under CITY by using a list produced by an independent third party. New England ^{Review Me!} 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten Version

• Note: Another possible wording for this proposed guideline would be something like this:
  • ""The canonical form for cities in the United States is [[City, State]] (the "comma convention"). Those cities that need additional disambiguation will include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina). The only exceptions to this guideline are the articles belonging to those cities chosen by the Associated Press in its list of city names that can be used without a corresponding state; these articles should be named on an individual basis, with consensus for naming to be determined on each city's talk page."

This allows all cities on the AP list to be decided on an individual basis whether they should drop the "state" part. This is due to the fact that St. Louis is highly ambiguous, for example. It also sets a limit on further exceptions to this rule. In other words, cities on the AP list would be allowed to decide if the article should drop the "state" from the name, but all other cities would be limited to the "city, state" traditional approach. Wording for the guideline can be further changed to make it clear that the cities on the AP list should be moved to "CITY" but can opt out of doing so if it creates DAB problems or something else. The main point is that we unite behind some kind of compromise and I believe this is, by far, the best solution that has ever been proposed on this topic. If we don't agree on this, this discussion will go on for another 5 years, and the current cities proposed to be moved will not pass any time soon. Okiefromokla•talk 03:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support full-heartedly. Its a good compromise and I think the best hope to uniting us on this subject. Okiefromokla•talk 03:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support I prefer the wording of this over the wording of my proposal. New England ^{Review Me!} 15:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support examining each item in the AP list in Wikipedia's wider context. (SEWilco 17:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC))
• Support third choice. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Support #7; pages should not be moved here. Each city has its own reasons, and should be considered separately. (For example, Baltimore and Cleveland have the same questions as St. Louis). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that I've clarified that the discussions should take place on each cities talk page just now in response to your comment. New England ^{Review Me!} 19:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was never intended to imply that each city would be decided here. In fact, it was always the intention that each city decide on its own talk page. Okiefromokla•talk 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I will support. The objection that we must have it here so it can be found seems frivolous; anyone who feels that strongly need only watchlist the pages; and we can even link to them from here as moved, so we can use Recentchanges. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Moves don't show up in a watchlist, do they? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Moves will show up on your watchlist. That is, of course, assuming you check out your watchlist before someone else performs an edit on the article.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• (ec)They should; they show up in User contributions and history. But I meant the move discussion, which has to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A move does not appear to be a triggering event causing the page to appear on the watchlist, at least in User-space. If the page is edited before or after the move, it would show up under the new name, and if you'd look at your complete watchlist, you'd see the new page name, but my (small) watchlist is only about 1300, so I might not notice it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because you're the one that made the move. Your own contributions do not show up on your watchlist. If you'd like, I could move the page you just moved and it will show up on your watchlist. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My actual edits show up on my watchlist; there are options to ignore (1) your own edits, (2) minor edits, and (3) bot edits. I have them all off. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I continue to support this compromise. It's straighforward, logical, and non-disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I think this addresses my concerns. Whatever intentions of the original move were they were not clear. This is, and therefore I feel it is fair. Vertigo700 02:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support. This solution simply makes sense. It addresses flaws both in the status quo (the presence of unnecessary ambiguities) and in the initial move proposal (a mass move without consensus from the various pages' regular editors). szyslak 09:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support found a link to this discussion at the village pump, and this idea makes sense. Sasha Callahan 16:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Although, would a list of the cities or a link to a list of the cities be beneficial? I see "What cities are on the list" as being the #1 question if this new wording is approved. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I may be able to get my hand on the text version of the stylebook, which might give me access to the online edition. And I should mention you were the one who listed the cities on the AP list (see here) and I don't know where you got it. But I assume those are the cities on the list. New England ^{Review Me!} 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Heh. Yeah. I was the one that made the list you linked to, but I copied it from this discussion[1] when I failed to find a free version of it online.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. What does this accomplish? How is this much different from the current wording of the guideline? --Serge 20:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Substantively, nothing. It just moves the move requests off this page and on to the talk pages for the cities. So instead of one move discussion, there's 27. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, this allows all cities on the AP list to be moved with consensus, but the current revision specified which cities were to be moved (Phoenix AZ and Washington DC are both on the AP list, but not mentioned by the current guidelines). And of course, if the AP changes their list, the guideline won't need to be changed (a reason why guidelines shouldn't specify articles). But yes, the major difference is that discussions would take place on each article's talk page. This is due to some sentiments that this is the wrong venue. Plus, IMHO its not a great idea to discuss all these at once, since I think if an editor were opposed to moving one city (St. Louis) he would oppose all the moves. New England ^{Review Me!} 21:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It sets a clear (or more clear) guideline to follow for naming U.S. city articles - and what New England said. Okiefromokla•talk 02:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I'm still not following. The current guideline allows separate move requests on each city page as well as having one that moves all of them, doesn't it? I don't see anything in the current wording that would inhibit that. --Serge 20:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That is my interpretation as well. All in all, the rewording just prohibits mass move requests or to have the move discussion on a talk page other than the city's talk page, while the old wording allowed for mass move requests and allowed the move discussion to take place on a talk page other than the city's talk page. So nothing too major. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Right, its not much of a difference. But some people objected to the mass request that started this debate, and others felt each cities talk page is the proper venue. This proposal reflects those views. (I should say I wasn't too happy all these requests were en masse here---mainly because objections to individual cities may cause objections to the whole list) New England ^{Review Me!} 20:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, keep in mind that with this new guideline no city will be allowed to drop the state in its name unless it is on the AP list. So you could not propose to move Omaha, NE or St. Paul, MN, for example. I think that in this way and the ways mentioned by some other editors here, the guideline provides more stability in the ongoing argument for naming U.S. city articles. Though I would love to see an addition to this guideline, now that it has conjured up some support (see below) Okiefromokla•talk 00:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Possible addition to the guideline? - For years proposals for moving city articles have rarely seen consensus, and I don't see this changing when it is discussed on individual talk pages. I propose that we specify in the guideline the valid reasons to object to moving these AP articles when discussion occurs on indivudual talk pages. That is, to show that this naming convention already approved the AP cities to be moved - unless certain issues are present, like DAB issues, etc. This would ensure that this guideline establishes unity among U.S. city article names, and not a complete free-for-all among the AP cities. I would hate to see (for example)
              Los Angeles, California is not, for no other reason than simply there were more believers that all articles should be "city, state" during the L.A. discussion than there were on the Atlanta talk page. Keep in mind, I am a "city, state" believer myself, but I am only giving up about 25 cities for a unifying U.S. naming guideline that will hopefully stop this discussion that has exhuasted all of us over the years. Okiefromokla•talk
              00:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I take this period of silence as a lack of intrest for such addition. Perhaps it is better to keep this as simple as possible. Okiefromokla•talk 18:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a lack of interest in the addition. The lack of discussion since Friday could be that it is the weekend, which is generally a slow time anyways, weariness from the amount of discussion that has gone on, or a general acceptance. One of the issues that has always confronted altering the convention is that many of the participants of grown tired of going over the same ground over and over and over and etc again. Due to this, some tend to ignore/not contribute to the discussions until the very end or after the end to voice their opposition. At this point, the only people that have voiced their opinion have supported it in some manner, so I'd say we go with the rewritten version and then send a couple of the "obviously unambiguous" cities as a test run. A couple of cities that I don't see any real problems with are Seattle, Honolulu, and Milwaukee. I'd propose doing move requests for those three, if they fail, then don't continue the move requests, if they succeed, start sending the rest of the list through. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is premature. Changes to the policy at Naming conventions (settlements) needs to be discussed and agreed to there. The voting above shows that there is insufficient consensus for the current policy. You need to build a consensus for a new on AT THE RIGHT PLACE.--Paul 19:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The rewritten version is only a minor modification to what was already agreed upon at the naming convention article and all of the participants from settlements page also participated in this discussion. So I'm not sure there is any benefit to repeating the discussion there. The only real change between the original version and the rewritten version is that it prevents the mass move requests that was a major source of problems in the move request that took place here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but what was previously agreed on did not have broad consensus agreement (see above votes for the moves), and should be rolled back and replaced with this current proposal and discussed on the correct policy page. Additionally, to ensure that the right population of editors is involved in the discussion, notices should be placed on the talk pages of all of the cities that would affected by the change in naming policy. THEN, if there is really consensus (as there well may be) the Naming convention policy can be changed again, and actions can be proposed. --Paul 20:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What you're saying is confusing me. We should undo the recent changes to the guideline, and replace it with this one. That makes sense to me. What doesn't is that you say we then need to open a discussion on this on the settlements subpage. There seems to be no opposition to this proposal (except from you maybe) and this is the naming conventions talk page. I don't see the point of discussing it again.

Go Red Sox!

21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with New England and Bobblehead on this particular issue. Hmm... that was funny sounding. Okiefromokla•talk 01:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Warhammer Fantasy Battle
  to Warhammer: The Game of Fantasy Battles. Here it is essentially the same product, but with newer editions bearing the revised title. While the established customer base uses the old name, new players may only recognize the newer title. I can go either way on this one.

• The GNU Project's re-definition of GCC from GNU C Compiler to GNU Compiler Collection. In this case, the full title and function of the product has changed, but the common name (GCC) is being overloaded to mean two different things: the original product AND the newer, inclusive product. Here, I would lean toward favoring the renaming because it is more inclusive, but at the same time I also have some reservations because, from a notability standpoint, the original meaning has more historical influence and current real-world usage (that is, when most people talk about GCC, they still mean the C Compiler specifically).

While perhaps it is best to handle these on a case-by-case basis, there will inevitably be some controversial subject that prompts irreconcilable differences. Some comments on how to handle such cases would be appreciated. Ham Pastrami 09:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting situation. I agree with you on the case-by-case basis, but in general, I think articles should only be renamed if/when the new name starts being used more. -Rocket000 04:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I know there is no single "correct" way, but for Wikipedia's sake we should follow a clear set of rules. We have

The following is the conclusion I've reach as to the most agreed-upon set of rules:

Words that are not capitalized:

1. Conjunctions
2. Articles
3. The word to in infinitives
4. Prepositions
   that are four or less letters and not part of a two-word phrasal verb

Exception:

1. The first word and last word in the title (or parentheses inside the title) are always capitalized (overrides previous rules)

Am I correct - is this something we all agree to use on Wikipedia? (Again, I am not asking what's the correct way, but the way we do things here.) Please tell me if I'm wrong, if not, (and here's where I do want discussion) we should make all the "policies" say the same or, better yet, have one policy.

I don't think the problem is we can't agree on one set of rules, no, the problem is a bigger than that... This issue has been discussed on

I guess what I'm proposing is a new policy (or just an collaborative effort) to merge all similar sets of rules, so that every WikiProject or whatever doesn't have it's own "policy". If there's disagreement, it should be dealt with here or wherever the official policy's talk page is.

Your thoughts? - Rocket000 03:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking about creating a page for a college (American) football player named Kevin Smith.

Kevin Smith currently links to the article about the director. No problem, right? I just create an article with a less ambiguous name. Trouble is, there's already an article Kevin Smith (American football) about a different American football player.

So, how should I disambiguate this further? Cogswobbletalk 19:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Middle name/initial is usually the next step.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find his middle name :-/ Cogswobbletalk 19:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Year the enter the NFL is usually another option, but since he hasn't done that yet, you could always go with (College American football). But that would require an article name change if/when he enters the NFL. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't want to use "College" for that reason. I took a look at

Kevin Smith (American football running back) Cogswobbletalk

20:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good solution. Adding middle names that aren't normally used is not ideal. Another option would be to add the team, but since players nowadays play for more than one team that could be confusing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Very recently, the

The move from "Myanmar" to "Burma" might lead to calls for moving "People's Republic of China" to "China" as the exact same reasons that were used to justify the move would apply in this case as well. A clearer policy on country names should definitely be discussed. --Polaron | Talk 04:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Naming:_concerning_disambiguation

Dyaimz 21:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As

This convention seems to me to make best sense for lists in which the word 'notable' can be inferred, such as

We have a user whose edits consist largely of removing the word 'notable' from lists all over Wikipedia, stating if anyone objects that he is correct. I have discussed it with him here and here. Can other people please give this matter some thought? Is there room for 'notable' in the name of a list, or am I wrong and it should always be expunged? Xn4 17:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSLIST

covers this adequately. Inclusion criteria, for example notability, should be clearly stated in the lead section. List titles should be very simple.

"Notability", however that is determined, doesn't seem like a very good criterion to state on its own, anyway. Everything in Wikipedia is implied to be notable, since we are noting it here. I think better criteria would be more concrete, like things which had articles published about them, or things listed in some type of reference. "Notable" doesn't really mean anything beyond someone's opinion. See Wikipedia:Notability.

(I don't see how "notable" can be inferred in the

List of Presidents of the United States

—it is a list of all presidents, not just the notable ones.)

Of course I can't comment on particular examples which I haven't seen, but there is no point in adding "notable" to the title List of Old Gowers, unless you foresee another list of non-notable Old Gowers, or all Old Gowers, neither of which would be suitable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. —Michael Z. 2007-10-10 17:49 Z

Since awards and prizes are awarded by someone they should have a name to them by the person/organisation/company/whatever awarding the prize. The naming convention should reflect this. // Liftarn

I think this runs deeper than awards and prizes, it goes for institutions, organizations, products, works of art, almost anything that has an official name. Most of the time when something has an official name in English, we use that on Wikipedia in place of the more common name (

WP:NC(CN) to trump the official name. It's just that this is done very arbitrarily. I think the whole official name vs. common name issue should be stated clearly somewhere, after due discussion of course. -- Jao

09:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the title in the article and what is used in the text body is quite different and that should also be pointed out. // Liftarn

Seeing how no one has objected, does it need further peer review, should we create an article with the proposed changes and link to it, or should we just add this to the article?

I am all for basing WP editorial decisions on use in reputable sources, but shouldn't

It may be that the Burma/Myanmar issue is especially complicated because of the acceptability of those who did the renaming and the extent to which the local population supports the change. But generally speaking, we should try to respect people’s wishes when it comes to what we call them and their homes. It’s just good manners. --Espoo 09:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice quote, but I don't understand your proposal. Tempshill 22:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought i said it in the first sentence. :-) I suggest adding a requirement similar to the following to the

WP:NAME

policy:

Articles and their names should avoid forms of expression that are perceived to exclude, marginalise, insult, or oppress groups of people. This should not be confused with political activism, which does not belong in WP. Simply said, WP should try to respect people’s wishes when it comes to what we call them and their homes. It’s just good manners.

Applied to a concrete case like

much more often

than M in both speech and writing, and these sources should have precedence over news sources in WP.) This principle also explains why choosing B is not political activism, and it indirectly explains why WP would in fact be making a political statement in choosing M.

There are of course other naming disputes in which most English speakers use X and many or most of the people themselves would prefer Y, and in these cases WP editors should use reputable sources to determine if the people described simply prefer Y or consider X rude or oppressive. If Y is unknown to most English speakers, WP will have to compromise between the current policy and my suggested addition by, for example, having the article at X but using X only once in the article if it is objected to strongly by many of the people described. --Espoo 07:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely any attempt to avoid offensive terms in titles of articles is a form of censorship, and

neutral.-- Waggers

13:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAME, i.e. to measure which name is more common (ultimately objective). Although politics cannot be completely excluded, WP will function better with a minimum of them, and it's best to avoid explicit political standards. István

17:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. WP follows the NPOV policy and thus the proposal is not needed. A name that is controversial but neutral will remain but a name that is insulting or subjective has no place in WP -

WP:NPOV does prevent that anyway. As the Burma-example shows, we already use the neutral name over the political "official" name, anyway. So where is the need to have a new policy? --SoWhy ^Talk

14:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Note also there is absolutely no evidence that Burma is preferred by the majority of Burmese. We know that most members of the prodemocracy movement tend to prefer Burma and we know that the majority or Burmese appear to support the prodemocracy movement. However this doesn't mean that most Burmese prefer Burma. Nil Einne 01:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a more consistent approach to this? --MASEM 17:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that this page has become too long to be really useful. Would you think about changing the layout of the page, for example taking out all the summaries (except for the general NC guidelines) and grouping the subNCs by subject rather than alphabetically, maybe in a table format or in a more clean and aerated format such as in Help:Contents? Thank you. CG 19:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a convention on what country name to put as person's place of birth? Two conflicting examples are:

• Russian British
• Canadians of American origin
• Canadians of Filipino descent
• Canadians of Hungarian ancestry
• Chinese people in Japan
• Russians in Ukraine
• German minority in Poland
• German settlement in Argentina
  .

From time to time, on a one-off basis, these pages are proposed for renaming (e.g.

"Ireland" is the name of an island in Western Europe, previously part of the UK, now only a portion is.

The same name ("Ireland") is used to refer to the now-independant State. It is therefore located at Republic of Ireland (an official description, but just "Ireland" is very often used)

My interpretation of WP:NC is that this dictates "Ireland" should be a disambig, by policy. However most (or certainly, too many) views on the discussion of naming are based on general opinions (such as things like "Ireland has been used as a name for the island, for longer than the state has existed. So the island should have precedence" - clearly wouldn't be backed up by policy) so I would like to see what others think, who are basing their opinions entirely on the policy. I'll also just point out there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of links to "Ireland" which refer to the State (and so should link to "Republic of Ireland") since novice users may not be aware of where the articles are located.

The reason I'm posting here, is because anyone on this page, has presumably just looked at the actual policy (and are hopefully approaching it with a NPOV since they may be unaware of the problem). - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 00:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You may find a discussion with a similar theme at Talk:Newfoundland_(island)#Newfoundland_redirect:_Island_vs_Province and Talk:Newfoundland_and_Labrador#redirection. Ewlyahoocom 03:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Could anybody tell me please, what is this moving warning about "This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding." Please explain me exactly, what drastic and unexpected change(or changes) might accur with such a popular page? Toasker (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

See, for example,

Talk:Burma -- Boracay Bill (talk

) 02:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This should defenetly be removed if it was added without the community's consensus. Everything added should be discussed and be approved by the community's consensus not unilaterally by one user's decision. —dima/talk/ 04:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be deleted immediately while we come up with a more comprehensive policy. As the recent moves of

FK Crvena Zvezda to Red Star Belgrade demonstrate, unfortunately some over-zealous admins are taking advantage of this irrational statement and using it to bypass the consensus of editors. The statement is factually incorrect from the get go. It reads, "For example, Sporting Clube de Portugal are always called Sporting Lisbon in the English-speaking world." Well during the Manchester United FC-Sporting CP Champions League match the English ESPN announcers (Derek Rae and Tommy Smyth) had no problem calling the Portugese side, "Sporting", "Sporting Clube", or "Sporting Clube de Portugal". They actually made a point in the broadcast that Sporting doesn't like being called Sporting Lisbon and that that particular term is outdated. --Tocino

04:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of Wiki articles on the individual ship sinkings, but it seems to me the obvious thing to do is treat this as a single event. Trouble is, since the event doesn't have a name, any name I give it - like for example the Shovell squadron disaster - is effectively a neologism.

Anyone have a solution to this? Gatoclass 11:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep,

HMS Association — why not expand it there rather than making up a title? Duja►

11:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The sources probably describe it with long, half-sentence descriptors. But why not call it Shovell and the Scilly Isles until you find a better term? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've posted one because this page is not in good shape and needs an overhaul. I see even a section with a link back to itself. Tony (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm wondering why it has the policy template and not the usual styleguide template at the top, if this is part of the MOS. Tony (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason is very simple: This is a

policy while most parts of the MOS are guidelines. That's also the reason it was such a bad idea for you to edit the page as you did without first attempting to come to some consensus here. As you commented below, the result was that some of your hard work was a waste of your time. It wasted other people's time too fixing it up. Andrewa (talk

) 01:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

yet much more significant aspects are cordoned off into subpages? Doesn't make sense. Tony (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a good start to have someone here revert my hard work in trying to fix up the opening. Please explain why it wasn't a significant improvement in the organisation of the material. Tony (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, I wasn't too enthused about:

Linking conventions are also important. Following consistent conventions in both naming and linking makes it more likely that links will lead to the right place. A redirect should be created for articles that may reasonably be found under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names). Conversely, a term that may be used to describe several different search terms may require a disambiguation page.

Yeah, sure a lot of things are "also important", Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Article names