Talk:Beverly Hills, California/Archive 4

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

Requested move 4 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that this is an article about a city in the United States, and therefore should follow the WP:USPLACE guideline for cities. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 08:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


Beverly Hills, California → Beverly Hills – Longstanding recognition in popular culture as just "Beverly Hills" particularly with television shows, songs, and movies such as The Beverly Hillbillies, Beverly Hills, 90210, Beverly Hills Teens, The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, and Beverly Hills Cop, Beverly Hills Ninja, Beverly Hills Chihuahua, Beverly Hills, 90210 (soundtrack), Beverly Hills Bordello, Beverly Hills (song), Down and Out in Beverly Hills and other related places and institutions such as Beverly Hills Oil Field, The Beverly Hills Courier, Beverly Hills Unified School District, The Peninsula Beverly Hills,Beverly Hills Post Office, The Beverly Hilton. Per WP:USPLACE: "Articles on populated places in the United States are typically titled [[Placename, State]] or [[Placename, Territory]]". Requested move for WP:CONSISTENCY in naming with associated articles. Edit: We have all of these articles with just "Beverly Hills" in their title, but the actual page of Beverly Hills on the wiki is somehow called "Beverly Hills, California." What gives?--Prisencolin (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it should stay here.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Any particular reason? We do this for Well known cities such as Los Angeles New York City, Boston, Chicago, etc. what makes this any different?--65.94.253.160 (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The most famous song about New York was New York, New York, so I'm not sure the pop culture argument is totally valid. Also, Beverly Hills, New South Wales has about a quarter the population of the one in California. I think the state should be kept, but you make a good point. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I think New York is a bad example of this because there's a legitimate argument that the City of New York could be at the title of just New York, also that particular song/movie title better fits the song lyrics. The city in NSW has a quarter of the population but I'm guessing not not even 1/100th the cultural impact of the US city.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Los Angeles, New York City, Boston, and Chicago fall under the so-called AP Stylebook exemption of WP:USPLACE: "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named City unless they are not the primary or only topic for that name". Beverly Hills does not fall under this. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The five boroughs of New York, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, The Bronx, and Staten Island, don't either, whereas anything written with the AP Stylebook in mind would suffixed with ", New York". My understanding is that this came from another concensus.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The five boroughs aren't separately incorporated cities from New York. That might have something to do with it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Also they're often referred simply by just their name, much like Beverly Hills is.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment CONSISTENCY would use WP:USPLACE, which is the current name. Your rationale uses two different reasons, one (popculture) which is for your request, the other (CONSISTENCY) which is against your request -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:CONSISTENCY would use the WP:USPLACE guidelines and maintaining the current name with the state modifier, as 'similar articles' would be articles on populated places in the United States, not other pop culture articles (Per WP:CONSISTENCY: "Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles". And WP:USPLACE is on one of those topic-specific naming conventions guidelines). And as per the WP:USPLACE guideline, cities listed in the AP Stylebook are the only ones that do not require the state modifier; Beverly Hills is not one of them. For more information on the WP:USPLACE guidelines, see the fourth question on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/FAQ and WP:PERENNIAL. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:USPLACE. kennethaw88 • talk 15:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:USPLACE. RGloucester — ☎ 16:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONSENSE. And USPLACE must die an agonizing death (which, of course, is a subject for discussion on that talk page, not here).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 5, 2016; 17:24 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:USPLACE, it must be formatted as City, State. Zarcadia (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    • US:PLACE doesn't say it "must" be formatted as City, State, it just says that most US cities are. Do you have any rationale for your argument beyond this?--Prisencolin (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I suffer a lot from inconsistency after inconsistency after inconsistency after inconsistency after inconsistency after inconsistency after inconsistency, because all of our inconsistencies are what make Wikipedia something far less than a respectable encylopaedia and something much more like kindergarten. It would be nice if, some decade, Wikipedia could be recognized as a valuable source, not as something which most people still can't quite figure out what it is at all ("Oh, that's where anybody can just go in and change stuff, isn't it?"). Some sort of effort in establishing consistency as a strict general rule would help tremendously. In this case, at least as many readers know this city as Beverly Hills as know Minneapolis as just plain Minneapolis etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc - world without end, Amen(?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeWoodzing (talk • contribs) 18:19, 5 January 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Regarding the points about inconsistency, there are only about 30 cities that do not follow the comma convention, which are explicitly listed at USPLACE. The remaining thousands and thousands of cities do follow the comma convention, so claiming consistency in this case would in fact support the status quo. kennethaw88 • talk 19:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    • In an alternative interpretation of WP:CONSISTENCY, renaming the page as just "Beverly Hills" would make the title consistent with other Beverly Hills related articles on Wikipedia, such as the various media products described above.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Making articles consistent with pop culture and other media topics and articles, rather than similar to articles within its own core topic, is probably not a valid one. When WP:CONSISTENCY says "similar articles' titles", and referencing the topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, it is primarily referring to articles within the same core topic. At its core, Beverly Hills, California is a U.S. city article, not a pop culture or media-topic article, so it should be consistent with other U.S city articles (in this case the USPLACE guidelines). Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Zzyzx11. AP maintains a list of cities which do not require the state in datelines (here, probably not official); Beverly Hills is not listed. In fact, the link gives Beverly Hills as a specific example of a city which does require the state. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    • According to writingexplained.com's about page doesn't look like the website originates from the AP itself.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Ivanvector did state that the link was "probably not official". The AP Stylebook is more of an offline source, but you can see it in various articles on the AP's websites like this one, where the dateline at the beginning of the text reads with "BEVERLY HILLS, Calif.", not merely "Beverly Hills". Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Well doesn't that suggest that the page ought to be moved to Beverly Hills, Calif. then? Obviously not, but the point is that English style guidelines arent immediately applicable to that of Wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for consistency and per USPLACE. I don't agree with the guideline, but if there is going to be a change to it, it should be discussed and done wholesale, rather than through piecemeal moves like this. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 18:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
    • What? This is a WP:IAR type move, I don't think a wholesale moving should be necessary to move this single page. --Prisencolin (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:USPLACE, which is itself supported by the WP:Reliable sources rule; we title our articles about cities as is done by most newspapers, which follow the AP stylebook. Another reason: stability ("If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed."; this article has been continuously titled "Beverly Hills, California" since its creation in 2002.) Finally, "Beverly Hills" is already a redirect to this article, so nothing would be gained by retitling it. Note that this same proposal was made here at this very page in September-October 2012, see Talk:Beverly Hills, California/Archives/2012#Requested move. The result was "No move". MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This, again? It has been established that arguing on this small issue here, multiplied by 50,000 other articles, is wasteful of editors attention. I and most others want a simple, reasonable policy/rule instead. That is wp:us place. doncram 04:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beverly_Hills,_California/Archive_4&oldid=1076343591"