Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)

Please post discussions about Railway station names at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations).

Frequently asked questions

Why is the article on Georgia named Georgia (country), and Georgia is instead a disambiguation page?

The consensus is that there is no primary topic for the term "Georgia". Supporters of that position successfully argued that since the country is not significantly more commonly searched for than the US state of the same name, it cannot have primary topic over the US state. Opponents argued that internationally recognized countries should take precedence over sub-national units like the US state. Some opponents argued that the current setup conveys a US-centric bias. Attempts to rename the articles to a natural disambiguation title like "Republic of Georgia" or "State of Georgia" have not reached any consensus (see the list of archived discussions).

Why is the Ireland article about the island, while the article on the country is named Republic of Ireland?

The naming of Ireland articles dates back to 2002. Previously, content for both the island and country appeared on the same page,[1] but it was then decided to move content and the

its official "Republic of Ireland" description, while keeping content about the island at "Ireland". Ever since, this issue has been heavily disputed, but there has not been any consensus to change this status quo. Previous failed proposals have included making the country the primary topic of "Ireland" instead, or using parenthetical disambiguation titles like "Ireland (island)" and "Ireland (country)". According to an ArbCom ruling in 2009, discussions relating to the naming of these Ireland articles had to occur at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. In 2023 this requirement was withdrawn

so discussions can take place on the talk pages as normal.

Why do articles on populated places in the United States primarily use the [[Placename, State]] "comma convention" format? Why is there an exemption for cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring a state?

This is an issue where different rules of

Associated Press Stylebook exception rule for only those handful of cities listed in that style guide (the dominant US newswriting guide) as not requiring the state modifier. There has been since no consensus to do a massive page move on the other articles on US places (although individual requested move proposals

have been initiated on different pages from time to time).

Need for clarity on linking major American cities

Consensus is sought as to the correct way to refer and link to major American cities such as Los Angeles and Boston. The discussion is being held at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Need for clarity on linking major American cities.

There is an ongoing discussion on
Talk:Apple Campus
re level of disambiguation in article titles

We have had a long-running debate on Wikipedia for almost 20 years over the level of disambiguation to include in article titles. My understanding of WP community consensus is that we currently do not include unnecessary detail. This is why New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and others were shortened over my objections (and the objections of many other American editors who are accustomed to seeing the state name along with the city name in formal written American English). The current issue on Apple Campus is that if we go to "Infinite Loop campus," whether "Apple" is necessary because no other corporation has an "Infinite Loop campus". Coolcaesar (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't jump up on extraneous soapboxes. "Come see this other discussion" notices like this are supposed to be neutral, not "join my title-styling holy war" canvassing. Any time you bring up a bogus and nationalistic argument like "and ... many other American editors ... are accustomed to seeing the state name along with the city name in formal written American English" you're just going to get people to ignore you as tendentious. It's obvious to pretty much everyone in the Anglosphere (since they're all exposed to lots of American media) that American media, including "formal" publications, routinely refer to New York [City], Chicago, and Los Angeles without appending "New York [state]", "Illinois", or "California", respectively. And plenty of us were around for those old debates and know entirely well that they had nothing to do with alleged "formal written American English" expectations; the argument for putting these articles at

WP:CRITERIA are in a particular order: recognizability generally trumps concision, which in turn is usually considered more important that consistency. We run through the CRITERIA tests in series, top to bottom; we don't pick them at random and apply only, or particularly favor, the ones that only lean toward the name we might invididually like better.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Clarity on the spelling policy

The current text states:

In some cases it is not the local name but the spelling of the name in English that has changed over time. For example, Nanjing, as the contemporary pinyin spelling, is used for the name of the article rather than Nanking. However, the article on the Treaty of Nanking spells the city as was customary in 1842, because modern English scholarship still does.

However, based on the given example: while the article refers to "the Treaty of Nanking", it refers to the city as "Nanjing". If my reading of the policy is correct, then historic events, objects, quotes, etc, which refer to the old spelling should use the old spelling, but if the place itself is mentioned in such an article, then the place should use the modern spelling. Is this correct?

And just to clarify, what about institutions that have existed through a spelling change? For example, would the article on the Treaty of Nanking write "The Nanking City Administration decided to..." or would it say "The Nanjing City Administration decided to..."? My read is the latter, but again, clarity is desired. -- Rei (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the first question, that's generally up to editorial judgment on a per-article basis. I think in most cases, we continue using the historical name for the historical place. It can become very confusing to readers to veer back and forth, and can be confusing to apply a modern name when it is significantly different from the historical one. In this case, the names are so similar it probably doesn't make a real difference. On the second question, it should probably be "Nanking City Administration" because that's [at least ostensibly] a proper name, and no such entity as the "Nanjing City Administration" yet existed (if any such entity exists today by that name in English, for that matter). If that's not the actual proper name of the entity, then it shouldn't be capitalized, and should be rendered "Nanking city administration" or "Nanjing city administration", whichever agrees with the rest of the usage in the article. I would lean twoard consistently using Nanking in this historical article, to avoid confusing readers with the idea that Nanjing was the conventional spelling so early. By way of proper-name analogy, if something called the Manks Cat Fanciers' Society existed as such from 1870 to 1901, and later became the

Manx Cat Fanciers' Society, if referring to their publication of 1894 they'd be called the Manks Cat Fanciers' Society. In general, avoid rewriting history just for the sake of imposing a modern name on something. Our readers are perfectly capable of understanding something like "(modern-day Nanjing)" or "(today spelled Nanjing)". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I wouldn't agree that the degree of difference makes much difference - there are plenty of place names differing by only one letter from other places. So better to avoid possible confusion in such historical articles by using relevant consistent spelling with, as you suggest, "(today spelled Nanjing)" or similar - and at first mention (in this case sentence 2 in the Lead). Davidships (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph is subordinate. But both the lead paragraph and that one make it clear that old names are not preferred by default, but only when they are preferred by reliable sources. Both the respective paragraphs clearly qualify it:

Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same
However, the article on the Treaty of Nanking spells the city as was customary in 1842, because modern English scholarship still does.

There’s a problem with the wording of the lead paragraph, in that part of the intent has to be read between the lines. It says “For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name . . . rather than an older one. Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods.”

But what about when discussing the past and reliable modern sources use the modern name? Obviously, we should follow sources and use the main article’s title and modern name. But this is not unambiguously stated in a literal reading of the naming convention.

I propose a fix: “For most articles, especially those discussing the present, . . .” This makes it clearer that the exception applies when following sources, and doesn’t automatically overrule the rules of COMMONNAME and using the main-article title. —Michael Z. 21:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable, as far as agreeing with the intent and meaning of the rest of the material. However, COMMONNAME is not particularly a factor. That's about (and only about) what to use as the title of the main article on the subject. It can't be used to, e.g., refer to the 1707–1801 Kingdom of Great Britain as "the United Kingdom" (a name not in use until later-1801 onward) just because the main article on what is now the UK is titled

WP:CSF, the false beliefs that we have to write about a subject either the way that experts writing for other experts do it, or the way that is most common in the largest number of sources, usually news journalism; in both cases, the writers are following in-house stylesheets for particular journals or newspapers, radically different from ours.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Should
WP:USPLACE
apply to US territories?

Regarding the below question, there is consensus for the answer to be Yes. There is a clear numerical majority, and no particularly strong arguments from those opposing to counteract that. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to initiate a discussion on whether USPLACE should apply to US territories as well as US states. I will not propose anything on places in US states since the discussions of those have been exhausted with no consensus to change. There didn't seem to be much discussion on whether US territories should be included in the guideline as well. I would like to discuss the applicability of the guideline for US territories. The question I would like to answer is "Should the guideline apply to US territories?" Please discuss here. Interstellarity (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, since they are places and are US ones. Is there some kind of concrete example you have in mind with a clear rationale for some kind of divergence? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, to quote someone else below: if the drafters of USPLACE did not intend for it to include territories, it would not have mentioned Placename, Territory as a model to follow. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, US territories are treated like it’s their own country. For example, in statistics, the US usually includes the 50 states and DC, but not the territories. They usually treat them as independent countries despite being part of the US. I think it would beneficial if we treat them in the same way we treat other Oceanian and Caribbean countries. Interstellarity (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
National statistics and such don't have anything to do with our article naming patterns. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say yes, here. Territories fall under the federal governance of the United States, and typically are assigned to the jurisdiction of a U.S. court. BD2412 T 00:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. The (arguable) basis for using the comma convention for US cities is that including the state name in the name of the city is the COMMONNAME for cities in US states. I know of no reason to believe that is the case for cities within US territories. This is relevant to, for example, the village of
Barrigada
.
- On July 1, 2017,
  Barrigada because "unnecessary disambiguation". [2]
- Then, more than three years later, on October 28, 2020, Reywas92 moved it to Barrigada, Guam, dubiously citing USPLACE. [3]

Now, the ngram viewer (which can't search for commas but omitting it find all occurrences) shows us that Barrigada is far more commonly used than "Barrigada, Guam" [4], so I think

WP:D is, again, by the claim that including the ", state" is simply reflecting COMMONNAME, because "City, State" is so commonly used for (non-AP) cities. The claim that "City, Territory" is as commonly used cannot be made for cities in US territories. --В²C ☎ 04:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The basis of USPLACE is widespread adherence to the AP Stylebook (or its reflection of widespread usage), which for non-independent territories prescribes the use of "the commonly accepted territory name after a city name." Regarding your Barrigada example, additional context is necessary. Taking, for example, newspapers.com results and excluding "Barrigada Heights," "Mount Barrigada," and "Mt. Barrigada," the 2229 results outside of Guam break down as 1322 (59%) including the phrase "Barrigada, Guam" or "Barrigada, GU"; 842 (38%) excluding those phrases but including Guam or GU elsewhere on the page, providing context; and 65 (3%) without Guam or GU (and most of those either refer to a horse or are transcription errors). Star Garnet (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also sketpical that random off-site usage is more often just "Barrigada" than "Barrigada, Guam", since hardly anyone knows where Barrigada is. Tooling around in Google News results, use of "Barrigada" alone seem to be mostly confined to news sources in Guam or nearby. Use of it alone appears in plenty of headlines that aren't from the region, but their actual article texts tend to specify that it's in Guam. At any rate, the argument that Barrigada by itself is not ambiguous and is in popular enough use to stand alone isn't really an argument against USPLACE at all, since it just has "Foo, Bar" as a default; we have lots of places at article titles like Chicago, Atlanta, Minneapolis, etc., when an overwhelming commonness and pattern of undisambiguated usage justifies it. But there is no such overwhelming pattern for Barrigada. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No per this RM on Dededo in Guam. We should not be adding disambiguation where it's unnecessary. Number 5 7 08:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. They're places in the US, so USPLACE is the convention to follow. I see no good reason why it shouldn't be applied consistently throughout. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The good reason USPLACE shouldn't be applied consistently to the territories as it is applied to places in the US is that the territories aren't places in the US; they are only places that belongs to the US. This is like your wallet: it belongs to you, but it is not in you, nor is it part of you. Your lungs and throat. on the other hand, are in you, so they are part of you. The territories are like your wallet: they belong to the US; the states and DC are like your lungs and throat, they are in the US. Mercy11 (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the guidelines make no such distinction. It's one you're trying to impose, not a rationale for why the current guidance shouldn't apply. "I want to change X to Y" isn't an argument that Y applies now. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes USPLACE applies to US territories. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes—per SMcCandlish's well-reason comments and the common sense idea that a place in the US should follow USPLACE as a naming convention. Imzadi 1979 → 19:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the territories are not in the US. See the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for the United States which has a map and explains that the US is 50 states and DC. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our article literally says "The United States of America...consist[s] of 50 states, a federal district, five major unincorporated territories, and nine Minor Outlying Islands." Reywas92^Talk 00:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which article is incorrect, and which is one reason we don't use Wikipedia as a source of reliable information in discussions like this. The United States consists of the 50 States and DC, not the territories or, more, accurately, not the unincorporated territories. Unincorporated territories are possessions, so they aren't a part of the US and, thus, places in the unincorporated territories aren't places in the United States, which is why
WP:USPLACE should not apply to the unincorporated territories, but only to the 50 States and DC. Mercy11 (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

They don't need to be "in" the US to still be US places. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Eloquent Peasant: Per Geography of the United States: The term "United States," when used in the geographical sense, refers to the contiguous United States (sometimes referred to as the Lower 48), the state of Alaska, the island state of Hawaii, the five insular territories of Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, and minor outlying possessions." Since we're here to discuss geographical names, that seems pretty clear. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. As it currently reads, that "According to the comma convention, articles on populated places IN the United States are typically titled "Placename, State" when located within a state or "Placename, Territory" in US territories",
WP:USPLACE self-contradictory. For a territory to be IN the United States it has to be part of it, i.e., it has to be INcorporated into the United States, which the territories are not.^[1] The United States consists only of the 50 States and DC.^[2] The territories (or, more precisely, the "UNincorporated" territories) are possessions of the United States but aren't part of it.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] Mercy11 (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Your USGS link starts with "Geographically (and as a general reference), the United States of America includes all areas considered to be under the sovereignty of the United States, but does not include leased areas." Territories of the United States makes clear that "American territories are under American sovereignty." I'm not even going to touch the racist Insular Cases. Reywas92^Talk 00:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link is from the US Geographical Survey so, naturally, it points out that they do geographical work that includes the unincorporated territories, and not just the 50 states and DC. You need to read further down to locate their definition for "United States", namely "The 50 States and the District of Columbia." This definition is in agreement with the definition the SCOTUS has used since 1901 (and for which I already included 4 references above) and with the definition of other reliable sources, such as the US Department of State.^[7] Mercy11 (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC) Mercy11 (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the question asked is "should it apply", not "does it apply". You are answering the latter question, which is besides the point. (And the answer to that question is in fact obviously yes, because if the drafters of USPLACE did not intend for it to include territories, it would not have mentioned Placename, Territory as a model to follow. You're essentially saying, because they worded it slightly incorrectly, we should throw out whatever they had to say about territories, instead of making small adjustments to technical definitions in order to interpret it in line with their intent.)

But the purpose of this discussion is to argue whether or not the guideline should be modified to say "no, it does not apply to territories". And for that we want to study common practice in those territories, rather than pore over what "in the United States" means. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
USPLACE didn't used to include reference to territories. Mention of them was added without any consensus I can see shortly after the Dededo RM (which decreed the disambiguation wasn't necessary) by an editor who had fiercely opposed removing the disambiguation from that page. It was quite rightly removed some time after by BDD, but was subsequently readded by the same editor, although with reference to "some" usage, which they later changed to "most". IMO its inclusion has no legitimacy – it was added in a response to an RM not going the way someone wanted – and should be removed until there is shown to be consensus for it. Number 5 7 16:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but it is also clear that the RM should have been closed as 'no consensus' (further, roughly two-thirds of non-local mentions refer to it as "Dededo, Guam," so even the COMMONNAME argument fails). This discussion is, I believe, effectively to determine whether that inclusion stays in an edited form or goes. Star Garnet (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57: The convention currently states, "articles on populated places in the United States are typically titled "Placename, State" when located within a state or "Placename, Territory" in US territories." That is accurate, as you can see for yourself. (A quick tally suggests around 80% of populated places in US territories are so titled.) ╠╣uw [talk] 18:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57's
WP:FAITACCOMPLI objection to changing the guideline text without consensus after the Dededo RM seems to be valid. (And I think there's a more narrow shortcut to something about changing policy/guideline pages without consensus to "win" a content dispute, but I don't remember what it is.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I was pointing out that the specific language Number 57 mentions is no longer in the guideline, and either way simply notes the form that's typically used. Most such articles have done so since their creation. (Incidentally, I opened a discussion at that time for input on the very thing we're now discussing: how we define what's included in a country for the purposes of applying our geographic naming conventions.) ╠╣uw [talk] 10:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I guess, but I wasn't replying to you (note the indentation level) and what you said isn't really responsive to what I wrote. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No As demonstrated above, this is neither the original intent nor something that has been added via consensus later. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, while they may not be "in" the United States, they are certainly "of the United States." USGS, which determines official names in the territories, considers them part of the United States, they participate in the same postal system that has made "city, state/territory" so ubiquitous, their governments are thoroughly intertwined with the larger United States, and the vast majority of non-local media coverage of the territories is in the United States. Star Garnet (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where you got that the USGS "considers them part of the US". Did you not read the USGS link included herein? The USGS considers the territories part of their geographical work, but it's a stretch of the imagination to imply that means the territories are "part of the US" -- especially when the USGS is already saying the US is composed of the 50 states and DC plus nothing else. Likewise, the USPS and non-local media coverage operating in the territories doesn't make them part of the US, simply makes them part of their operational territory. I suggest the read the SCOTUS court cases: they have all established the territories aren't part of the US... that's why they are called "UNincorporated territories". Mercy11 (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to focus on and emphasize irrelevant points. Whether or not the constitution extends in full to the territories has little bearing here, particularly with congress having granted birthright citizenship to 4/5 and SCOTUS determining that the territories do not have their own, separate sovereignty. All that matters here is whether the United States' naming practices have extended to them, which extends largely from whether or not they are functionally part of the United States. For two of the most relevant agencies, USGS and USPS (along with plenty of others), they functionally are. That the vast majority of American media coverage of the territories is non-local for the territories is also irrelevant; that's simply how American media works. Media in the Chicago Metro doesn't need to specify a state when they refer to Naperville, Kenosha, or Waukegan, but 95%+ of other American media will specify a state(/territory) if it's not made clear by context. Star Garnet (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per SMcCandlish. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - AFAIK, "city, province" & "city, territory" is used for Canadian places. Therefore why not the same idea for US "city, state" & "city, territory". I believe roughly the same is done for post-1707 British places. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CANPLACE are not interchangeable. 162 etc. (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
They should be interchangeable, as they're all parts that make up a sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sovereignty of U.S. Territories is open to question -- they are considered to be dependent territory and not an integral part of the nation. The uninhabited places are for the most part treated as if the federal government were the sole proprietor. But the inhabited territories occupy a gray-ish area between fully independent and an administrative subdivision. older ≠ wiser 20:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the federal level:
U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa & Guam, can't vote in US presidential elections, but they can vote for delegates to national party conventions. They don't have voting members in the US House or US Senate, but do have non-voting members in the US House. So there'en lays the question - Is this enough to call them Americans? GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, because 1.) we are already de facto doing this, 2.) because it aligns with common usage, and 3.) neutrality on the internal/external distinction argues for that choice. 1: We already do this almost all the time for U.S. territories, and removing the territory name would be considerably more disruptive to local consensus for specific articles and territories. Looking in
Freely associated states are probably the closest-affiliated entities that are indisputably not part of the United States. -- Beland (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

(I guess not completely neglected: there were discussions on Talk:Amouli and Talk:Futiga about whether or not to move them to match the other AS articles that include the territory name, but I guess concerns over lack of broad enough participation are what prompted this discussion. -- Beland (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

One difference about American Samoa is that birth-right U.S. citizenship does not apply there. People born there are instead United States nationals. Persons born in the other territories do have birth-right U.S. citizenship. I would still argue for using [placename], American Samoa, for articles about places there, as the territory is under U.S. jurisdiction. Donald Albury 17:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, pp. 141-142.
^ What constitutes the United States? What are the official definitions? USGS. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
^ Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)
^ Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244.
^ Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138.
^ Christina Duffy Bernett. Foreign in a Domestic Sense. Duke University Press. 2001. p.1
^ US Department of State. Foreign Affairs Manual. Vol. 7. Section 1121.1.

Since there are no comments recently, do you think we are ready to close the discussion? Interstellarity (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity: Not sure my long comment adds anything new; if there are no replies within a week, I'd say it's time to wrap this up one way or another. -- Beland (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Listing large US cities by state in broadcasting article leads

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

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section § Listing large US cities by state in broadcasting article leads

– — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this come up in an FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/WSNS-TV/archive1) and wanted some clarity on the topic. Some broadcasting articles are on stations located in and licensed to very large, undisambiguated-title-by-state-per-AP Stylebook US cities. Which of these should be preferred?

Option A: KAAA-TV is a television station in San Francisco ...
Option B: KBBB-TV is a television station in San Francisco, California, United States, ...

Pinging for visibility: Mvcg66b3r and MaranoFan. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is really the wrong page for this discussion, since WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) is only about how to title articles. This really should be brought up at WT:Manual of Style/Lead section. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Going to move. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Republic of China

I just closed a dispute at

Request for Comments

is in order. If this is the wrong talk page because this guideline only has to do with titles, please advise me where we should discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of the Republic of China), but not to the place (Taiwan) or the people/demonym (Taiwanese people). The page on citizenship is at Taiwanese nationality law. There may be specific exceptions based on reasons of personal identity which would be worth taking into consideration on a case-by-case basis as they are for other citizenships, but that does not appear to be the case here. CMD (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

In my experience,

MOS:CHINA

is not the most fleshed-out page yet, useful as it is. To the best of my understanding, "Taiwanese" is not used to represent an ethnicity, especially when one is confronted with the numerous ethnic identities of the island. This is directly analogous to Han Chinese people in mainland China not being ethnically "Chinese"—Han Chinese people in Taiwan are not ethnically "Taiwanese", either. "Taiwanese" is a nationality—the reason that passage in under that section has to do with treatment of various social divisions in Taiwanese society.

Moreover, "Taiwan" is absolutely the existing consensus per

WP:COMMONNAME, as presented on every relevant article, with "Republic of China" being reserved for when contrasting with the PRC per-se, or when speaking about the period before the state's relocation to Taiwan in 1949. To change this existing consensus would be what requires an RfC, in my view. Remsense留 03:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I certainly agree with your point regarding MOS:CHINA as a whole, it has never felt that firm or that clearly supported by the community. Some parts do reflect wider discussions though, and one is the use of China and Taiwan as common names for both polities, which as you say is the existing consensus. CMD (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been paying some attention to both it and

WP:NC-CHINA (which seemingly do not need to be different pages), but it's hard to unilaterally improve a policy page without potentially amplifying the chance of stepping on toes a hundred-fold. Remsense留 04:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I have read

good-faith editors may disagree. Can someone please show me where this consensus is documented, or do we have an undocumented consensus? If the latter, why, and how are new editors supposed to learn about it? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed whole-heartedly. I did not say that

MOS:CHINA stated the consensus, and I should've made my gesturing to the idea of a working, unstated, but ultimately pretty solid consensus clear. I simply do not feel comfortable being the one to enshrine it in text or potentially "rock the boat", as it were—not so much because I don't think there is that consensus in the end, but because the due discussion may be long, messy, and ultimately dull (the last point being more selfish than the others) Remsense留 08:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The Common name consensus was established through

WP:OTHERNAMES reasons is time-wasting and likely disruptive, desire for name changes should occur through an RM at the relevant page. CMD (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

How about deleting the 'nationality' parameter from the infobox. If not? then seeing as the main page is named Taiwan, perhaps we should use "Taiwan". GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the approach of using “Taiwan” as default. I think the field can be relevant for bios in the 1930-1950s era where Taiwanese politicians may have switched nationality from the Empire of Japan to the ROC, though I can’t think of an example right now. Butterdiplomat (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CIA World Factbook for country names

At present, we list the The World Factbook, produced by the US government, as a "disinterested, authoritative reference work" as establishing a widely-accepted name "for modern country names". I would note that:

The US government cannot credibly be described as "disinterested" in global affairs
Works of the US government reflect the US government POV, which is not NPOV. For example, there are only two countries in the world that would accept this as a current map of Morocco without qualification - it just happens that the US is one of them.
In terms of modern country names it tends to promote
WP:COMMONNAME
- as is common from government sources (from all governments).

In terms of modern country names, our consensus - often longstanding and repeatedly litigated - routinely differs from CIA names in contentious (or potentially contentious) cases:

We use Cape Verde, they use Cabo Verde
We use Czech Republic, they use Czechia
We use East Timor, they use Timor-Leste
We use Falkland Islands, they use Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)
We use Ivory Coast, they use Cote d'Ivoire
We use Myanmar, they use Burma
We use Turkey, they use Turkey (Turkiye)
We use United States Virgin Islands, they use Virgin Islands (even though they need to disambiguate from the British Virgin Islands just as we do).

I'm actually struggling to find genuinely controversial cases where we use the same name as they do - other than Taiwan. But in all of those cases the case for using the names we do should be pretty clear from other sources without having to rely on US government POV.

I contend that the CIA World Factbook is not being taken as authoritative in these disputes, because it is not a good source for common usage. I therefore propose that it be removed from the list per this bold edit. Kahastok talk 22:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal, it is not a bad source, but it is also in no way "disinterested". The WIAN list is interesting as a whole, the "nationalistic, religious or political reasons" caution for news surely applies to all of them. CMD (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be removed, but I think it should be presented more accurately instead. Obviously, it is not disinterested, but it is in some sense an authoritative reference work. Remsense留 02:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government publications are not independent by definition. Is there a simple alternative source? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was independent. Franky—if there's a comprehensive, independently sourced world atlas, thinking of all that entails to assemble and publish, it's not going to be independent of anybody. Remsense留 11:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between how sources published by reputable independent publishers are received at RM, and how sources published by national governments are received. In the realm of geographic names - and particularly for country and major city names - the former type of sources tend to be considered significantly more persuasive in terms of judging a widely accepted common (as opposed to official) name than the latter.

In practice, though, the most persuasive evidence on usage comes not from atlases but from independent newspapers and other independent media - particularly mainstream English-language media from English-speaking countries. Kahastok talk 17:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right—and there's also a big difference between the CIA World Factbook and other things we can associate with the organization. I think it's reasonable that it can be treated the same way we treat any other state-sponsored source of information—appreciating the benefits made possible by the institutional support, but with several grains of salt when it comes to information related to geographical areas or topics we think might be especially biased Remsense留 17:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the World Factbook's general reliability. This is about it's specific suitability for a list of sources to be taken as disinterested, authoritative reference works to be used to decide what names we should give to our articles about modern countries.

You seem to accept that it is not a disinterested reference work, and even that it should be taken with several grains of salt. You also seem to accept that it is not considered persuasive when it actually comes to determining the widely-accepted names of modern countries. But you also seem to argue that it should be included on a list of sources that are considered persuasive for this purpose.

Perhaps I have misunderstood something, but this seems inconsistent. Perhaps you could clarify? Kahastok talk 19:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think no single source can be considered persuasive on this matter by itself: I see the purpose of the list as to provide a body of sources that may collectively establish one option over another. Is that fair? Remsense留 02:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need to remove. Your examples all look like correct applications of COMMONNAME instead of unthinking use of the Factbook's form, so I don't think there's an actual problem here. We could make a modest change, though: instead of giving the Factbook its own line, we could append the same text to the previous bullet point about government agencies.

The point that the Factbook is not disinteresed is well taken, but any source has its bias. That's more a case for tweaking the general language in that section. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, are we saying the common name is what RSSs use or what the man in the street uses? They are not always the same. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question, but IMO a general one rather than one central to this discussion. --BDD (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove and do not replace with anything else. I think the purpose of this section is to suggest authoritative references when information is sparse. But there is a limited number of countries in the world and every controversial case has already been discussed ad nauseum (with arguments unique to each country regarding what the best title is), so I don't see a need to recommend any particular source for country names. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it should be removed. If it has 5, 8, 10 or whatever number of bullets that may be objectionable to some, so what?....No source is infallible nor absolutely neutral - this is why we demand that articles provide several sources, and why we demand that even single "facts" that are questionable to some or objectionable to other also be sourced from several reliable sources. If the book doesn't present a NPOV to some, again, so what?...we are used to that -- it simply gets balanced by equally non-NPOV but opposing POVs. Mercy11 (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not that the source is fallible or does not present as NPOV. The issue is that the list supposedly lists "Disinterested" sources, and the source in question is specifically created for the US diplomatic corps rather than as a disinterested perspective. CMD (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no such thing as a "disinterested" or truly neutral source, because they are all written by humans, with biases and cultural perspectives, and politics, and other sources of skew. The solution to me seems to be to remove the claim that they are disinterested sources. It's always going to come down to a
WP:COMMONNAME determination anyway (or a disambiguation therefrom); we're just recommending various sources on countries with which to begin that analysis. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

About the county equivalent in Connecticut and possible influence in naming convention

From 2024, the county equivalent in Connecticut is not "county" itself, but "council of governments". Maybe we should clarify whether "county" or "council of governments" in Connecticut should be used for disambiguation one day (but not now, because I have not found any two cities/towns in Connecticut with the same name). John Smith Ri (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not a big impact on article titles, but may be a bigger impact on categorization. For example, Category:Populated places in Connecticut by county. Discussion perhaps woul be best done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut as to whether to convert the existing county-based categories or to erect parallel sets. older ≠ wiser 14:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counties still exist there on paper, but have not had any governmental functions since 1960. I don't know if they are still used for non-governmental purposes, but CT petitioned the Census Bureau to recognize the councils as county-equivalents and this was accepted. Agree that a discussion should take place there to determine what changes should be made. It could be that this will end up like parishes in Louisiana and boroughs in Alaska. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can understand, they aren't even there on paper, other than as a historical artifact. It may be that people still identify with them somehow, but the Councils for Governments appear to be completely distinct from the historical counties. For example,

Western Connecticut Planning Region, Connecticut which has much of the are formerly in Fairfield County. older ≠ wiser 15:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Capitalisation of "oblast" when used as the name of a Ukrainian administrative division

I have made an ngram review of "X O|oblast" for the oblasts listed at

MOS:CAPS) that would lead us to a conclusion that we should cap these names on WP. See Chernivtsi Oblast, Donetsk Oblast, Kharkiv Oblast, Kherson Oblast, Kiev Oblast (no result for Kyiv Oblast), Lviv Oblast, Poltava Oblast and Sumy Oblast - others retured no result. A cursory look at Google Scholar results would confirm mixed capitalisation - Sumy Oblast, Donetsk Oblast and Kharkiv Oblast. For these names in Cyrillic, oblast (о́бласть) is not capitalised. There is therefore no to argument that capitalisation from the native language gives rise to a need to capitalise the term in English. The same would be true for other administrative divisions (eg raion). The same is likely true where the same terms are used for other nations (eg Russia). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree, but see Talk:Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast/Archive 1#Requested move 29 April 2022, Talk:Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast/Archive 1#Requested move 11 June 2022, and especially Talk:Cherkasy Oblast#Requested move 12 May 2022. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RM results that boil down to "capitalize because the sources I prefer and cherrypicked like to do so" are pretty common when people deeply involved in some topic show up in force to dogpile an RM (or one or two bloviate at tremendous length with their personal

WP:VPPOL if it seems to warrant that. Make it clear that the earlier RMs were based on false claims about the capitalization level in the source material and that you can prove it. This is basically the same situation as all that sports [d|D]raft stuff: topic-devoted editors are hell-bent on over-capitalizing, but do not have the sourcing to justify it. Same with the state panhandles (an RM saga that still continues). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure practices in other languages should be used to decide what to do in English; different languages just have different conventions. French, for example, capitalizes noun forms (like Amérique for America) but definitely not demonyms (like américain for American). French does Amérique centrale for Central America but Amérique du Sud for South America, though that may be similar to the difference between "North America" and "northern America".

I guess in English there's disagreement or uncertainty over whether the type descriptor is part of a proper noun or a separate noun being modified by a proper noun adjunct. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) says "station" is lowercase except where "Station" is already part of the name, leaving that question up to sourcing. Conductors say South Station and not "South", and "Penn Station" not "Penn" (which means the university). But they might say "Back Bay" or "Yonkers", so we have Back Bay station and Yonkers station. But many people write e.g. "Back Bay Station" as if "Back Bay" is a short version of the full proper name, just as "New York" is a short version of "New York City", which is never written "New York city". This is somewhat unsatisfying, but so is the difference in pronunciation between "Kansas" and "Arkansas", so c'est la vie.

Given sometimes the type descriptor is incorporated into the name and sometimes it's not, and given that capitalization of type descriptors in general seems to be common in English though not always universal, I think declaring as a style choice that English Wikipedia always capitalizes would be acceptable as an arbitrary choice between two common conventions, and also safer in that we'd never mistakenly lowercase a name where the descriptor has been incorporated, which seems to happen over time or for words where the short version is already taken.

It looks like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places) already favors the capitalized version, and given that some professional English sources use that convention, it's not wrong for Wikipedia to choose it arbitrarily. Especially given that the short versions of these names are already taken by city names, it seems likely that the type descriptors have or will some day be firmly incorporated by English speakers. -- Beland (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the naming convention page is silent on capitalisation except for the usage. Weirdly the Ukrainian English-language newspapers I can find use the word "region" instead of oblast in their reporting... SportingFlyer T·C 21:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Region-specific guidance for Turkish cities

Can we add some specific guidance for Turkish cities? For some cities, this is almost getting to ridiculous levels. For example, count how many Smyrna's are in the lead of İzmir in this version [5] (there's one extra in the footnote as well). Btw, there's also Smyrna and Old Smyrna articles. Historic names should usually be presented in "Names" or "Etymology" sections, except significant ones such as Constantinople in the lead of Istanbul for example. However, non-English alphabet versions should also be in "Names" or "Etymology" sections. Turkish is spoken by 85-90% of the population. The rest is mostly Kurdish. Except Arabic, other languages would be less than 0.1% Bogazicili (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]