Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Straw poll: Do we need more polls?

Do we really need another poll?

The last thing we need is a suspicion that one viewpoint has polled and polled and polled until they got their way. I'm not suggesting this suspicion is correct; it may be more damaging if it's wrong. Septentrionalis 06:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes; let's have another poll.

No; let's leave this alone until we have more eyes on the subject.

per discussion above Septentrionalis 06:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I would love to see this tabled till after the New Year. The most recent poll is no where close to consensus and the Anaheim move was pretty soundly defeated. No matter which way you look at this, we're deadlocked. Let's take a break on this, enjoy the holidays, work on other areas of the encyclopedia and maybe come back with a fresh perspective for 2007. Agne 07:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This may be the most-polled topic in WP in 2006. Let's take a break. -Will Beback · † · 07:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If we're having a poll on whether to have more polls, we're having too many polls. Let's also try to have one poll at a time. I think Serge's effort to have a consensus on the content of the poll is a good idea, even if the current effort includes everything but the kitchen-sink. --ishu 13:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- There has to be some other way to go about this than running the same old questions through the same old participant list until their numbers thin enough to leave the winning "most tenacious". This is not a wear-'em-down game, and this issue needs exposure to a much wider audience; this concerns all of Wiki, actually. THEPROMENADER 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
are we actually having a poll about whether to have more polls? We clearly need more eyes to look at this. Having more half-baked polls is not the way to do this. It might be best to table this for a month or two, and then come back and really do it right. john k 17:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking of having the survey in March 2007. Open it March 1 and leave it open through March and April. That gives us over 3 months to get it right. The first week of March would be devoted to publicizing it. The problem is that while we have not yet been able to find a change that is supported by the consensus, clearly there is no consensus to leave the guidelines the way they currently are either (Tariq's proposal alone shows this with a majority currently supporting it). --Serge 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- <sigh>I hate to reopen discussion, but I disagree; see below.Septentrionalis 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

discussion

Tariq's proposal is clearer than the present wording; but it has the same force, and supports present practice. That's why I support it. Therefore I cannot agree that there is consensus against the present guideline. Septentrionalis 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Tariq's proposal encourages that certain well-known U.S. cities do not have the state in their titles. That's substantially different from the current wording where, in each case, having no state in the title, even for New York City, is a clear exception. --Serge 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

20-16 in favor, as the vote now stands, is a slim majority, with deeply held opinions from many divergent perspectives--that's nowhere near sufficient to declare that it indicates anything resembling consensus. older ≠ wiser 00:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bkonrad, did anyone declare or even imply that the slim majority indicates anything resembling consensus? If yes, where? If no, why did you feel you need to make this point? What it does clearly show is a lack of consensus to stick with the status quo. --Serge 23:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments you made just a while before the above edit, which I may have viewed as a diff encompassing the entire range, contained the phrase clearly there is no consensus to leave the guidelines the way they currently are either (Tariq's proposal alone shows this with a majority currently supporting it). older ≠ wiser 23:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. I said "there is NO consensus ...". Why are acting like we have a disagreement? Are you trying to say you feel there IS a consensus to stay with the status quo? --Serge 23:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict; not handled by system) The polling on Tariq's proposal doesn't "clearly show" much of anything, including whether there is a consensus for either Part without the other. Some editors support status quo and Tariq's proposal; some support Tariq's proposal and oppose the status quo; and the opposite is doubtless also true. It is therefore compatible with the sort of supermajority for the present system which is WP:CONSENSUS. Septentrionalis 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Anyone who votes for any change to the status quo is obviously not in favor of no change to the status quo. Now, whether there is a consensus for any particular change to the status quo is yet to be determined. --Serge 00:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Bosh. Anyone may find both the status quo and a relatively small change acceptable, and favor whichever tends to consensus; I do. Another may find both the small change and a much larger change acceptable. Neither is inconsistent. Septentrionalis 04:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would you agree that it is fair to say that the voting on the Tariq proposal establishes that we don't have a consensus that supports no exceptions to the comma convention for U.S. cities? --Serge 04:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the "Fair Enough". Yes, there is no consensus for that (which is not the same as a consensus against it). But that is not the status quo either in practice or on this page, which expressly acknowledges exceptions. Septentrionalis 17:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet whenever someone proposes an exception, there are inevitably a number of opposers who state that the guideline should be changed if you want an exception. So I, for one, would like to see the guideline to be clearer on this point (that exceptions are allowed whenever a consensus is formed in favor of the exception). --Serge 19:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, well-intentioned as it is, I find Tariq's proposition a half-baked compromise that will cause even more disambiguation problems. Instead of getting into that one I propose to forward a wide (wide!) open proposition to standardise a single form of disambiguation for all of Wiki. We're talking Village Pump here. I don't see any definite solution short of that - and anyhow we'll be going there sooner or later. THEPROMENADER 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The comma, as a "separator" between a city and its state, should be retained in the article title--but only as explicit disambiguation. So commas should be used only when necessary as disambiguation.

The main reason why the comma should be retained in the article titles is because the comma is frequently-used (in the U.S., anyway) to separate cities from states in postal addresses (on letters as well as in address books and other places such as certain data feeds), and in news reports and other sources where place names are used.
The comma should be preferred as disambiguation for U.S. cities because of this common usage, but also because (1) the comma already is used in Wikipedia for disambiguation, and (2) there are no alternatives that would be universally recognized by people outside the U.S. (Without a universally-recognized disambiguation scheme, the disambiguation should defer to clarity for U.S. readers as an overall benefit.)
To restate: The comma should be used only when necessary for disambiguation so that the comma will have a clear role (in titles) only as a disambiguator.

--ishu 17:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are two things wrong with that. Commas also have other uses than disambiguation (secondary titles, proper names), and it is wrong to pander to the habits of one select audience - Wiki is not for US-only readers, and there is no call to state it "preferred" to speak a language only they understand. Again, this contributor preponderance (and tenacity of habit) has the contributors themselves in mind, not the readers - it is not a coincidence that most contributing articles about a locale live in or near the place they are writing about.

It is policy to use American English in articles on American subjects or those originally written in American; these are both. Septentrionalis 00:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Universally recognised disambiguation scheme" - now that's closer to the mark. This is exactly why I suggested taking this to the Village pump. THEPROMENADER 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Commas also have other uses than disambiguation (secondary titles, proper names) True, but typically not in the names of settlements.

it is wrong to pander [Please mind your language] to the habits of one select audience - Wiki is not for US-only readers [Reader oriented here...]

this contributor preponderance (and tenacity of habit) has the contributors themselves in mind [...and contributor oriented here.]

If we invent a scheme of universal disambiguation that corresponds to no other naming/disambiguation conventions, it will be universal, but not necessarily recognizable. How does that help a reader who, (we are assuming) knows nothing in particular about WP conventions? So instead of a comma-based system of disambiguation that is understood by a sizable "chunk" of EN-WP readers (i.e., U.S.--and a fair share of Canadians, too), we should opt for an idiosyncratic system that is understood by only a small group of readers?

Again, I'm calling for using the comma only when necessary for disambiguation--mainly for the sake of retaining it in the name of familiarity--which is considerate of a considerable number of EN-WP readers. --ishu 03:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ishu, the reason the parenthetic remark is the standard method of disambiguation in Wikipedia is because its semantic purpose and function is recognized by anyone literate in English. One does not need to know anything about WP conventions to understand that information after a name inside parenthesis is additional clarifying information. This is as true for clarifying location information for place names as it is for anything else. The fact that people have seen Portland, Oregon countless times does not mean they won't recognize the meaning of Portland (Oregon). The argument that such a disambiguating naming system would be understood "by only a small group of readers" is absurd. --Serge 03:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Serge really deny that Portland, Oregon is the normal way to do this in American English? Septentrionalis 04:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Did you read what I wrote? My point is a simple counter-point to Ishu's claim that parenthesis would not be understood: Despite the fact that Cityname, Statename is a normal way to reference a city in American English, the argument that disambiguating with parenthesis would be understood "by only a small group of readers" is absurd. But to expand on your point: Because Cityname, Statename is a normal way to reference cities, using it in article titles makes it unclear whether the name of the subject is Cityname, Statename, or whether the name of the subject is Cityname and Statename is disambiguating/clarifying information. This problem is resolved if we use Cityname (when dabbing is not required), and Cityname (Statename) (only when dabbing is required), because in both types of cases it's clear in no uncertain terms that the name of the subject is Cityname, period. --Serge 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually a side trip to the seal of Portand is interesting at this point. The name there is City of Portland, Oregon. So in at least one offical source some form of the name using a common is also used by the city itself. Vegaswikian 06:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Commas also have other uses than disambiguation (secondary titles, proper names) True, but typically not in the names of settlements."

To one not knowing any better, who's to tell that what he is looking at is a place and not a name? "One rule here, another there" circumstances should be avoided, especially where there is no discernable dividing line - especially to the ignorant - beween "here" and "there".

"If we invent a scheme of universal disambiguation that corresponds to no other naming/disambiguation conventions, it will be universal, but not necessarily recognizable."

No need to invent anything - Wiki already has two disambiguation schemes, and parentheses are used in the overwhelming majority of disambiguated article titles. I don't see how anyone can say that parentheses will not be recognised as disambiguation.

"How does that help a reader who, (we are assuming) knows nothing in particular about WP conventions? So instead of a comma-based system of disambiguation that is understood by a sizable "chunk" of EN-WP readers (i.e., U.S.--and a fair share of Canadians, too), we should opt for an idiosyncratic system that is understood by only a small group of readers?"

The above is based on the logic of the argument above it. Parenthesetical disambiguation is "an idiosyncratic system that is understood by only a small group of readers?" ? I think not at all - et au contraire!

The use of the comma as disambiguation in place names was invented, discussed and maintained by contributors, not by readers. Again, it is not a coincidence that most (all) of the same wanting to maintain the comma disambiguation already use it. Please remain objective in your arguments - study the method and its effect from all angles and uses, then conclude. THEPROMENADER 10:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you meaningfully distinguish between contributors and readers? By what powers are you able to divine the preferences of readers who are not contributors? As has been pointed out numerous times, the comma convention for place names is NOT unique to the united States and it most certainly was NOT invented by Wikipedia contributors. Although I don't object to using parenthetical disambiguation where appropriate, it is nonetheless completely artificial--that form is in fact more an invention of Wikipedia contributors than the comman convention. older ≠ wiser 17:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Contributors serve, readers read what they're served. Every publication has its own disambiguation method - Wiki unfortunately has two. Of course the comma disambiguation in its use by this publication was invented by its contributors. This "speaking from one state to another" form of disambiguation is common in the US, but it is not used in any encyclopaedia - with reason. THEPROMENADER 08:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Contributors serve, readers read what they're served. And so what are we to make of that? Does it provide any useful method for discerning the preferences of readers who are not contributors? And there are quite a lot of things that Wikipedia does which no other encyclopedia does. Simply saying that no other encyclopedia does it this way doesn't really mean much when so much of what Wikipedia is about has no correlation with the practices of other encyclopedias. older ≠ wiser 13:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What is there not to understand? One looking for information will search until they find what they're looking for; contributors provide the information. It's the job of the latter to facilitate the quest of the former, preferrably with as few "huh?"'s from the same as possible.

You are still avoiding (or simply not understanding) the question. How do you propose to meaningfully discern what the preferences are of readers as distinct from contributors. older ≠ wiser 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, most encyclopedias don't disambiguate at all if you want to know the truth. This is fine for paper media - read down till the text describes what you are looking for. Wiki articles must be disambiguated, because two articles with the same name is an utter impossibility. Think to the media when thinking to the method - that's all I'm saying. THEPROMENADER 22:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that the current situation actually causes any demonstrable problems for readers (or at least not any more than any feasible alternative). older ≠ wiser 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that in Wiki the comma has other uses than disambiguation is a reason in itself to change. THEPROMENADER 09:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Parentheses have other uses besides disambiguation too. So what? older ≠ wiser 11:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but which case had more "exceptions" where it the use of the method is not disambiguation - commas or parentheses? Go figure. THEPROMENADER 19:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what exceptions you are talking about here. older ≠ wiser 02:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course you do. How often are parentheses used in an article title for a purpose that is not disambiguation? This is an "exception". THEPROMENADER 02:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be no question that whether the title is Portland, Oregon or Portland (Oregon), the meaning is clear: we're referring to the city in Oregon. That is not the issue.

What is unclear from Portland, Oregon is whether the most common name used to refer to that city is Portland or Portland, Oregon, while from Portland (Oregon) it is clear: the name is Portland, period. Yes, I know that City of Portland, Oregon is the official name, but we don't name our city articles by the official name of the city, we use the WP convention: use the most common name, which, in this case, is Portland. If the title of the article is Portland (Oregon), that makes it clear that the most common name is Portland; if it is Portland, Oregon, it is not clear. Why continue using a convention that results in such ambiguity when it is so easy to avoid it? --Serge 17:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that such ambiguity is, IMO, a completely hypothetical strawman. Show me real people (with a functional level of fluency in the English language) who are genuinely confused in distinguishing what "Portland, Oregon" means. older ≠ wiser 19:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk about strawmen. I never said the ambiguity is a confusion for what "Portland, Oregon" means. To the contrary: see the first parapraph in the post to which you are responding. What part of the meaning is clear do you not understand? --Serge 19:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And the first line of the article is (and I quote) "Portland is a city at the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia rivers in the U.S. state of Oregon." This is a non-problem. Septentrionalis 19:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But is it a guideline or even convention for the first line of an article, like it is for the title of a WP article, to always use/specify the most common name of the subject? If the title is Portland, Oregon and the first sentence says Portland is ... how is the reader (planning a visit, from, say, South Africa) supposed to know whether Portland or Portland, Oregon is the most common name used to reference the subject? On the other hand, if the title is Portland (Oregon) and the first sentence says Portland is ..., there is no question. Why must we muddle matters with the ambiguous Portland, Oregon format (and, no, by "ambiguous" I don't mean readers won't know what it means; I mean this form is not clear about what is the most common usage, and, in fact, incorrectly implies that the most common use is Portland, Oregon, which is not the case - except maybe in Maine and its vicinity). --Serge 19:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This supposed confusion about the common name is what I meant by a completely hypothetical strawman. Show me real people (with a functional level of fluency in the English language) who genuinely experience difficulties in using Wikipedia because of the naming convention. older ≠ wiser 20:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A strawman is a mischaracterization of another's position. Whose position am I mischaracterizing? And what position is that? You, on the other hand, are most clearly using a strawman argument. No one has ever claimed that the inability of Wikipedia, given the current U.S. city naming convention, to clearly specify the most common name used to refer to a U.S.city, creates difficulties in using Wikipedia. That is your claim, and it is a strawman. --Serge 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

wikt:straw man: An insubstantial concept, idea, or endeavor. If you agree that No one has ever claimed that the inability of Wikipedia, given the current U.S. city naming convention, to clearly specify the most common name used to refer to a U.S.city, creates "difficulties in using Wikipedia", then why are you so doggedly determined to overturn the convention? And FWIW, I disagree with you that there is in fact actually any inability of Wikipedia, given the current U.S. city naming convention, to clearly specify the most common name. This supposed inability that you postulate, is precisely what I believe is a completely hypothetical exercise in inventing a problem where none has been demonstrated to exist. older ≠ wiser 20:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for assuming you were using the term strawman in the context of what it means in a debate. You disagree that there is any inability of Wikipedia, given the current U.S. city naming convention, to clearly specify the most common name. Well, then, please tell me the the most common name use to refer to each of San Francisco, California, Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, Seattle, Washington and Chicago, and tell me how, if you didn't know, you would determine that from the names of the articles in question. --Serge 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The most common name for these would be San Francisco, Hollywood, Seattle, and Chicago. And I'd be fine with these cities being at those names (although personally I think with Hollywood it's debatable whether a primary topic can be clearly distinguished between the place and the movie industry). The problem appears to arise for you arises because you seem to insist that the title of an article must always be the most common name and that any deviation from this is a cause for The Sky is Falling commotion. Since when is it necessary for any reader, including readers unfamiliar with the comma convention, to be able to discern the most common name from the title alone? WP:NC(CN) provides some general guidance about how to title articles, but is not the inviolable supreme law of Wikipedia. The convention itself allows that there may be exceptions defined by other guidelines. The U.S. convention is one such exception. While I'd be fine with allowing some greater flexibility in interpreting the city naming convention, I don't see that it actually poses any significant problem for readers of Wikipedia. San Francisco, California, Seattle, Washington, and Chicago, Illinois, are all also common and familiar names for those places, and whether such internationally familiar cities use one name or the other is a pretty minor stylistic difference. Hollywood is a bit different -- I think extending the convention to city neighborhoods was a mistake. For neighborhoods, I think something like Hollywood (Los Angeles) would have been a better approach. older ≠ wiser 21:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And why should it be necessary to tell, from the title alone, what we're disambiguating? Henry the Lion doesn't have that property; it is merely unambiguous, and expressly approved of by a guideline and by consensus. (And in fact, Portland, Oregon does disambiguate both from Portland, Maine and from Springfield, Oregon; just as Henry disambiguates both from Henry of Navarre and Leo the Lion, or William the Lion.) Septentrionalis 04:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood District would be a more "common-usage" article title than Hollywood (Los Angeles)--except that Hollywood District is taken by what might be called Hollywood District (Portland, Oregon)--or would that be Hollywood District (Oregon)? At least people in Southern California sometimes refer to the "Hollywood District". I don't think it's at all common to use Los Angeles to disambiguate Hollywood as a part of Los Angeles. --ishu 04:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone provide an example of any place name in which the comma is part of the name of the place, exclusive of a larger subdivision? --ishu 04:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't mix common practice and common name - the state is not part of the city name. There's no point in going on about this - Locals have ported their "local practice" to Wiki, but this practice is not suited to this publication, namely because of the comma's other uses here. Of course the locals are going to defend their local practice, but think of Wiki in doing so please. THEPROMENADER 08:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please reread my question:

Can anyone provide an example of any place name in which the comma is part of the name of the place, exclusive of a larger subdivision [such as a state]?

The question does not refer to the state--or any practices, local, Wiki, or otherwise. --ishu 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Not off-hand. So what? --Serge 16:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In this entire discussion, I don't recall a single example offered of a place in which the comma is part of its common name. Assuming it is rare to have a comma in a common name, there is little to no chance of any "confusion" over comma-delimited disambiguation for place names, provided there is no pre-emptive disambiguation. While commas are used in other ways, those ways are not applicable to place names, and contextually there would be no conflict between comma usage as DAB and non-DAB. --ishu 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ishu, concluding that "there is little to no chance of any 'confusion' over comma-delimited disambiguation for place names" is not only assuming "it is rare to have a comma in a common name", but it is also assuming the reader knows that it is rare to have a comma in a common name for a place in the U.S. I suggest it is unreasonable to expect a reader to know this, particularly a reader who is unfamiliar with U.S. place naming conventions and meanings. Considering that the parenthetic remark is the standard mechanism used for disambiguation in Wikipedia, how is someone unfamiliar with U.S. conventions for referencing places supposed to know that the the , state is just a disambiguation? --Serge 06:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

john k already mentioned royalty. Princess_Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland, Luitpold, Prince Regent of Bavaria and Albert, Prince Consort for example. I would say that the added title is indeed a form of disambiguation, but the added title is still the subject's own name. Since the name of a state is not the name of the city it is added to, it is pure disambiguation, and should be presented as such - or not at all if it is not needed. Like the rest of Wiki. THEPROMENADER 09:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Promenader: Please reread my question:

Can anyone provide an example of any place name in which the comma [not the state] is part of the name of the place, exclusive of a larger subdivision [such as a state]?

Serge: Assuming any form of confusion arising from any disambiguation convention assumes a lot of things that nobody has any actual evidence to support.

We are asking too much of the article titles.

The article title's main purpose should be disambiguation from other articles, although it should conform closely to the common name so that readers may find the articles.
The first sentence of the article is the most appropriate place to specify the common name of the topic. It is also the most likely place where a reader will look to find the common name of the topic. (I assume that readers read the articles for information. Isn't that more plausible than assuming the reader will first exhaust all efforts to parse the title before reading the article itself?)
The comma already is used for disambiguation in Wiki.
Parenthetical disambiguation already is confounded by common names such as Pride (In the Name of Love) and Was (Not Was).
It appears to be uncommon (if not nonexistent) to use commas in the common names of places.
Assuming commas are used only for disambiguation, the risk of confusion appears to be minimal. --User:Ishu 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no point in singling out only placenames - this segregation from the rest of Wiki is actually the base of the fault. When devising a system one cannot rely solely upon reader knowledge to identify the subject for what it is. Parathentical disambiguation is not at all confounded (with anything) - in every case, excepting placenames, it is identifiable for exactly what it is - disambiguation. THEPROMENADER 13:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The parenthesis cannot serve all purposes, since it is already used in non-disambiguated article titles that are not place names. While most common in articles about art works--especially songs like 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?), (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, and Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)--parentheses are also used in other article titles such as Bank of China (Hong Kong) and Communist Party of India (Marxist)--both of which are the common names for these entities. If parentheses are part of the common names of topics, then parentheses cannot be "unambiguous disambiguators." The main purpose of the article title should be disambiguation from other articles. The first sentence of the article is the most appropriate place to specify the common name of the topic because it is the most likely place where a reader will look to find the common name of the topic. Any "confusion" that arises from the title is made clear in the first sentence of any well-written article. --Ishu 14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering when someone was going to point out that parenthesis are sometimes part of the name. There is even one city name whose name has parenthesis. But, practically speaking, these are all very rare exceptions that most people are not aware of or thinking about most of the time. So, yes, technically, even the parenthetic remark is not a perfect "unambiguous disambiguator," but it is very close to it, and, much closer to being a perfect "unambiguous disambiguator" than is the comma-separated disambiguator. Plus, of course, the parenthetic remark is arguably the standard form for disambiguation, and the more we are consistent with using it such, the closer to being a perfect "unambiguous disambiguator" it is (conversely, the more we use alternatives the more ambiguous all of our disambiguators become).

As far as the first sentence clarifying the most common name, that is often not the case. To the contrary, the convention used in many WP articles is to specify the most common name in the title, and to use the full/formal name in the first sentence. Per this convention, the article about San Diego, for example, should be at San Diego and the first sentence should say, The City of San Diego ...", and the article about Portland should be at Portland (Oregon) and start with the sentence, "The City of Portland, Oregon is ..." --Serge 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right about the name in the first sentence. However, my main point is pretty logical: If readers become "confused" by (reasonably formed) article titles, most (if not all) will begin to read the article itself--which is the best place to learn about all names of the subject, common, formal, and nicknames.

We are asking too much of the article title--it cannot convey all this information about the name of the subject. This is true whether we disambiguate with parentheses, commas, vertical bars, emoticons, or whathaveyou. The article title's main purpose should be disambiguation from other articles, although it should conform closely to the common name so that readers may find the articles.

Problems with comma-based disambiguation are also presented by parentheses-based disambiguation. --Ishu 17:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ishu, the title's main purpose cannot be to disambiguate from other articles. If it were, then we could just assign random meaningless but unique strings of letters and numbers for each title. In fact, WP could just assign such a random/unique title any time anyone created a new article. Providing a unique identifier is a purpose of the title, but it is not the main purpose. It is WP policy to Use the most common name in an article title. And it is convention to disambiguate that common name, in articles where disambiguation is required, usually with a parenthetic remark. You claim that Problems with comma-based disambiguation are also presented by parentheses-based disambiguation. Explain this to me, then. Currently, the title of the Portland article is Portland, Oregon. The official name of the city (per the city seal) is City of Portland, Oregon (perhaps because it was named after the Portland in Maine). How is a reader supposed to know from all this that the common name is, simply, Portland. Further, would this fact not be very effectively conveyed with a title of Portland (Oregon)? Perhaps not perfectly conveyed, but certainly more effectively than how it is currently done. No? --18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion is ludicrous. It is as much a "full name" issue as a disambiguation issue. The City, State name is what we use when we write our address on a letter, it is what we use when we fill out an application form, it is what we have on our driver's licenses, whatever.

My name is Gene Nygaard. How in the world is anybody ever going to guess that I am commonly called "Gene". This whole discussion is just plain bizarre.

What in the world is being lost by including the state name? Nothing whatsoever. OTOH, there are many things such as listings in categories where the state is not obvious from the nature of the category ("X in Foo state" or whatever) that greatly benefit from having the state name in the article's name. Gene Nygaard 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course the main purpose is to disambiguate. WP recommends the common name for the title because in most cases the common name needs no disambiguation, in which case the title serves the dual purpose of disambiguation and identifying the common name. But disambiguation in titles takes precedence to using the common name, so the main purpose of the title is to disambiguate.

When the common name is shared by other subjects, disambiguation is requred. Places are different from most other topics because there are many places that are named after other, existing places (as you note).

The best way for a reader to know the common name for any city of Portland is to have a sentence in the lead section that states "The city is commonly known as Portland." This is the only universal, unequivocal way in which readers will know what is the common name of a place.

I am claiming that any scheme of disambiguation is inherently ambiguous to some extent, so we should not expect the title alone to resolve the meaning of the disambiguation. The title distinguishes the article from other articles with similar common names. Once we append disambiguators to the common name, we should not expect the title to be self-explanatory anymore. --Ishu 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is why treating this problem as a style issue is a better solution. Using the current guideline it is clear that we have a specific city in a specific state. The is no ambiguity except for the correct name of the city. Since no one appears to be proposing 'fixing' that in the title, it is a non issue. Vegaswikian 20:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note a case or two where where using parens rather than a comma could cause confusion. Key Largo is an island. Key Largo, Florida is one of three CDPs on that island. We can't just simply change Key Largo, Florida to Key Largo as it is already taken, and Key Largo (Florida) would be quite ambiguous. So, would we change Key Largo to Key Largo (island) or change Key Largo, Florida to Key Largo (CDP)? Similarly, Key Biscayne is an island, while Key Biscayne, Florida is a municipality occupying about one-third of the island. Again, what do we change to what? I suspect that there are other examples like this lurking out there. -- Donald Albury 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Then there's Crystal River, which points to Crystal River, Florida, Crystal River (Florida), Crystal River (Colorado) and Crystal River (Michigan). So what do we rename Crystal River, Florida to? -- Donald Albury 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation term mainly depends on what the main point of difference between the similarly named topics are. Assuming there is no primary topipc, one way would be to use "Crystal River (city)" (assuming this is the only city), "Crystal River (Florida river)", and "Crystal River (Colorado river)". But then, many people seem to want to make populated places distinct from other Wikipedia articles so I assume there would be strong opposition to this type of disambiguation. --Polaron | Talk 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the distinction is between the built environment (including populated places) and the natural environment, based on comments made a couple months ago while trying to work out whether to use commas in names of articles about mountains and rivers in Australia (the decision was commas for towns/cities was confirmed, parens for rivers/mountains was established as the standard, and articles moved away from having commas where necessary). --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Concrete proposal

Serge wrote "Yet whenever someone proposes an exception, there are inevitably a number of opposers who state that the guideline should be changed if you want an exception. So I, for one, would like to see the guideline to be clearer on this point (that exceptions are allowed whenever a consensus is formed in favor of the exception)."

This is a concrete proposal, which I applaud. I have no objection to adding some form of words like and some other exceptions to the present three examples, if it will end this. The point is already stated in the {{guideline}} template. Septentrionalis 19:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure it's concrete unless more specific wording is provided. I would like it to say something to the effect of exceptions are made whenever a majority of the editors agrees the most common name of a given city is clearly the name alone (and, of course, the primary use of that name is to refer to that city). --Serge 20:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This new request is the same proposal Serge has failed to get consensus for already. Enough. Septentrionalis 21:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my mind is going, but I don't recall ever having a survey that rejected this proposal before. --Serge 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're thinking of the proposal to adopt the Canadian guidelines, but that did not include the whenever a majority of the editors agrees ... aspect that is key to what I'm thinking here (to be clear, I'm not actually proposing anything). --Serge 21:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. It's not exactly the same proposal of Serge's that was rejected, but it seems to fit nicely between two rejected proposals, so it's probably safe to say it would be rejected. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I'm not proposing it. I was just saying what I would like the guidelines to say. --Serge 22:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I was thinking about removing the two cities added to the guideline. While they did get consensus in WP:RM to be moved, that was not a vote to change the guideline. Vegaswikian 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no vote to mention that New York City was an exception either. The fact is, the listed cities are actual exceptions. It's a statement of fact. Why would there have to be a vote to make a statement of fact in the guidelines? --Serge 23:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be consensus to modify the guideline. Consensus to move an article is not consensus to amend the guideline. So, maybe all exceptions should be removed from the guideline pending consensus to add any. Vegaswikian 00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But voting is not required to establish consensus. Being bold and making uncontroversial changes is with consensus and legitimate. The exceptions have been listed for months, and you are the first one to mention anything about it. Even you have yet to even express an objective reason for not having them listed. Are you simply trying to be disruptive, or do you actualy have a point to make? --Serge 00:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive? Sorry. Maybe I just need to ignore this entire conversation and process since discussion is not wanted. Vegaswikian 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Vegaswikian that there's no need to list exceptions in the guideline. Every guideline may be overridden with cause, but those exceptions aren't typiclaly listed. -Will Beback · † · 01:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But other guidelines have the {{guideline}} tag, which explicitly makes that point. We should have one or the other. (I can see why we don't; we don't need a parade of little boxes; but I could go either way.) Septentrionalis 04:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

New York has been mentioned as an exception to the guideline for years and years. And the other two have been there without protest for months now. The changes were not considered controversial at the time, and I don't see why they should now need retroactive "consensus." of course, the current formulation is completely incoherent, but that's the result of the fact that we don't agree. john k 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

However the fallout from those last changes has been controversial. Small changes may appear to be innocent at first but over time you can see how they are not. Vegaswikian 19:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vegas' comment sparked "light bulb" moment and in looking at some of the archived discussion this page you really see a BIG jump in activity (about the US) occur follow the "Chicago Exception" and increasing as the "Philadelphia Exception" came and so forth. I have to admit finding humor in that due to Serge's assertion about the "peace" that it would bring if City, State convention was junked. It seems like the use of "exceptions" to start deviating from the convention is the cause of more unrest and turmoil on this page then anything else. Agne 19:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Current guideline - mark as disputed?

While we don't yet have a specific alternative to the current U.S. city naming guideline that a consensus or supermajority will support, a small majority (21 vs 18) does support Tariq's proposed change at the top of this page. That doesn't justify a change, but isn't that voting result, plus all the discussion on this page (not to mention the archives), enough to justify placing a disputed tag on the current guideline? I think placing it there might be helpful to motivate everyone involved to work towards a guideline that is supported by consensus (or at least a supermajority). --Serge 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No. There is no evidence in that discussion that a majority finds the present guideline unacceptable or disputes it. We do not need a dispute tag every time somebody gets substantial support on an improvement of wording. Septentrionalis 18:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey: do you agree the current U.S. city guideline is in dispute?

I've suggested (above) that the current U.S. city guideline be marked "in dispute" because support for Tariq's proposal along with discussion here indicates that it is in dispute. This has been challenged per the salient argument that support for a change does not necessarily imply a dispute with the status quo. Because I feel it's important to mark the current guideline in dispute (in order to motivate folks to work towards wording that is supported by consensus), I think it's important to establish this point. Hence, unfortunately, the need for another survey, albeit a simple one.

QUESTION: Do YOU agree that the current U.S. city naming guideline discourages use of the most common name -- the city name alone -- as the article title, for even well-known and unique city names like Seattle, Houston and San Francisco, and that so many people feel that because of this it contradicts Wikipedia-wide policy, guidelines or conventions, that the best option here is to declare the current U.S. city naming guideline to be in dispute?

Vote YES (U.S. city naming policy should be marked in dispute)

Vote with "# '''YES'''. Optional Comment. --~~~~

YES. --Serge 18:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
G-Man * 19:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that we need a poll for this, but of course the guideline is in dispute. john k 23:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Would it be better to put a disputed tag on the guideline without first establishing consensus on this point? ROCKmeHARD-PLACE. --Serge 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I just noticed that the policy dispute page that calls for a consensus to agree a policy or guideline is in dispute is itself inactive, so I guess it is unnecessary to have this vote. --Serge 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  - It seems to me that, by default, if there is "no consensus" that there is no consensus, then, er, there's no consensus. john k 01:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I have disputed the legitimacy of this policy since 2004, and the discussions on Talk:New York City that led to that page being called New York City and not the ambiguous New York, New York. The U.S. city naming policy was originally established by fiat and remains a stupid exception to Wikipedia's enlightened naming policy, and should be changed. The fact that this discussion continues, more than 2 years on, makes it quite clear that there is no and has never been any true consensus for this policy. So YES this policy is disputed and has been for a very long time. Nohat 09:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote NO (U.S. city naming policy should NOT be marked in dispute)

Vote with "# '''NO'''. Optional Comment. --~~~~

NO. I add another option, with which I also agree. Septentrionalis 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
No. Concur. There is no real dispute here. --Coolcaesar 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Umm, Tariq's proposal was essentially clarification of what is an exception which (unfortunately) is already in the current the guideline. What Serge disputes is the City, State aspect that Tariq's proposal still allowed but wrapped around subjective "well known vs not so well known" language. It's twisting a few branches to try and get a slim majority for Tariq's proposal to equate to a disputed view of the City, State usage. Plus agreement with the second option. Agne 19:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The current guideline is not in dispute. There is an ongoing review of the guideline, but a majority of editors seem to think the basic premise that "CityName, State" is the naming convention, with some exceptions, is acceptable. The only clarification needed is how these exceptions are defined and that's not enough to throw the disputed tag on the entire naming convention. --Bobblehead 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The current guideline is not in dispute. Serge's good faith is now in dispute, in his faulty interpretation of what has been said as the guideline being in dispute. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not violate WP:AGF, Arthur. The same use-the-common-name arguments are used, successfully, with other naming conventions as well. They are presented here as well in good faith. If I was adding the dispute statement to the guideline, then I could see having a problem with what I'm doing. But I'm just trying to establish whether there is consensus to do something like that. Is that not what a talk page is for? --Serge 19:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Conditional No: I am casting a conditional no, which I will change to yes if we agree upon a moratorium on article moves, either for a reasonable set period, or until the dispute is resolved. Of course, "until resolved" will be vehemently opposed, but unless there is a policy or guideline that a disputed policy/guideline is considered to be valid, I can't legitimize the ongoing efforts to undermine the guideline through a series of article moves--which will continue regardless of the outcome of this poll. A moratorium of two or three months would actually be a good-faith action on the part of the policy dissidents, and I would support a combined moratorium and dispute tag. --Ishu 00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- What do you mean by moratorium? The current guideline allows for exceptions. People who have never been to this page are the ones making the requested moves. How do you control that? What exactly are you looking for and on what basis? --Serge 01:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If we cannot obtain a moratorium, then my vote remains no. Such a moratorium would have to be reached here by consensus, then propagated by editors aware of this ongoing discussion. For example, you are actively involved in efforts to assist these "people who have never been to this page." When you find such a discussion, instead of saying "Excellent idea!" you could refer any proposed move discussions to this page, noting the moratorium due to the disputed nature of the policy. A consensus for a moratorium would provide guidance in lieu of a formal, consensus policy, namely to oppose moves.

Of course, as I noted, you and the others will continue to move articles--poll or no poll. If we want a break on the discussion, then a moratorium is a good faith action by the dissidents to halt article moves that harden the opinions of others in this discussion.

If you wish to continue this side discussion, please indicate that you're seriously considering the moratorium. Otherwise, there's no reason for me to reply. --Ishu 03:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A moratorium would be consistent with the ArbCom ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways, specifically at Section 7.3.3: Controversial moves. --Ishu 17:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ishu, I am giving your moratorium idea serious consideration and will not participate in any efforts to move U.S. city pages while I am giving it consideration. I can't say right now when I will give you a definitive response one way or the other (hopefully days not weeks), but I will promise to continue not to participate in such moves until I do inform you of my decision. Fair enough? --Serge 17:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
More than fair enough. Maybe even progress... --Ishu 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
No. An ongoing discussion is not an edit-warring dispute, and labelling any discussion as such when it is not will hardly help any discussion. I see this as a ploy to draw attention to the matter - but this is the wrong way of going about it, trust me. I suggest first formulating a coherent, objective and logical argument for a definite proposition, with clearly presented motives, before calling anyone's attention to it. THEPROMENADER 09:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This is about labelling the guideline to be in dispute, not labelling the discussion. You guys are acting like this is something new and/or it's about me. This policy has been in dispute since at least 2004, long before I ever became involved, and will continue to be in dispute long after I leave it, unless it is changed to something that is supported by consensus. There are many conherent, objective and logical arguments for changing the guideline. Some are more compelling than others, depending on who you are. But the most compelling argument for change is that, regardless of the specific reasons and arguments, the current guideline is in dispute and has been for years. --Serge 17:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
No: Serge is pushing everyones patience until he/she receives an answer the user likes or can accepts. As such, polling is a poor way of initiating a discussion, and as prior discussions and polls have suggested, there is no consensus to changing the accepted conventions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, that is not at all what is going on. If I did not see that many, if not a majority, of those involved are interested in seeing the city, state guidelines "loosened up", then I would not be wasting my time here. --Serge 17:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
No: in the United States, the state or territory is traditionally part of the city name. FairHair 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
No. Serge and a couple of other persistent complainers do not a dispute name. As FairHair points out, it is considered in many ways to be part of the name of the city--not always necessary, but never considered incorrect. Despite all the discussions, Serge persists in claiming some "only for disambiguation" rule, when this serves additional purposes as well. For example, it immediately identifies the article as most likely being about a city, rather than some other entity. This was involved in one of the WP:RM discussions concerning the renaming of one of the military installations, a "Fort Something" in the Texas/Oklahoma/Kansas area as Fort Something (Texas) or whatever rather Fort Something, Texas than so that it would not look like an article about a city. Gene Nygaard 15:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Serge has started enough polls.

Enough. This is a continuing campaign by one or two users. Any poll begun by Serge before March should be summarily closed. Septentrionalis 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly how many polls do you think I've started, and where are they? And how many is "too many"? --Serge 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yet another strawpoll....The sad thing is that users feel force to participate because if you ignore it, someone may take a token consensus to mean they can go around slapping disputed tags on things. Agne 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Septentrionalis, but I think it needs an article or user WP:RfC to put that into effect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Too many strawpolls. -Will Beback · † · 20:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Too many polls. Frankly, Serge is not acting in good faith and refuses to engage the issue on the merits. Arbitration may be necessary if he keeps up this nonsense for the umpteenth time. --Coolcaesar 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A recent poll (that was archived while it was still open/active by the way) indicates that a majority supports a change to the guidelines. What have I done that makes you think I refuse to engage the issue on the merits? How many KB of engaging the issue on the merits do I have to produce to satisfy you? --Serge 17:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an abuse of my !vote; as Serge knows, I support Tariq's proposal as a clarification of present practice, not a change to it. I would appreciate a retraction; if Serge makes this argument again, I will take it as disproof of good faith, which I still accept for now. We are required to assume good faith, not believe it against the evidence. Septentrionalis 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, a change to the guidelines is, well, a change to the guidelines. While you see Tariq's proposal as a clarification of present practice, which I respect, many others, including probably most if not all of those who oppose it, see it as a substantial change (who see the current exceptions as aberrations that need to be undone). The fact is, the guideline in current form has been used repeatedly as an argument to not move cities from City, State to City that are on Tariq's list. See Talk:Seattle, Washington, Talk:Los Angeles, California, Talk:Houston, Texas and Talk:San Francisco, California for just a few examples. It is your right to believe that Tariq's proposal is just a clarification, but please respect the rights of others, including me, to see it, in good faith, as a substantial change to current practice. Thanks. --Serge 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Most, if not all, of the opponents of Tariq's proposal oppose substantial change; so do some of its supporters. Serge has also agreed to my suggestion, in general terms, that he back off, and let things cool down. I welcome this, whole-heartedly. Septentrionalis 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This whole page is nothing but useless polls with little to no discussion on relevant topics. It's been made clear that no change to the US naming convention should be made, so stop introducing this crap again and again. I would nominate that every poll be closed by user:Serge. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
1. It's clear that no change should be made? Even though a majority supported Tariq's proposal to, er, change the policy above? What's clear is that there is no consensus either in favor of the current policy or against it. That means we are stuck with the status quo, for the moment, but it certainly doesn't mean that it's "clear" that "no change...should be made." john k 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we need mediation or an RfC?

It seemed like the consensus in previous discussion was that of fatique and a desire to take a break from this discussion. However, it seems like that might not be possible with the continuation or more polls and more activity to try and overturn this convention. Maybe we should consider some of the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes steps if we hope to see any progress or get a reprive from the constant polling. Agne 19:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, something is needed. This is getting a tad ridiculous. --Bobblehead 19:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would like to think that we don't. The discussions are pointing out the problems with the current proposals and the existing guideline. It may in fact be that the consensus is to leave the guideline as it was before the changes that really caused this discussion to grow. However if we keep having a vote of the week before there is any indication of consensus or a clear need for a vote to help establish a direction, then we need to do something. Vegaswikian 19:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty funny. The same folks voting that the guideline is not in dispute are calling for an RfC. If the guideline is not in dispute, what is the dispute over which we would be requesting comment? --Serge 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well there is certainly not a "dispute" to extent that you are suggesting or implying that there is consensus backing of. However, there is disagreement among the "regulars" on this page to the point that it seems like "Poll warfare" is taking place--keep polling till the other side gets tired and doesn't participate. Then declare a win. If we are at that point, then maybe we need mediation or if this "poll warfare" is improper conduct then maybe we need a RfC. Agne 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, if I was attempting to "keep polling till the other side gets tired and doesn't participate", I'd be starting a lot more polls. I'm certainly not trying to do that, and I never would! As for this particular poll, it came directly and obviously from my discussion with Sept. You can read how it evolved for yourself, just above. If someone objects to a suggestion on the basis that there is insufficient evidence, is it not logical to try to gather the evidence? --Serge 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Serge turned a discussion into a poll, which was unnecessary. I am glad to hear that the suggestion of "polling until exhaustion" is still false, and I am still willing to believe Serge when he says so. But I see why others are not; and I am very tired of hearing the same voice pushing the same arguments. Septentrionalis 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry for tiring you. That is not my intent. But, seriously, when A suggests X, and B says there is insufficient evidence that X is supported, why is it not appropriate for A to start a poll to find out if indeed X is supported or not? After all, the results of Tariq's proposal certainly indicated that there is strong support to change the guideline. The issue is whether the current guideline is "in dispute". I also suggest that those who support the guideline and deny that it is in dispute in the face of, well, years of substantial dispute about the guideline, perhaps are not acting in good faith. Perhaps (and I realize that is not your position, Septentrionalis - that you are simply arguing that, regardless of the merits, this is not a productive move). --Serge 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :: I think it was suggested earlier that the discussion itself become structured in some way. This going around in circles will lead to nothing and makes it easy to miss the point - even when it is convenient to do so - resulting in even more circles and polls. Just what are we discussing here? THEPROMENADER 19:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem of not being sure about what we're discussing here is exactly what I'm trying to address by suggesting we put a "guideline in dispute" notice on the guideline. Then the problem would be clear: the guideline is in dispute, and the goal would be clear: find wording for which there is consensus support. Otherwise, we'll just keep going in circles, I'm afraid, because the status quo defenders have no incentive to seriously work towards a guideline for which there is consensus. --Serge 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The impression Serge is giving, however, (and although it be false and unintentional, it is quite clear) is that he is looking for a dispute tag in order to justify massive moves away from City, State, a position for which there is no consensus. A corollary of WP:AGF is "see yourself as others see you." Septentrionalis 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Massive moves away from City, State" is indeed the way I would like to see the dispute resolved (there is no secret there!), but is hardly the only way for the dispute to be resolved, nor does it diminish in any way the reality of the fact that the guideline is in dispute. --Serge 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Serge, the only reason it is in dispute is because you keep claiming it is in dispute and engaging in trolling and a war of attrition; as a lawyer, I recognize the tactic because I see opposing counsel doing that all the time! If you had any formal training in psychology, computer science, formal logic, geography (by which I mean the social science), or GIS you would concede that the "city, state" convention is a superior addressing format in the context of federal entities like the United States. By the way, this is the third or fourth time I have raised this issue and you have never answered my challenge on the merits, which reinforces my suspicion that you cannot repudiate it because you truly have no such training. Full disclosure: I have completed college-level courses in formal logic, geography, psychology and computer science (although my undergraduate major was history). --Coolcaesar 05:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

1) I don't recall you asking me this before, but may have ignored it as being irrelevant (I expect arguments to me evaluated at face value, whether I'm making them or evaluating them - who is making them or what their background is is irrelevant to me). 2) But if this is so important to you, I have a B.S. in computer engineering, the requirements for which were a superset of the computer science degree. --Serge 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there certainly is a lack of clear statements of intentions here. Myself, after being involved in a naming dispute elsewhere, began looking at how other places are named, and found the "placename" comma disambiguation and found it to be segregative (and even illogical) exception in regard to the rest of the Wiki media; I'm vying for a single disambiguation scheme that can be recognised as such anywhere in Wiki - that's it. Perhaps I shouldn't even be bringing this here.

Serge, on the other hand, is arguing much in the way of those defending the city, state disambiguation - creating any and every argument (strong, weak, or irrelevent) possible to "back that cause". Unfortunately any cause here has to be founded, not through circumstance, habit or opinion, but on the discovery of an improvement or technique that will be (and can be proven to be) a general benefit to the media that is Wiki. I think the "social" in the matter is weighing in a little heavy here, and the general lack of coherence in "for and against" arguments has obliged all parties to draw a line somewhere - which is not at all beneficial to any reasonable discussion. THEPROMENADER 01:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I was only tangentially involved in the debate; I'm not an American and not an native English speaker, and my interests were mostly related with my opinion that I hold the current convention contradictory with the global policy and illogical to most people outside of US. To put it simply, I find those article titles ugly. Thus, I happen to share (a part of) Serge's opinion. However, I completely endorse your analysis: Serge's zeal and methods of throwing (sometimes valid, sometimes not) arguments everywhere and scheduling polls every while were for by and large counterproductive. I think that John K's "AP list" and subsequent Tariq's proposal, which triggered this entire debate, had a good chance to succeed, and made many people happy (myself included—I don't really care whether Foobar Creek is at Foobar Creek, South Dakota, but Los Angeles, California hurts my eyes and my pedantry regarding WP:NC) but were largely spoiled by Serge's actions, as the opponents came piling in just out of spite and being annoyed. Maybe this is turning into an informal RfC of a kind, but then, maybe we should fill a RfC on Serge and limit the audience only to those who oppose the City, State convention

. Being right doesn't entitle you to be ~~dick~~ dense. And I'm really trying to say that out of good faith (and assuming Serge's good faith). Duja► 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A weighing of advantages and disadvantages

We are not establishing an "addressing convention"; we are establishing a naming convention. The existing project-wide naming convention is sufficient to provide unambiguous names for every article about a U.S. city. The establishment of specialized naming conventions that contradict rather than clarify the project-wide naming conventions adds complexity to the article namespace, making in general the process of deciding or guessing (depending on whether you are writing or browsing) the canonical name of an article more complicated and difficult.

If we didn't have the current convention for U.S. cities, then the process for determining the name of an article would be (in simplified schematic) as follows: (1) Determine what the name of the article would be. (2) If that name is ambiguous, use a more specific name that is not ambiguous. With the current naming convention the process is more complicated: (1) Determine what the simplest name of the article would be. (2) If that name is ambiguous, use a more specific name that is not ambiguous. (3) Unless this the topic is a U.S. city, in which case ignore step (2), and instead add a comma and the name of the state the city is in if you don't have that already.

On its face, the current naming convention adds complexity to Wikipedia—3 steps is more complicated than 2. I hope we all agree that in general we want to eliminate unnecessary complexity, but that we allow the addition of complexity to the system of policies and conventions when adding that complexity furthers the overall goals of Wikipedia. Furthermore, I hope we can agree that in general when we add complexity to the system, the complex additions "fill in gaps" in the policies and conventions where there was no guidance previously rather than "contradict" higher-level policies.

Given all that, what we have with the existing convention for U.S. cities is a policy that not only adds complexity but the complexity it adds contradicts higher-level policy. So, of the two general principles of policy-building on Wikipedia, avoid needless complexity, and don't add specific policies that contradict general ones, the policy in question violates both of them. Now, given even all of that I am not (yet) claiming that the existing policy is unacceptable; I am only trying to establish that an apologia for the current policy has a long uphill battle to justify itself. That is to say, even if we provide a list of strong advantages for the existing convention for the policy, those advantages have to be weighed against the strong built-in disadvantages for the policy, and that the decision for whether or not we should keep the policy has to weighed carefully. I don't think that simplistic delineations of the advantages of the existing policy are sufficient to justify it, not matter how long the list of fabulous advantages gained by establishing this policy. We have to establish that those advantages are sufficiently great to outweigh the disadvantages.

So the question finally comes to a weighing of relative advantages and disadvantages, and I think that the long-term dispute here is a result of the fact that it is difficult to provide concrete evidence that a set of advantages sufficiently outweighs a tightly bound set of disadvantages. So, in conclusion, I don't think there is any way that this seemingly endless discussion will ever come to a reasonable end which everyone can be happy with unless a concrete way to measure and compare the advantages and disadvantages can be devised.

Although I have not read all of the recent discussion on this topic, I have yet to see a detailed explanation for why this policy, despite its major flaws, is still desirable. How, exactly, do the advantages outweigh the substantial disadvantages? By what measure? And why is that measure the best measure? Until all these questions are answered in a reasonable way, I don't see how I can justify supporting the existing convention. Nohat 09:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick responses to Nohat. 1) It is a matter of opinion whether the city naming convetion contradicts higher-level policy. I don't see it that way at all and I think many others who have participated in these discussion agree. That policy iteslf specifically allows for exceptions such as this more specific naming convention. The iron-clad, no-exceptions interpretation may be somewhat at odds with wiki practices overall (e.g., IAR), but the basic naming convention is simply a stylistic choice of naming which happens to also disambiguate. 2) the added complexity you describe is hypothetical at best. All incorporated U.S. municipalities as of the 2000 census already exist. What are being added now are mostly city neighborhoods and unincorporated communities, which arguably don't fall under this naming convention (I don't think neighborhoods should be named as "neighbohood, city, state", since almost no one commonly refers to them in that way -- and similarly, the three-level form with the county name inserted as disambiguator is similarly a relatively uncommon form). Quite contrary to your take on the matter, I think that comletely abandoning the convention as some advocate would result in additional confusion and complexity. Looking at how cities are named in other countries which do not have a strong naming convention, there is a confusing array of practices -- sometimes "place, state/province" sometimes "place, country" sometimes "place (state)", sometimes "place (country" and sometimes other variants as well. For U.S. cities, there is a simple consistent (mostly) convention. Easy to learn, easy to use. I haven't seen any good argument for abandoning it. Tweaking, perhaps -- but much of the churning on this page comes from the apparently resolute determination of some individuals to undermine the convention at every opportunity, along with a resultant entrenchment of those wary of the possibility of opening the door to any changes, even the most modest, is just the camel's nose coming in under the tent. older ≠ wiser 13:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see how the relationship between the general policy of "disambiguate only when necessary" and the U.S. city-specific policy of "always disambiguate" could be described as anything but contradictory. Of course, Wikipedia has many rules, including IAR, and I'm not saying that it's not OK to have contradictory policies, just that these policies do contradict, and contradiction in policies generally bad, but if we're going to have a contradiction in policy, the advantages should outweigh the disadvantages. Making the argument that they don't in fact contradict seems intellectually dishonest.

The argument about how the existing policy is consistent and easy to remember is also somewhat dishonest, because while there are some 30,000 U.S. cities there are some 1.5 million articles which are not U.S. cities and generally use the disambiguation convention of disambiguate only when necessary. Why does there need to be a special, contradictory convention for just 2% of the whole namespace? Lots of large sets of articles have similar characteristics to U.S. cities but don't have a disambiguation policy that contradicts the disambiguate only when necessary policy. What is inherently special about U.S. cities that is different from, say, Indian cities or Hindu gods, that they should have preemptive disambiguation but those other things should not? And, critically, why is this specialness sufficient to overcome the inherent disadvantage of instituting a policy that (1) adds complexity and (2) contradicts general policy?

Bkonrad, your reply, which I think essentially amounts to "well the disadvantage you point out is not really that big, so the advantages outweigh the disadvantages" isn't quantatative, so isn't really a satisfactory answer. Argument for the existing convention should quantify the advantage/disadvantage balance, not make vague claims about it.

Furthermore, the "facts on the ground" that Ram-Bot made nearly all of the articles in question comply with the disputed policy does not form a valid argument for it, so please spare us the "it has been this way for a long time and hasn't caused any problems so it should stay that way" argument, including things like "I haven't seen any good reason for abandoning it", which presupposes that the policy was ever established by consensus, which it was not. Operate under no illusions that this policy has ever borne the weight of legitimate establishment by consensus. Fundamentally, this is a disputed proposed policy whose advocates have yet to establish consensus even though they have implemented the policy by brute force. The fact of this implementation does not comprise a consensus. This policy has been in dispute since 2004, when it was revealed that it was originally introduced without any real consensus, and its legitimacy and its value has been continually called into question since then.

The only way we will ever establish consensus on this matter is by first being honest about the provenance of the existing policy, then deciding whether this policy should be legitimately established by taking stock of the advantages and disadvantages and quantifying them, in order to provide a rational analysis. In the absence of any such quantified evidence-based rationale, I can't justify the legitimate establishment of this convention, which contradicts the project-wide convention of disambiguate only when necessary. Nohat 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the long answer about why this guideline should be marked "in dispute". --Serge 18:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The provenance of the existing convention couldn't be clearer: it is common use among US citizens. Nothing more complicated than that. THEPROMENADER 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the provenance of the existing convention is that it was unilaterally decided upon by Ram-Man and implemented by brute force fiat by creating all the articles using that convention. Only when the convention was added to the naming conventions page was it disputed, and it has been continuously disputed since then. There has never been consensus for the existing convention. Nohat 21:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nohat, with respect, the convention had been discussed and was in place before Ram-Man added most of the place name articles (he may have experimented a bit with his personal account, but did not use Rambot to add the bulk of the articles until some months after the convention was in place -- and while it was not without dissenters at the time, your description that it was unilaterally decided upon by Ram-Man and implemented by brute force fiat is inaccurate and misleading. It was discussed by several prominent contributors which at that time, and there was general, though not unanimous, agreement about. older ≠ wiser 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there was one poll, in which 4 people participated, three of whom voted for the existing policy and one against, and the amount of consensus and general agreement only went down after that. Ram-Man created all the articles before a clear consensus emerged. Indeed a clear consensus has still not emerged, some 3 years on. The facts on the ground should not be guiding policy decisions. What should be guiding policy decisions should be deciding and agreeing upon what the best policy would be when we have a policy that is supported by consensus. The existing policy has always been disputed, and the universality of its applicability has been chipped away at over time, as I see now that Chicago and Philadelphia have been added to the exception list along with New York City. Mark my words: in the fullness of time the foolishness of mandatory disambiguation for a certain class of articles but only-when-necessary disambiguation for all others will become apparent. Pre-emptive disambiguation has been and always will be a bad idea. Nohat 22:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Pre-emptive disambiguation makes it much easier to link to articles. Septentrionalis 00:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation says "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate", and Wikipedia's editorial policies are designed to be maximally convenient for readers, so arguments for a policy which conveniences editors are not applicable. Nohat 00:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well. If the existing convention wasn't founded on an existing and well-founded (local US) practice, there would be little motivation for imposing it in the stead of an already-existing and dominant Wiki disambiguation - parentheses. Go figure. THEPROMENADER 00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not confuse the issue here--the question is whether we should always disambiguate, not how to disambiguate once we decide we need to disambiguate. The comma convention is absolutely the correct way to disambiguate U.S. city names. We just don't always need to disambiguate, and the policy of always disambiguating U.S. city names with the state name regardless of whether the city's name is actually ambiguous is not a policy which is supported by consensus. Nohat 00:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the parenthesis style of disambiguation was invented to disambiguate two names for which there is no other existing way to disambiguate them. In the case of U.S. cities, there is an existing way to disambiguate ambiguous names, so we use that. I think that recent movements towards using parenthesis disambiguation even when there is already a different precedent for disambiguation are misguided. Nohat 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm only speaking of one issue in my statement - the fundements of the convention itself. I am in total agreement with you - there is no need to disambiguate when it is not neccessary. Discussion should be around what is a necessary level of disambuguation, and how to do it coherently in tandem with every other practice in use in the media we are publishing in. THEPROMENADER 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the question of when disambiguation is necessary is an easy one to answer--are there collisions in the article namespace? If yes, then disambiguation is necessary; if no, then disambiguation is not necessary. Collisions only count for disambiguation if the articles actually exist. If it doesn't exist, and the argument for disambiguation is that someday such an article might exist, then that is not sufficient to demand disambiguation. If that article does come into existence, then the existing article can be renamed. This is a very easy process. There is no advantage to preemptive disambiguation on the expectation that the article title will one day be ambiguous. Nohat 01:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two or three issues that need to be spelled out in this discussion:

What is the right "level of disambiguation" in Promenader's terms. For example, a no-exceptions comma-delimited system that requires the state would be one way. (I am not arguing for or against this example.) I believe that some would call this a "style" instead of a disambiguation scheme.
When to disambiguate: Do we use pre-emptive disambiguation? I think this is just another "flavor" of the "level of disambiguation" issue--or perhaps that's the other way around.
How to disambiguate: Do we use parentheses, commas, or another (as yet unapproved) method?

I think the discussion could be helped if each response would call out (or "signpost") which issue we're talking about. There's a tendency to talk past one another as we get tangled up in the separate issues. --Ishu 01:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is disambiguation and there is providing context. Adding the state name when a city's name is not ambiguous, it is just providing context to that name. Any "level of disambiguation" or "style of disambiguation" that is not "disambiguate only when a name is ambiguous" is not really disambiguating but is doing something else--providing context or putting additional semantic information in the article title.

The problem with naming conventions that "provide context" is that there is no other precedent for providing context in article titles. We use categories to indicate which set of articles an article is in, not by putting stuff in the article title. The only exception to this rule at present, is that in the case of U.S. cities we put the state name in the article title.

To summarize, there are not "levels of disambiguation": there is disambiguation, and there is putting extra information in the article title so that they match the titles which are disambiguated. Nohat 01:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again I agree, but what remains to be discussed is the risk level of a namespace's eventual ambiguity - I think that if a majority of the world's cities shared the same name, some sort of (recognisable) pre-disambiguation would be the norm - but this is not the case, and each country seems to have its own form of dismbiguation differing from the next.

I was persuaded that streets may need some sort of pre-disambiguation, but I have reservations even with that now. Anyhow, if some sort of pre-disamguation for a such case were the norm here, it would have to be cross-board in order to be recognisable to all wiki readers, no matter where they're reading in the site. THEPROMENADER 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is anything broken?

Let's try going back to a basic question. What, if anything is broken with the current city, state guideline for US cities? I'm asking about why it does not work and not if it complies with all of the guidelines. All of the guidelines allow some type of variations. So the basic question for making a change is to determine what, if anything, is broken so that you know what it is that you are trying to fix. If something is broken you fix it. If nothing is broken you leave it alone. If there are some issues you tweek it. Identify the problem and not the solutions. Vegaswikian 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What's broken is that the policy was implemented by fiat without consensus and both its usefulness and legitimacy have been questioned and disputed for over 2 years. What's broken is that a policy was implemented without consensus and there continues to be no consensus for the implementation of that policy. The solution is to come to a consensus about what the policy should be. The mere fact that the policy was implemented by Ram-Man does not justify or provide rationale for the policy, so the argument that "it's not broken--there is nothing to fix" doesn't provide a legitimate response to the argument that the policy was never legitimately introduced and implemented in the first place. Nohat 20:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are proceedural objections, which cannot now be amended save perhaps by apologies from editors around in 2004; I wasn't. What are your substantive objections, which may perhaps inspire a consensus to change in the direction you want? Septentrionalis 20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope it's not presumptuous of me to note that Nohat addressed this point in an earlier reply:

this convention... contradicts the project-wide convention of disambiguate only when necessary.

--Ishu 20:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But that is not saying it is broken. Guidelines can be changed or you can have exceptions when they make sense. Vegaswikian 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's broken because it was not established by consensus and it contradicts the policies that were. Nohat 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy as it exists now is illegitimate because it was not established by consensus, and either a consensus should be developed to support the existing policy, or the policy should be changed to reflect that true state of consensus. As it exists now, the policy does not reflect the consensus (or lack thereof). The naming conventions page did (for a while, at least) explain that the current U.S. city naming policy is contested, and even though that comment has been changed over time, the lack of consensus underlying the comment remains. Nohat 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, your assertion that there is a contradiction is opinion. Yes, there is some conflict, though the general guideline specifically allows for exceptions such as this convention. If anything the rigidity with which this convention is enforced is more a point of contention than the basic convention itself. Your claim that the convention is illegitimate is also misleading and nothing more than your opinion (and perhaps shared by a few others). The convention was discussed BEFORE the majority of articles were created and there was general, though not unanimous, support for the convention.

Confounding matters, there are two issues that keep getting conflated here, first, the very use of commas as part of the article name is contested and second, whether using the city,state format uniformly for all U.S. cities is unnecessary preemptive disambiguation. IMO, the first issue is a non-starter. Usage of city, state is well-established English language usage. The second issue, I believe, is where most of the objections arise, and where many have shown at least some support for allowing a more flexible interpretation of the convention. A somewhat tangential issue, the comma convention is not really appropriate, IMO, for neighborhoods within cities. older ≠ wiser 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that using commas to disambiguate U.S. cities is exactly the right way to do it. You will not get an argument from me on that account. Parenthesis disambiguation should only be used if there is not already some other existing way to disambiguate a name. I think the recent change of all the programming language titles from e.g. C programming language to C (programming language) was a bad idea because there was nothing wrong with the former, and the latter is longer and needlessly complicated.

I also agree that the comma convention should not apply to neighborhoods, nor do I think it is appropriate for multiple cities in the same state with the same name. The examples really ought to be Elgin, South Carolina (Lancaster County) and Elgin, South Carolina (Kershaw County).

I don't understand why my claim that it contradicts the general policy is contestable. Of course there are policies that say that exceptions are allowed. And the U.S. city convention is an exception, and what makes it an exception is it contradicts the general policy. The question, as I have been trying to explain, is whether the contradiction is justifiable given a fair weighing of the advantages and disadvantages.

As for the legitimacy of the policy, call it whatever you like, but the policy has been loudly and continuously opposed for years now, and there has never been a consensus supporting the policy (except for possibly a short time when 3 of 4 editors voted in a poll supporting the convention). I don't know what your definition of illegitimate policy is, but mine would be something like "a policy that does not have consensus but is implemented anyway", which describes exactly the state of the comma convention for U.S. cities. Nohat 23:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A working guideline, arrived at by questionable means, still works. Why doesn't this work? If it does work, the remedy for "illegitimacy" is to complain to ArbCom about its adulterine parents, not here.

It doesn't contradict the general convention; it modifies it, like Wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles). To almost everyone, Serge standing out, Portland, Oregon is English usage; what harm is there in using Matawan, New Jersey?. Septentrionalis 00:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No one questions whether the convention is functional. It obviously functions. It just doesn't enjoy consensus support, and never has. That is why it should be changed, not because it somehow fails to provide names for articles about U.S. cities. The "harm" is that Matawan would be the name that is supported by the disambiguation policy Disambiguate only when necessary. Unless sufficient advantage can be demonstrated to outweigh the disadvantage of having contradictory policies (or policies that "modify" the general convention, whatever you want to call it), and a consensus develops around the existing policy, then the policy should be changed to reflect the true state of consensus. Nohat 00:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am somewhat in agreement with you here, but there is an interesting point that Septentrionalis brought up that you sort of talked around. With exceptions of the major cities (e.g., San Francisco, Miami, etc.), most U.S. municipalities are known by their qualified title, except locally. I don't think you will find too many non-local references to Lansing, Michigan or Santa Rosa, California that don't qualify the names at the top. My argument against that point is that this is generally true for all topics, where the reference to the topic may not already be known to the audience. You will see Kobe referred to as Kobe, Japan, and you will see C. Everett Koop referred to C. Everett Koop referred to as "Surgeon General C. Everett Koop" or "C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General of the United States", etc. But this is by no means a bullet-proof argument. Jun-Dai 02:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

<-- Undenting

I understand this argument, but I think it is invalid. This argument is essentially that some places are not well known, so the canonical expression of their name should include some kind of contextualizing categorical information, so as to provide an explicit context when faced with a link to the article without an obvious implicit context (and honest, how often does that happen?). But article names are not grab-bags of information that include name and context. They are the titles of the subjects of the articles. Many of the kajillion topics in Wikipedia are exceedingly obscure and not well-known, like, say, the entries in Category:Hindu gods or Category:Non-Japanese baseball players in Japan. The entries in these categories do not have contextualizing markers in their titles, even though I imagine that relative few people know who Hanuman or Don Blasingame are. The reality is that if a topic is notable enough to have its own article in Wikipedia, then it is prima facie notable enough to stand alone on its name without the need of a crutch of contextualization in the title. Now, I bet there are a lot more people who know what Scarsdale is than who know who Don Blasingame is, so if Don's article dosn't need to be called Don Blasingame (non-Japanese baseball player in Japan, then Scarsdale doesn't need to be called Scarsdale, New York. So, I don't think the argument that obscure cities need contextualization in their titles is a valid one. Nohat 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not only about providing context. For many of these places, the "city, state" form is arguably as common a name as the simple name. There is nothing at all odd about referring them by such common names. The convention may have overreached by codifying the preemptive disambiguation aspects too rigidly. But as a matter of stylistic convention, there is good reason to use "city, state" as the default canonical form for the majority of the articles, regardless of uniqueness. older ≠ wiser 04:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

...there is good reason to use "city, state" as the default canonical form

And what is that reason ? THEPROMENADER 16:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting point, so I want to respond to this. Jun-Dai writes, "With exceptions of the major cities (e.g., San Francisco, Miami, etc.), most U.S. municipalities are known by their qualified title, except locally. " Imagine a magic map of the entire United States where you can point to any city, and an infinitesimally little light will glow at every location where the name of that city was referenced in the last 24 hours. I contend that the vast majority of such lights will be clustered around each city. The point is, the vast majority of most references to most cities are local, and that's the "common name" that should be reflected in our titles. Bkonrad asserts that, For many of these places, the "city, state" form is arguably as common a name as the simple name. Perhaps, but only outside of the area. Where the vast majority of references to each city are made, within its locality, this is not the case at all. Not even for small towns with blatant disambiguity issues like Paris (Texas) or Moscow (Idaho). Most references to those cities are still Paris and Moscow respectively. It is also true that for San Francisco "Frisco" is a common name, outside of California. But the fact that "Frisco" is commonly used to refer to San Francisco outside of the area does not make "Frisco" a viable candidate for being the title of the article, because, despite it being a common reference to the city by outsiders, that is not how it is most commonly referred to locally. Similarly, San Francisco, California should not be the title either, for the same reason "Frisco" should not be the title: because, despite it being a common reference to the city by outsiders, that is not how it is most commonly referred to locally. How a city is referred to most often is how it is referred to most often locally. To write that off as a "except locally" exception, as if that makes it irrelevant to the issue of how to name the article, is getting it backwards. --Serge 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think this is missing the point. What a place is known as by locals is not especially relevant for determining how to title the article in an encyclopedia. For example, by analogy, most people in local proximity to a person will refer to that person by their first name (or by a familiar name). But obviously we would not want to use that as the article title, even if the name is unique (unless of course the person is widely known by only that name, e.g., Pelé ). "Paris, Texas" is a widely used and familiar way to refer to that place. I don't think there is anything at all odd about a convention in which an alternate common name is specified as the preferred form as a matter of stylistic consistency as well as happily also disambiguating the name. older ≠ wiser 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point, but I don't think comparing how the personal friends of a famous person refer to him privately is a good analogy to the name a city or town is referred by by virtually everyone publically within the locale of that city or town. Mel Gibson may be known as "Melly" (making this up) by his friends and family, and is referred to this way dozens of times per day, but that does not compare to the hundreds if not thousands of references made of him as "Mel Gibson" by everyone else. "Moscow, Idaho", on the other hand, is referenced by name, "Moscow", countless times per day in the Moscow vicinity, and relatively speaking, rarely referred to outside of the area. How a place is known by locals is not inherently relevant because that's how it's known by locals; it's only relevant because the vast majority of references to that place are made by locals - that's what makes it the most common name for that place. --Serge 19:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Most English speakers, however, refer to it as Moscow, Idaho, when they refer to it at all (and many Americans do, if only for the name). Septentrionalis 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think anyone on earth knowing the existence of Russia's Moscow would disambiguate the US version. Another example of another name needing disambiguation! Who says we have ot use a comma - why not disambiguate like every other Wiki article - with parentheses ? THEPROMENADER 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Because all those Americans (and, for all I know, others) write Moscow, Idaho, not Moscow (Idaho). Septentrionalis 23:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The goal of Wiki is to inform as clearly as possible; it is not to reflect the habits of its contributors. In what sort of publication is the comma disambiguation the norm? In those written by Americans, for Americans, and certainly not encyclopedias and dictionaries - but perhaps in works made by and for the same. Think to how local habits fit with the media they are published in, not the other way around. THEPROMENADER 19:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Armistice

Serge has agreed to my suggestion, in general terms, that he back off, and let things cool down. (Repeated from above; but I think this deserves its own section.) Septentrionalis 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Does any country specific naming convention violate policy?

The policy as stated in a nutshell; Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Vegaswikian 21:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy that is being violated is the policy on Wikipedia:Disambiguation, which says: When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate. Nohat 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Only if you assume that the convention is in place for disambiguation rather then selecting what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. Vegaswikian 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not an assumption that the convention was implemented for disambiguation. It is an historical fact. The comma convention supporters have tried to cover this up by changing their argument and the wording over time, but the fact is that the comma convention was first introduced to Wikipedia for disambiguation. Indeed the comma convention was invented by the postal service as a system of disambiguation to aid in sorting mail. The comma convention is tightly married to the concept of disambiguation and has been since it was first invented.

The majority of English speakers most easily recognize the names of places, not an arbitrary addressing format that includes an additional level of administrative subdivision. People use the comma convention when addressing, not when naming. Here we are naming, not addressing, so we should only disambiguate when a name is ambiguous. Nohat 22:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Besides, in many cases ("New York, New York" being a prominent example) the area denoted by a postal service boundary implied by using the comma convention does not coincide with the administrative boundary of the municipal authority. By adopting the postal service's system, we also by implication adopt the postal service's boundaries, which in some cases are wrong. Nohat 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't just about disambiguation, it's also a style issue. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#General rules now says:

The primary goal of this naming convention is to achieve consistency within each country. It does not necessarily achieve complete consistency across countries. Hence the remainder of the page is divided into specific guidelines for individual countries where required.

I think that's a pragmatic approach. -Will Beback · † · 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a badly written explanation. The purpose of a specific naming convention is to clarify the general naming convention so that frequently-occurring cases of unclarity in what a name should be can be clarified. Specific naming conventions should not be used to contradict general naming conventions, and whenever they have, it has always been (rightly) met with vociferous opposition. Nohat 22:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a practice violates another convention or not - a convention can exist for its own purpose, and can be made with none other in mind. Most conventions have been voted into existence by a majority out of those deciding it - in this case, those voting for the usage of the rather commonplace (in the US) comma convention as a typical standard for Wiki (US) placenames. Yet this convention has been created with its own preservation in mind, without any consideration for any other Wiki convention or practice. This is its fundamental fault, and it is this discrepancy (with the rest of Wiki) that should be the centre of discussion - not the 'validity' of the convention itself. THEPROMENADER 00:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To Nohat, it is a difference of emphasis -- you see a contradiction, where I and others see a relatively minor stylistic difference. One significant difference is that the city, state form is NOT purely disambiguation -- that is also a very common and familiar name for the places. Using a comma is not even identified as a specific disambiguation method. It is a variation on selecting an alternate common name. Where most of the problems arise is when a place is extremely well-known by its simple name. But for many places, a good case can be made that the "city, state" form of the name is at least as common, if not more so, than "city". Although personally, I'd be just fine with leaving them all at city, state, I also appreciate the objections that people have and am agreeable with proposals for the naming convention to be interpreted more flexibly with regard to such well-known places. At the same time, I don't see any advantage whatsoever to removing the naming convention completely. Some participants in this discussion talk as if they can hardly wait to fire up a bot to mass move every unambiguous place name (and then the inevitable churning of articles as editors go through and "helpfully" fix all the redirects).

The thing is, that while the convention may have had a shaky beginning, and the preemptive disambiguation aspect in particular has had detractors all along, the basic convention is in fact pretty well established as a de facto convention and is accepted (or at the least tolerated) by most editors. While the convention may be somewhat at odds with the general convention, I think the burden is on detractors to demonstrate that there is consensus to change. I don't think that arguing for ideological purity in the application of the use common names principle is sufficient to overturn what is both an established and familiar convention. older ≠ wiser 03:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree that the "cityname, statename" convention is common at all. For nearly every usage of a place's name, the state is not included. This includes in nearly every conversation about a place, in phone books, in local newspapers, on local television, at local businesses, in local schools, etc. Pretty much the only place where the state is used by default is on pieces of mail. And pieces of mail do not use the "cityname, statename" convention. They use the "cityname, state postal abbreviation" convention. The only place other than mailing addresses where state names are used as a matter of course is in out-of-town news publications, which use states in bylines, and here, too, the full names of the states are not used, just the "old-fashioned" abbreviations. If we were to base our naming convention purely on the most-frequently-printed form of city's name, then I think no one will disagree that would be the postal format, with the two-letter abbreviations.

But no one is advocating we use the postal format as our default naming convention; it provides the worst of both worlds. Instead what is advocated is the use of "cityname, statename". The overwhelming majority of uses of a place's name are local uses, and the state's name is never used in cases like this. As far as I can tell, the only time the state's name is used is when people from faraway places discuss a place for the first time, which compared to all the local uses, is statistically never. Justifying a naming convention on the usage of the people least connected to a place seems, well, imperious and unintuitive. But maybe I am wrong about the usage. Where are cases when the full name of a state is used in conjunction with the city name? What are the types of conversations and written documents when a state's full name is commonly used? If you wish to appeal to the "use common names" convention, you should be prepared to explain and give examples of when this allegedly "common name" is used.

Finally, the trick of "well this convention is established de facto so it is the detractor's responsibility to demonstrate consensus to change" is frankly insulting. You admit that the convention was not established in a legitimate way, and you admit that the convention has never developed a consensus, but still it is up to those who oppose the convention to demonstrate that there is consensus to change? No one seems to disagree that the convention is disputed, but those who support the convention seem unwilling to let the policy page reflect the reality of lack of consensus. What should happen is that the convention should be marked as disputed, and it should not be pointed to as justification for opposing moves of articles about city names to simpler, unambiguous titles, as each city article's title is decided on by looking to the naming conventions which actually have been agreed upon by consensus, namely use common names and do not disambiguate if there is no risk of confusion. Arguments about how this is going to cause churn and chaos are not really valid responses to this argument because they are a temporary and negligible residue of infinitessimal consequence to the greater good of implementing consistent naming conventions which are supported by consensus. The convention has never been supported by consensus and maintaining a vice grip on article titles following this convention despite the lack of consensus is a bogus exertion of power that runs totally contrary to the core operating principles of Wikipedia. Nohat 06:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not admit that the convention was not established in a legitimate way. I do acknowledge that there were always some detractors and dissension over some aspects of the convention. Frankly, I think your claim to being "insulted" is nothing but rhetorical posturing. Get real. It is a fact that the convention is established. It is up to those who want to disestablish the convention to demonstrate the value of that proposition. Period.

As for your earlier comments, I very much disagree. "Cityname, statename" is a common and familiar formulation. When people ask where I grew up, I will more often than not say "Cleveland, Ohio", unless I know I am amongst Ohioans -- and Cleveland is one of the larger entities. I don't know why you're draging postal conventions into this. No one is advocating for using postal conventions and I don't see the connection to the present state of discussions. older ≠ wiser 13:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In an archived discussion, we (mud-)wrestled with the question What is the "common name" for places that are not "well-known?" Consider North Caldwell, New Jersey, for example. In its immediate vicinity, the "common name" clearly is North Caldwell. However, outside of a "modest" radius, the "common name" would be North Caldwell, New Jersey--and this would be true for people from North Caldwell. The main problem here is to determine which "common name" is controlling: the "local" or "global" version? The "local" name is used most often, but the "global" name is applicable to more readers. --Ishu 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, "common name" is not "common practice". "City, State" disambiguation is a common practice in the U.S. - this practice is not a proper name and cannot be spoken of or argumented as such. THEPROMENADER 16:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an unspoken but open question whether we should have a country-specific naming convention for the U.S. My sense is that a "sizable" majority of people here believe that we should. Perhaps that is the first question that should be addressed before we delve into the "how" questions.

As for the policy and conventions, common name is the standard, not proper name.

As for practice vs. name, the question I am posing is whether common refers to "most English speaking people" wherever they may be, or whether common refers to "most people who are familiar with a place" (we might include English speakers or not). When in Texas, one might well refer to Matawan, New Jersey or Zzyzx, California, even though Matawan and Zzyzx are unique. Even a "reasonably" well-known place like Toledo, Ohio is often referred to as Toldeo, Ohio even though many Americans have no reason to disambiguate from Toledo, Spain, much less one of the "lesser" Toledos. In other words, what words do people use to identify a place? We already know that the common name often differs from the official name, so usage is key. --Ishu 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Common name" or "proper name", the fact still stands - "State" is part of neither version of any city name. "City, State" comma disambiguation is a common US practice. THEPROMENADER 17:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what the meaning of is common name is. You say po-tay-toe... and Polaron says it doesn't matter, I think (see below). --Ishu 18:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you missing the point on purpose? The name of a state is neither a part of a city's "common name" or a city's "proper name". The common practice of disambiguation does not create a "common name". "State" is never any part of any form of any city name at all. THEPROMENADER 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people are arguing that the common name is defined by "common usage" or "common references" or, to use your term, "common practices" in referring to a place. You disagree. I understand your point. I am trying to synthesize others' points. You are welcome to disagree. It depends on how one defines common name. --Ishu 19:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

T's okay, all for the sake of discussion. My point of disagreement here is with the misuse of "Name" - the only thing "common name" should refer to in discussion is the name of the place itself (Windy City vs. Chicago, etc). Adding the name of another entity to this - no matter what you call the method - will never make the compound appellation the name of the city itself. Discussion of "What people call it (from where)" is not a discussion about a name. That's my point. THEPROMENADER 19:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

While I do have a position on this question, I think the question needs to be addressed. To restate, which "common name" is controlling: the "local" or "global" version? The "local" name is used most often, but the "global" name is applicable to more readers. --Ishu 16:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Common name should normally be what people who are familiar with the topic would refer to it. I don't think it is the job of the title to provide context (except in cases of disambiguation). We don't need to title an article Polaron (condensed matter physics) unless it has a naming conflict with another similar or more prominent topic with the same common name Polaron. If the simplest common name cannot be confused for something else, then that would normally be the article title per Wikipedia policies. --Polaron | Talk 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

<----------Undenting

Perhaps a nutshell summary of Polaron's statement would be: When deciding among two or more common names, use the simplest form that does not conflict with another name. --Ishu 17:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

what exactly does "simplest" mean? For individuals, this would be a problematic formulation, I fear. It seems to me that article names should strive to be precise, recognizable, and accurate. Simplicity is also a virtue, but should be secondary to these three other conditions. By "precise" I mean non-ambiguous, by "recognizable" I mean something akin to the common name rule, and by "accurate" I mean that we shouldn't use titles that are misleading or actively incorrect (I'm not trying to advocate pedantry). Simplicity ought to only come into play when it doesn't conflict with those other three principles. john k 18:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just following WP:NC(CN): Titles should be as simple as possible without being too general. --Ishu 18:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also recall that we could have redirects at [[city, state]], just like we have redirects at William Henry Gates III and William Jefferson Clinton. --Ishu 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any question about that, just like we have redirects at Chicago, Illinois, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and New York, New York. --Serge 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(after ec) Again, it is not only about providing context. IF (and only if) the parenthetical convention had been used for city names, then there would be no question whatsoever that using "city (state)" for uniquely named cities would be inappropriate. It would never occur to anyone to use such a form to refer to the city (outside of Wikipedia, that is). Such a form would be purely for disambiguation. The city, state form is not only about disambiguation. It is a common and familiar way to refer to these places, that also happily disambiguates as well. older ≠ wiser 18:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that there would be no conflict or question at all were parentheses used for disambiguation. The problem here is that you have a common US disambiguation practice that is pretending to be something other than disambiguation, and for this risks not being identifiable as such to those not familiar with the practice nor the locale, but familiar with disambiguation usage (parentheses) in the rest of Wiki. THEPROMENADER 19:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So would you say that there are two common names for many places? And if you think there is only one common name, which would it be: The cityname or the city,state name? --Ishu 18:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bkonrad correctly wrote that city, state is a common and familiar way to refer to these places (I don't think anyone disagrees with this); he did not say that city, state is a common name for these places (with which I also believe there is general agreement). So the question is: when ambiguity is not an issue, should we use the most common name used to refer to a city in the title (Cityname only), or should we use a common way the city is often referenced (Cityname, Statename) when it is desired to convey more contextual location information? Whichever is your answer, why? --Serge 19:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Whichever is more convenient and serviceable for the encyclopedia. In this field, city, State is clearly most serviceable. City often won't work, as for Moscow, Idaho, and dashing back and forth between the two is more work for editors and readers.

I'm not aware that "convenient and serviceable" are stated in any guideline with any well understood meaning. How are Chicago, New York City and Philadelphia not "convenient and serviceable" for each of these cities? There is no dispute about the fact that Moscow does not work for Moscow, Idaho. But Pacific Grove works for Pacific Grove, California, and Pacific Grove is much more often referred to as Pacific Grove than as Pacific Grove, California, so why should it be at the latter when it can be the simpler and more common former? How would Pacific Grove be not "convenient and serviceable" for Pacific Grove? --Serge 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

New York City and Philadelphia are convenient names; the objection in the next section does not apply to them, because, even though there are other Philadelphias, there is no question that Philadelphia, Pensylvania, is the primary meaning. As for Pacific Grove, under the present system, as opposed to the hodge-podge Serge perpetually proposes, we know it can be found under Pacific Grove, California, whether or not someone names a development Pacific Grove, British Columbia.

Also, the articles that link to Pacific Grove fall overwhelmingly into two classes: those which use the Monterey County, California template, and those in which the actual text around the link reads "Pacific Grove, California", making Pacific Grove, California the natural link. The first class works either way, even though they do transfer the ", California" to the Template title. Septentrionalis 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I find that reading biographical articles for example, people are born in, live in, do things in, and die in places. If that place is near me or somewhere I know, then the town name only works, as I know where it is. If it's a town/city/village I've never heard of, then the ", state" that displays when I hover over the link is often all the context I need to continue reading the article I am reading. I don't want to have to open a new article and read about the place, just so I can understand whether the person stayed in a small area all his life, or moved back-and-forth across the country/world.

I find it interesting that contributors to this page assume that unusual names are unique - Zzyzx has been a dab page since March 2005 for example. I was going to use Ogdensburg as an example of somewhere that I know where it is so it might not need the qualifying state, until I clicked on the link and discovered there are three of them to choose from. While Paris, Texas is an article about a town, there is even a dablink at the top to Paris, Texas (disambiguation) to help readers find the other two meanings! --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that anyone will name a development Pacific Grove, British Columbia, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. But in the unlikely event that they did, and a consensus was formed that this new development was sufficiently notable to make the town in California no longer be the primary topic for Pacific Grove, then the editors of the article about the new development would have the responsibility to create a dab page and update the links accordingly. Again, this is no different than it is for any other article in Wikipedia.

With regard to the links to Pacific Grove, California, why is that preferred to Pacific Grove, California (which has the advantage of allowing the reader to click on the state or the city if that's what he wants)? And, should the article be linked to more than once in a given article, only the first link should be Pacific Grove, California - the others should be Pacific Grove. The natural link should be the city alone. In the first reference in an article, the state the city is in should be clarified as a separate California link. How is that a "hodge podge"? See articles that reference Chicago, Philadelphia and New York City for many examples. --Serge 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A hodge podge in that it deals with Matawan, New Jersey and Aberdeen, New Jersey (an otherwise comparable community, right next door) differently - and unpredictably differently. A good part of the towns of any state or county will be one, and the rest the other. Septentrionalis 06:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where in almost all categories of articles, some have titles that are the most common name for the subject of the respective article, and others, with common names that required disambiguation, have titles that are further disambiguated. Why should the category of articles about U.S. cities be inconsistent with all other Wikipedia categories of articles in this "hodge podge" respect? --Serge 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that if a significant number of related articles have ambiguous names and so have disambiguations in their titles, then the rest of the articles in that set should also have those disambiguations even though they're not necessary? Should this apply to every category of articles? What percentage should be ambiguous before this new policy kicks in? How do we decide which categories this should apply to and which it doesn't? I don't think we should abandon a core naming principle (disambiguate only when necessary) to make some categories line up.

Also, it's unclear to me why it's OK for there to be a hodgepodge divided along a U.S. cities–all other articles line, but not OK for there to be a hodgepodge divided along a ambiguously-named–unambiguously-named line. Why is it better to make the naming convention for all U.S. cities the same regardless regardless of ambiguity but different from all other articles? Maybe this table will clarify:

with current naming convention
	U.S. cities	All other articles
Ambiguous name	use disambiguation	use disambiguation
Unambiguous name	use disambiguation	don't use disambiguation

without current naming convention
	U.S. cities	All other articles
Ambiguous name	use disambiguation	use disambiguation
Unambiguous name	don't use disambiguation	don't use disambiguation

Now which of these is simpler, more consistent, easier to remember, and more predictable? Nohat 07:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone identify a tool that would allow us to determine what percentage of Wikipedia articles about "settlements" have a comma or parentheses in their article title now? What percentage of them would be candidates for change under various proposals? Is this lllooonnnggg discussion about a minority of place articles, or the majority? The table above should also have columns for Australian and Canadian towns. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Canadian and Australian systems are actually similar to the U.S. cities, except they have more exceptions to the predisambiguation comma convention, and their guidelines explicitly allow for more exceptions. The "All other articles" column is really "most other articles". For example, TV series articles used to disambiguate when unnecessary, but are currently all be changed to be consistent with "Most other articles" and to disambiguate only when necessary. But one thing Nohat's table clearly shows is how with the "All(most) other articles", you can immediately tell whether a given article's name is ambiguous or not, by whether it is disambiguated or not (if it's disambiguated then it's an ambiguous name, if not then not), but with U.S. cities you cannot tell (when you're at Pacific Grove, California the reader has no way to know whether Pacific Grove is ambiguous or not). But if you're going to include columns for Canada and Australia, what about England, Ireland, France, China, Japan, India, Mexico, Greece, Iceland, etc.,etc? --Serge 08:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What possible value is there to a reader in being able to "immediately tell whether a given article's name is ambiguous or not"? Feel free to add more columns for more countries. Also add a row for how many page views are needed to determine what title should be used for a new article about a town in that country. Assume the author of the new article knows about the town, and has at least a passing familiarity with other articles about nearby towns, including their titles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguating only when necessary would bring US cities (and others) into line with the rest of Wiki; disambiguating with parentheses only would finish the job. I say enough of this narrow-minded self-segregation.

The "settlements" guideline could be about what you disambiguate with - what goes between the brackets - as for some countries, disambiguation will be provinces, others will be states, etc. The latter is a whole other discussion. THEPROMENADER 08:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Nohat's table is horribly misleading. The U.S. convention is quite straightforward and consistent (mostly) and there is very little problem with "remembering" how to do anything because the articles for incorporated places are all already created. All U.S cities include the state name. How hard is that to remember. Seriously? older ≠ wiser 11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And personally, I find that the "hodge-podge" of titles is NOT with U.S. cities (or with Canadian or Australian cities) but rather with all the other places that use a confusing welter of different naming styles, often even within the same country. For the U.S. it is extremely simple and straightforward. older ≠ wiser 12:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, but if anything is misleading, it's your post. The US convention is neither consistent or straightforward : not only do dozens of cities "qualify" for non-disambiguation, but the form of disambiguation it uses is not at all the Wiki standard. Adding the name of a State to a City article title is something to remember, whereas using the city's name as a title unless a conflict is discovered couldn't be more no-brainer'd. In fact, one would have to be aware of the US "city, state" convention to add "state" - with a comma - to a new US-city article title. Go figure. THEPROMENADER 13:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. What is so difficult? Seriously. The question of creating new articles is somewhat misleading, because articles for every incorporated municipality as of the 2000 Census already exist. older ≠ wiser 14:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew about the bot, but I didn't realise that city articles had been so massively created. Nothing misleading about that - the sense of my post remains the same. What has changed (to my awareness at least) is the breadth of the problem - and that it is not one that can correct itself through time (new articles). THEPROMENADER 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, quite a few Census Designated Places now have entries as well. --Ishu 15:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that there is an article for every CDP as well (there is some confusion about this as some CDPs don't quite correspond actual communities, but are somewhat arbitrarily defined to capture statistical data--and other CDPs are equivalent to something termed the Census terms county sub-divisions, which tends to get New Englanders all riled up because New England towns are much more than just county subdivisions--but that is another matter. older ≠ wiser 15:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with older - similar sentiment) Do you seriously believe there are editors who are completely unaware of the existing US settlement article naming convention (with or without knowledge of this written guideline or simply observing the names of other similar articles) that are adding new articles about US cities? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, this is changing things somewhat: both of you are forwarding "we have the majority" arguments (all articles already created, observe the existing (majority of articles)) - I'm going to be a bit of a hypocrite here in regard to an earlier statement - but this "majority" means little when the "majority" was generated by a single bot, not out of a natural evolution or consensus. I could ask "what was it like before the bot?" - but y'know what? Who cares? I'll maintain that it's what's there that counts, so I maintain my view that what's there has to be brought out of it's comma-disambiguation-U.S.-habit'd self-segregation to fall into line with the rest of Wiki. Just because the "US-difference" has been pre-imposed doesn't make it any less of a problem. THEPROMENADER 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

At the time the bot added the articles, the U.S. naming convention was already in place (although not without some disagreements) . The bot observed the convention, such as it was, while adding the articles. I had checked the history of several U.S. articles that pre-existed the bot, and IIRC, they were all at the city, state name some months before the bot began working. I still don't understand why you continue to dwell on the comma aspects of the convention -- of all the things under consideration here, that is the least likely to change. That practice is well-established in common usage. Do you include Australia, and Canada and all the other countries that use the comma convention (albeit with greater flexibility in application) as also needing to "fall into line with the rest of Wiki"? Why do you continue to treat U.S. articles as exceptional in using commas in place names, when there are many other countries that also do so? older ≠ wiser 15:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am targeting comma disambiguation in general - why is this the "least likely to change"? I hope that "majority" will not be the reason cited here too.

Again (and again) - just because a local practice is "common usage" doesn't mean that it's suited to publication - especially for an international publication such as Wiki.

I say "local" because the US "city, state" convention that you present here is only familiar common usage to those living in or very familiar with the US. Canada and Australia may be the same - I for one can confirm this, because my hometown - London, Ontario - is perhaps the nec plus ultra of examples of cities needing disambiguation. Locally (namely from other provinces) we say "London, Ontario", but from other countries (and when I speak of my hometown here) we say "London, Canada" because many don't have a clue what or where Ontario is. The French news always speak of US events as happening in "(city), in the U.S.", or "the US city of (city), in the state of (State)".

Perhaps now you have a better idea why I find the city, state 'convention' (and other "local" disambiguation) so narrow-minded and unsuited to Wiki. THEPROMENADER 15:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't actually, on two points. 1) Why is it that the comma convention is used for articles in so many other countries besides the U.S.? Surely you're not going to suggest that they are all trying to emulate the U.S.? I really do not understand your objections to it. 2) The naming conventions for places were quite deliberately allowed to be country-specific, to reflect local practices, so there is little basis for objecting to this practice as being un-Wiki. older ≠ wiser 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that a good 90% of contributors who start an article about a city (the bot notwithstanding) either live in or near the place they are writing about. It is only natural that its contributors treat these articles in a way that reflects their everyday habits - this is the entire raison d'être of the "City, State" convention, as if it didn't exist in everyday use in the US, it wouldn't be imposed here. Same for every other country. No thought was paid to this ahead of time; it is entirely possible (here) to preserve a respective "normal way of doing things" and this is exactly what many have done.

As for questions of emulation: it doesn't matter who's techniques are similar, and who's trying to emulate who, it's only the result that can be criticised. Don't you find it odd that most non-English speaking countries are in either single-name or "city, country" disambiguation? Wouldn't it be odd if I moved Paris to Paris, Île-de-France? "What the hell is the Île-de-France?" many will ask, "and what country is it in?". You see, those defending the "city, state" convention are not thinking objectively - here I'm not suggesting that we use "country" in the stead of "state", I just state this here to prove a point.

There's nothing wrong with the comma'd "state to state" method itself, it's just that it's not suited to the media that is Wiki, especially in light of other Wiki articles, other forms of disambiguation and Wiki's internationality.

Also, in print, and to those unfamiliar with the subject spoken of, the comma is not an instinctive form of disambiguation. Parentheses are.

"Un-Wiki" is a pretty vague term - I won't attempt to define it. Instead I can say "doesn't go with the rest of Wiki's methodology" or "doesn't have readers of other nationalities in mind". At least for me, Wiki should be a knowledge base for the world over - but in some ways it seems that, through country-specific "settlement conventions", some are carving out little homes of their own best suited to those of their own nationality. THEPROMENADER 19:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the national variety of English appropriate to these articles; Serge excepted, and I think that is a localism. Septentrionalis 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

To Promenader, I must say, your chain of reasoning has me completely baffled. One of the major attractions of Wiki is that local practices can be reflected. I don't see why we'd want to abandon that. BTW, my use of "Un-Wiki" was a shorthand of your assertion that it was "unsuited to Wiki". I should have been clearer. I don't see how it is not suited for Wiki, or how it is in any way less suitable for Wiki than parenthetical disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 20:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of the things I love most about Wiki is its "internationalism" - you never know where other contributors are editing from, nor where readers are reading from. I don't think segregation is in the interest of this. The information is supposed to be here for the world over to understand, but if each makes his own "rules" then that just adds an extra span to the communication bridge. Wiki already has a disambiguation convention that is already in widespread use, and I frankly don't see the "need" (but do see the motivation) to carve out a particular set of rules that only those making them can understand. Think to my "Île de France" example, then think back to the US - or Canada. THEPROMENADER 20:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But see, that's where I get confused. The practice of using the comma convention is not U.S.-specific. In what way does it diminish the internationalism of the project? Why would you want to impose some invented artificial form when there is perfectly appropriate local usage? As for Paris, Île-de-France -- just how common is such a formulation in the English language? If it is not a common form in English, then there is no justification for using it in the English language Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think I'm forwarding the "we have a majority" view, then I haven't been clear enough. I'm forwarding the "it works, and is simpler and more natural than any alternative" viewpoint. Using Paris, Isle-de-France is not a relevent comparison, as this is the English-language wikipedia. It may be reasonable that the naming convention for articles about places in non-English-speaking countries is different. A more relevent example for you might be moving Johannesberg to Johannesberg, Gauteng. I notice that is currently a red link, but that there are 46 articles in Category:Gauteng Province with names that end in ", Gauteng", and the category contains more than just towns in its 91 articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer to both: Forget the US then : comma placename convention is country-specific. This form of disambiguation is a common local habit and not a name, but both the practice and appended disambiguation are only readily recognised by people familiar with the country. Forget English-speaking only, as most Americans won't recognise the "disambiguation tool" of even England - what's the "Kent" in Kingston, Kent? But I do understand that this doesn't matter if the appendage's only use is disambiguation.

I'm going to take a step back from this and think it over a couple days, as I'm losing my objectivity in the matter. On one hand I see a majority of English-speaking countries using the comma convention with their own choice of disambiguation (province/county/state - mostly UK, commonwealth and US places), many with pre-disambiguation (the same bot ?) such as Sandton, Gauteng in the example provided (Sandton is an empty redirect to Sandton, Gauteng), yet on the other, other countries are disambiguated with their country (South_Canterbury, New_Zealand)... as is disambiguation in many non-English speaking countries. This widespread variation seems, in a single subject (places) in a single publication, to be so damn... messy. This system, as it is, is not at all in the interest of ignorant readers - I've even an inkling that a "top-down" disambiguation (meaning "Country (, state if necessary)" would be best for the media that is Wiki - but I've not mulled at any length to that depth of the matter.

In all, the present system is a gradual and quite natural product of "local" contributors making "local" articles in their own "local" language - natural, yes, but the combined result leaves much to be desired - there has to be a better way to a universally-understandable end. But we won't get there by defending one detail or another; the whole thing has to be thought through as a whole - objectively. Enough for tonight. THEPROMENADER 23:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(Changing example since Kingston, Kent obviously needs some sort of disambiguation) People who don't know what Kent is get no more information from Bishopsbourne, Kent than they get from Bishopsbourne. People reading a biography may get the context they need from "Bill was born in Bishopsbourne" (wave mouse over piped link) if they know where Kent is but have never heard of Bishopsbourne, and don't particularly care for the purpose of what they are reading. If the reader is going to click the link anyway, it makes no difference to him/her what the article title is.

New Zealand was only ever a single British colony like a state of Australia or (the older states of) the USA. It doesn't have an equivalent level of government to states/provinces/counties.

I'm open to change, but (like you I think) would want to see an improvement to the experience for both readers and editors. I don't believe the currently proposed changes improve the experience. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

← realign

Scott, you wrote:

may get the context they need from "Bill was born in Bishopsbourne" (wave mouse over piped link) if they know where Kent is but have never heard of Bishopsbourne, and don't particularly care for the purpose of what they are reading.

This is a moot point. If Bishopsbourne was named by city name only the statement would be "Bill was born in Bishopsbourne, Kent". No mouse waving required and the reader can just as easily click on Kent as on Bishopsbourne, if that is what he desires. The current guideline encourages use of "born in Bishopsbourne" or "born in Bishopsbourne, Kent", neither allows the user to click on Kent. Yes, the current guideline does not prevent the editor to reference cities as Bishopsbourne, Kent, but it does not encourage it. The proposal to disambiguate only when necessary encourages a style that allows more functional links to cities. Thus, it improves the reader experience. --Serge 02:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So to paraphrase your response, your belief is that sometimes naming articles without ", state" will make the readers experience better by encouraging contributors to be less lazy. You believe that as the actual article is named "Bishopsbourne", editors will write "Bill was born in [[Bishopsbourne]], [[Kent]]" (rendered as "Bill was born in Bishopsbourne, Kent"), but if the article was renamed to "Bishopsbourne, Kent", editors would not write "Bill was born in [[Bishopsbourne, Kent|]], [[Kent]]" (note use of pipe trick to shorten typing: "Bill was born in Bishopsbourne, Kent"). Have I correctly understood your comment? As an editor who mostly edits Australian articles, I'm inclined to write something like "Joe was born in [[Horsham, Victoria|]] in [[Victoria (Australia)|]], [[Australia]]" ("Joe was born in Horsham in Victoria, Australia"). I usually put "in" between the town and state, and a comma between state and country, both in Wikipedia and in speech while outside Australia. It is quicker to type "Horsham, Victoria|" than to check whether Horsham refers to the correct town. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But don't you have to make sure that links you make go to the right place for all other (non US city) links you make anyway? Why should certain articles be treated differently to all other articles? --Polaron | Talk 04:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Australia has only 6 exceptions, which I can remember what they are, so checking is generally not needed. USA has only a few exceptions. Until recently, the Canadian exceptions were easy to remember too (not sure now). Links to UK places always need to be checked, as they seem to be able to be just about anywhere, and I generally do not know the name of the county a town is in, so would need to check/search anyway. Most UK placenames seem to be ambiguous with either a person who lived/was knighted there, or a place somewhere else named after the founder's birthplace, so if I do know the county, I could guess, if I don't I'd have to search anyway. The Brits seem to have taken the view that since their places are older, they get first dibbs on the name with no qualifying info. I'd like to draw them into line, too. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget the cross-Atlantic dispute over Lancaster. Battles like that are one reason I support keeping a clear, straighforward naming convention. Word for word, articles names are perhaps the most argued-over part of Wikipedia. Strong conventions minimize unproductive debates over small details. We certainly can't look back on our time spent here as being the high points of our editing careers. -Will Beback · † · 07:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is why i'm increasingly persuaded that wiki should have a world convention. But what to use to disambiguate, and what purpose (informative (list) or simple redirection) will this disambiguation serve? This would need to be discussed from scratch, and from start to end before even thinking of implementing anything of the sort.THEPROMENADER

Matawan, New Jersey

I see that the earlier discussion of Matawan has been archived, so it may be worth explaining why it is a particularly interesting example: the bare name is not always the easiest to use, even when it is in fact unambiguous. How does the reader or editor know it is unambiguous?

In the case of Matawan, New Jersey, there are (at least) two homophones: Mattawan, Michigan and Matteawan, New York; I think there's one in West Virginia, too. Why should an editor or reader need to know the spelling of a town in Michigan to know where Matawan, New Jersey is located? Why require a gazeteer to use an encyclopedia? Septentrionalis 20:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is someone looking for the article in the first place? As for the city name itself, If it needs disambiguation, there is no problem at all with disambiguating it - but that doesn't mean that we have to do it ahead of time when it is not necessary. The role of a title here is to sort, not to educate. If education is the goal in a title, "city, state" is only halfway there - and who says the reader knows anything of the state? What country is it in? As giving a title an "education" role will most always result in a title lengthy and cumbersome, there's no point in even going there. THEPROMENADER 22:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I oppose "educational" titling, here and elsewhere. Please read what I wrote; do not ascribe to me arguments and comments I do not agree with. Septentrionalis 22:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

~~Why is my comment down here?~~ Septentrionalis, you clearly indicated that you would like to, through disambiguation, distinguish homophones and waylay possible spelling discrpencies. Although this is a weak argument (for city, state disambiguation), this is more than simple sorting and is indeed worrying over points of "education". I did my best to see through this, and pointed out that this as well as other "educative" titles are rather pointless here. I may not have been clear in my propos, but really. THEPROMENADER 01:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And if you really wanted a solution for homophones or similar spellings, you could suggest something like Google's "did you mean?" line. This problem (and argument), in relation with (and as a defense for) the "City, State" convention is rather non sequitur. THEPROMENADER 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If the likelihood is considered high enough that someone looking for a homophone of Matawan will type in Matawan, then a disambiguation note should be posted at the top of the article per WP:DAB:

This article is about the city in New Jersey. For the city in Michigan, see Mattawan. For the city in New York, see Matteawan.

U.S. cities are no different from other articles, and all of these cases arise in other types of articles too, and the general Wiki-wide conventions and guidelines already handle them. I don't see why we should handle these situations when they apply to U.S. city articles in a manner that is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia (i.e., disambiguating when it is not required). --Serge 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you've said this how many times before? "We must ignore the fact that all our guidelines are made up of scotch tape and piano wire, and follow them to any conclusion, however inconvenient." Septentrionalis 22:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Any naming convention, no matter how inconvenient and irrational, can be forced to work with enough redirects, dab headers, and dab pages; arguing that some particular convention can fixed up in that manner is an admission of failure. Septentrionalis 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote; do not ascribe to me arguments and comments I do not agree with. I have not argued here nor ever before that we should follow process/policy/guidelines for the sake of following guidelines even when doing so creates "invonvenience". However, I don't see how in this case following the Wiki-wide conventions and guidelines for handling situations like this leads to inconvenience. --Serge 23:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Matteawan currently redirects to Matawan, New Jersey, not to Matteawan, New York, which is a redirect to Beacon, New York. --Serge 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And that is an excellent argument for not expecting the place-name Matteawan, unqualified, to denote the place in New York (which happens to be a neighborhood in Beacon), although it is clearly primary over the archaic spelling of Matawan. Septentrionalis 22:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why should Matteawan redirect to a homophone when there is a subject with that spelling? Regardless, this seems irrelevant to this discussion. If it should redirect to the place in Jersey, then the issue of whether it should be, or redirect to, the place in New York is moot. --Serge 23:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Matteawan redirects to Matawan, New Jersey because Matawan, New Jersey was sometimes so spelled in the eighteenth century. Both placenames derive from the same Algonquian word. But I observe to what inconveniences Serge is going in order to avoid writing, "If it should redirect to Matawan, New Jersey, then the issue of whether it should be, or redirect to, Matteawan, New York, is moot." Septentrionalis 23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? In this case with all the different spellings, writing "the place in X" is much more convenient than writing "the-actual-name-and-getting-it-right, X". Anyway, if Matawan, New Jersey is the primary usage of Matteawan (because of 18th century spelling and because the 'hood in Beacon is so not notable), then Matteawan should redirect to Matawan, New Jersey or Matawan, depending on where the article is. But regardless of where it is, in either case, there should be dab notice at the top of the article:

Matteawan redirects here. For the neighborhood with that name in Beacon, New York, see Beacon, New York

Again, I don't understand the relevance of this to anything we're talking about. --Serge 23:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope the following rephrasing, which I put on Serge's talk page, will be helpful to someone:

I strongly support using

Matawan, New Jersey
Mattawan, Michigan
Matteawan, New York (assuming it ever gets a separate article, which it may; it was a separate town before Beacon, New York was formed.)

even though each town name, without the state, is (I think) technically unambiguous.

Matawan, New Jersey has the following advantages.

Anyone looking for the article will know where to find it, without worrying about whether there is another Matawan, so spelt, somewhere else. [and whether or not there is such a Matawan.]
- The same applies to editors making links to Matawan.
The link to Matawan is, by MOS, from the first mention of the place, which is usually something like "in Matawan, New Jersey." or "Born: Matawan, New Jersey" in an info-box. Making the link "in Matawan, New Jersey" is simple and straightforward.
If the information being inserted happens to refer to "Matawan, New York" (as an old spelling of Mattawean, New York), the link Matawan, New York will either be a redlink or link to the right place. Matawan will link to the wrong place, without warning. Septentrionalis 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This helps a lot, but I'm still not quite there. What are you suggesting that Matawan, Mattawan and Matteawan be? Redirects? If so, each redirect to what? The respective city articles? Dab pages? If dab pages, separate or shared? If shared, what should the title of that page be? Or nothing so that Matawan, etc. are always red? --Serge 23:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, here is why I think this whole Matawan example is moot and irrelevant to the issue of which naming system we use (predisambiguate or disambiguate only when required).

Whether there is a compelling argument for making Matawan and all of its homophones be redirects to a single dab page is beyond the scope of this discussion. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. We can assume either way, and I still see no relevance to this discussion.

First, let's say there is a compelling argument for making Matawan and all of its homophones be redirects to a single dab page that has links to each of the city articles at their qualified names. If so, then that's a case of necessary disambiguation' and what we do is the same regardless of which naming system we use.

Now let's assume there is no such compelling argument. In that case, either Matawan would redirect to Matawan, New Jersey, or vice versa, depending on what system we use. Same with the homophones (e.g., Mattawan, Michigan would redirect to Mattawan, or vice versa). So the only difference is that someone searching for Matawan or Matawan, New Jersey would end up at an article named either Matawan, Matawan, New Jersey or Matawan (New Jersey), depending on whether we are using the predisambiguation system or not. This is no different from someone entering Pacific Grove or Pacific Grove, California and ending up at an article named either Pacific Grove, Pacific Grove, California or Pacific Grove (California), depending on which system we use.

Thus, I don't see how this Matawan stuff is relevant to the issue of which naming system we use, and why. But maybe I'm still missing something. --Serge 00:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added a phrase, in the hope of making my post clearer. But if that doesn't work, fine. It may be that Serge will never understand why several of us find his proposal unsystematic, irregular, and harmful to Wikipedia. If so, I ask him simply to accept the fact that I am at least, and I believe others are, resolutely and unconditionally opposed to it. Since he doesn't understand the arguments against, he is not the best judge of their relative merits; most of his opponents, however, seem to understand and support both WP:NAME and this guideline. Septentrionalis 06:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, guess what? It doesn't matter if your feelings are resolute and unconditional. If a convention is not and has never been supported by consensus, then there is no consensus to suport that convention, period. The convention was implemented without consensus, continues to exist without consensus, and those who maintain a vice-like grip on enforcment are behaving in a manner contrary to the fundamental operating principle of consensus, which supersedes all other policies. Nohat 07:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson, how did we get from the Matawan discussion to "my proposal"? In any case, I have gone to great length to explain why I don't understand the point you're trying to make with this Matawan example. As part of that effort, I asked you a series of questions, none of which you've answered. I ask again the most important one: given the Matawan and related homohones are at city, state respectively, what are you suggesting that Matawan, Mattawan and Matteawan be?

As far as you and others being resolutely and unconditionally opposed to "my proposal" (whatever that is), that's not very helpful. There are significant numbers who are resolutely and unconditionally opposed to the current disputed guideline, for which a consensus has never been established. So what? We need to works towards a guideline that is supported by consensus. --Serge 07:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Serge is the major and perduring advocate of "disambiguate only when necessary"; when I posted, he was the only one discussing this section. If he finds "my proposal" tendentious, I retract; but the other comments here seem to me to point in other directions, even now. I am not claiming a veto; but the bold text above is my !vote, given all existing arguments. Septentrionalis 19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This whole Matawan discussion is a red herring anyway, because the name "Matawan" is ambiguous, and so the normal rules of disambiguation apply. In this case I think it is a clear candidate for primary-topic disambiguation. Nohat 07:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not convinced that Matawan is ambiguous; currently it redirects to Matawan, New Jersey. But, either it is ambiguous, or it isn't. If it is ambiguous, then, as you say, the normal dab rules apply regardless of which naming convention is being used, and the whole issue is moot. But even if it is not ambiguous, then the article is either at Matawan or Matawan, New Jersey, while the other is a redirect to the article, Which is which depends on which convention is used. So I don't see how the situation is any different, or more or less "convenient", based on which naming convention is used. I don't understand the point of the Matawan example. It is indeed a red herring. What still bothers me, however, is that Pmanderson still apparently thinks it illustrates something pertinent to our discussion, yet he can't seem to explain what it is. --Serge 07:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The claim that there is not and never has been consensus for this naming convention is rewriting history. There was consensus at the time it was adopted (when the Wikipedia community was much smaller), and has never been consensus to change it to any particular alternative since that time. I don't think there has ever been consensus to "change it, but we can't agree on what to", but I can't be certain of that, as it's a silly position to take - and please don't start a poll on that question :-) --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. There was no consensus when the policy was implemented de facto (by a single user) and has been continually unsupported by consensus since then. It is not and never has been an official Wikipedia policy because it is not and never has been supported by consensus. We continue to debate and attempt to come to consensus on what the official, consensus-supported naming convention should be, not whether it should be changed. It was never supported by consensus and has always been marked as a policy that is disputed. Disputed policies are not official policies and do not carry the weight of official policies. Nohat 07:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through the archives, and at best one could claim a supermajority of a very small sample group existed at one point, but never a consensus. The number and size of the archives here, almost entirely dominated by discussion about U.S. cities, speaks volumes about how much this guideline has always been in dispute and lacked a consensus of support. --Serge 07:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That also is not quite right either. The convention was in place for several months before Ram-Man and Rambot began generating U.S. city articles from U.S. Census data. I do wish that people would stop saying that this convention was implemented by a single user. That is patently false. There was discussion. There was agreement, admittedly weak by today's standards, but that was what passed for decision-making at the time. To retroactively apply current standards for determining consensus to those early discussions is not helpful. This tact of claiming that there never was any consensus for the convention is nothing but subterfuge. older ≠ wiser 11:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This whole thread is rather pointless because it brings up only cherry-picked minority points that in no way affect the majority of existing Wiki articles. I suggest we archive it altogether.

Although they differ from the rest of Wiki, the "city, state" articles are already there, so there's no point in beating around the bush of their "legitimacy" - "Should they be corrected, and if so, how?" should be the question here. Think forward, and the discussion will follow. THEPROMENADER 13:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's "should they be changed"? Whether that change would be a correction, a style change, or some other convention, is a separate issue that is not relevant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, deciding whether the article names should be changed must be based on something. That something would presumably include an evaluation of the change as being a correction, style change, adopting another convention, etc. It seems like flip-sides of the same issue to me, and certainly relevant to the question of whether they are to be changed. --Serge 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Promenader, in general I'm in favor of archiving this section, when the main point is resolved: Pmanderson's continued insistence that there is something relevant to our discussion/debate in the Matawan example. As long as he thinks there is something relevant here, then either he, or we, are missing something, and I'd rather find out what that it is and who is missing it rather than sweep it under the archive carpet unresolved. --Serge 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(Assume, for simplicity, that we stick with the comma-convention when we do include state.) Under all proposals to "disambiguate only when necessary", the location of the article on Matawan, New Jersey, could be at Matawan or at Matawan, New Jersey, depending on whether Matawan is ambiguous or not. This depends on the spelling of Mattawan, Michigan (and other towns). Most readers and editors interested in Matawan, New Jersey won't know that Mattawan, Michigan exists, much less be certain how it is spelled; they therefore won't know where the article on Matawan, New Jersey, is.

So much is a statement of fact; what follows is a value judgment.

Of course, given enough redirects and dabs and dab headers, they will be able, eventually, to find the article; but that's true of any system, including giving articles numerical designators at random, like the Britannica. Each click, each redirection, each dab header is a cost; there is no reason to incur those costs.

There are other advantages to the present system, ranging from convenience of linking to uniform usage of the category on Monmouth County, New Jersey, which would, under "only when necessary", contain Matawan, Aberdeen, New Jersey, Hazlet, Middletown Township, New Jersey, Red Bank, and Little Silver (I think; half of these could be ambiguous without my knowing it, as above.) Septentrionalis 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For the third time, what do you think Matawan should be? Currently, it is a redirect to Matawan, New Jersey. Do you agree with this? If so, what difference does it make in terms of any "cost" if the article is at Matawan, and Matawan, New Jersey is a redirect to it? If not, then whatever you think Matawan should be, if your argument is compelling that it would apply regarding of what the default naming convention is, so, again, what difference would there be in terms of "cost"? --Serge 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it clearer to explain again from scratch. I'm not asking Serge to agree with me; I have done my best to explain what my objection on this subject is.

There is a case to make Matawan a redirect to Matawan, New Jersey, as it is; there is a case to make it a dab between the three (dabs often include words of similar spelling). I think I would leave it a redirect; but that's a case-by-case decision.

A redirect is a cost; some readers think the redirection label is ugly. I'm not one of them, but I've seen it recently. The dab headers Serge proposes above are also costly; they take up room and reading time, and a reader needs to click on them. We may differ on how large this cost is, and whether it's worth incurring; but it does exist.

I don't understand Serge's last question at all; it has been garbled by the speed of his typing. Please rephrase.

Completely interchangeable?

Is it, perhaps, "what's the difference between having the article at Matawan and a redirect from Matawan, New Jersey and having the article at Matawan, New Jersey and a redirect from Matawan?" Septentrionalis 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would answer my own rephrased question thus: "If an article and a redirect are completely interchangeable, there is no reason to have this discussion at all. There is no reason not to have all US city articles at any of the suggested possible places, as long as redirects from the others exist. If, however, they're not completely interchangeable, that's the difference." Septentrionalis 19:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But if they're completely interchangeable, why use the more complicated one as the title? The state name in these cases is unnecessary. --Polaron | Talk 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In short, yes. But let's indeed start from scratch. I've summarized to the best of my ability in the new Take 2 section below. --Serge 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If they're completely interchangeable, why do we need a guideline at all? Septentrionalis 19:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The category-specific guidelines each tell us how to disambiguate within particular categories of articles when disambiguation is required so that articles are disambiguated consistently within each category. But when disambiguation is not required, and the general guidelines dictate a clear and specific name for an article, that's what we should use, regardless of what the category-specific guidelines say. Category-specific guidelines to do not trump general Wiki-wide conventions and guidelines. --Serge 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! We just need to apply the overarching principle of WP:NAME and nothing else. Specific naming guidelines are only to be used in cases where there might be confusion in how to disambiguate. A specific naming guideline should not go against the more fundamental naming principle but should just clarify it in certain cases. That is one point of contention of strictly applying the US city naming guideline even in cases where it is not needed. If it is agreed that the simple name and longer name are interchangeable, then use the simple name. --Polaron | Talk 19:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But I don't agree they are interchangeable. Why would anyone who does agree discuss this guideline, or care where the articles are? Septentrionalis 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If they're not interchangeable then we disambiguate. Whether we do it with a comma or parentheses is a totally separate question. --Polaron | Talk 20:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson, above, you made this fascinating and revealing statement:

If an article and a redirect are completely interchangeable, there is no reason to have this discussion at all. There is no reason not to have all US city articles at any of the suggested possible places, as long as redirects from the others exist.

No wonder we are having so much difficulty understanding each other!

First, we are only talking about situations where the article and redirect are completely interchangeable (like Pacific Grove and Pacific Grove, California) - all other cases require disambiguation by definition (like Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, and there are no significant issues on what to do in those cases (except whether to disambiguate with a comma or parens which is certainly a separate issue).
As far as there being "no reason" to have articles such as the one on Pacific Grove, California at either Pacific Grove or Pacific Grove, California, as long as the other is a redirect to which the article is at, I hope you're kidding! The reason, whether you accept it or not, to have the article at Pacific Grove and not Pacific Grove, California has been stated multiple times here, and is per WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate: When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate.

--Serge 20:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the phrase When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate from WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate is taken out of context. In context, it is not providing guidance with respect to how to name an article. It is providing guidance on deciding whether two (or more) potentially ambiguous topics need to be disambiguated (and whether links to the topics should appear on a disambiguation page or in disambiguating notes at the top of an article.

This really typifies the fundamental nature of the disagreement over this issue. On the one side, this convention is a naming convention, providing guidance about how the articles are named in a consistent manner for a particular domain of articles. It is more specific than the general convention and is somewhat of an exception, which the general convention specifically allows. On the other side, the general convention is regarded to take absolute precedence over everything else, and this specific convention is seen as being in abject violation of that supreme rule. While the naming convention also disambiguates, that is in a sense a secondary effect of the convention. older ≠ wiser 20:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Serge, this page is not a specialisation of Wikipedia:Disambiguation, it is a specialisation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which says ...what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. The issue here appears to be whether or not the US settlement naming convention is a reasonable minimum of ambiguity and make linking easy and second nature. Some of us believe it is. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Scott, this page is not a "specialization" of either WP:NAME or WP:DAB. But all articles (not "article domains") in Wikipedia are subject to the policies and guidelines on both of those pages. And something else that WP:NAME says at WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things is:

Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

Like most any U.S. city, the town of Pacific Grove, California, to use an example of a small city that has a unique name, is often referred to as Pacific Grove, California, particularly when outside of the area. However, most references to it are local, and the most common name used to refer to is Pacific Grove. Same with all other U.S. cities. --Serge 00:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

About three-quarters of the way down WP:NAME a.k.a. Wikipedia:Naming conventions is the line:

Discussion, rationale, and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)

Since Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) redirects to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements), I consider this page is a specialisation of that page, as I expect would most other readers. The current naming convention facilitates ensuring that article names do not "conflict with the names of other people or things", whilst maintaining a reasonable level of recognition, ambiguity, and ease of linking. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But the current U.S. city naming conventions do not encourage use of the most common name, which is a very important guideline which is adhered to all over Wikipedia for good reason. Naming conventions used in certain domains are in conflict with it. TV series episodes are one; but they are currently being fixed accordingly (see WT:TV-NC). U.S. city names are another. They've been broken long enough. Let's fix it too! --Serge 04:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the TV matter in mediation? Is this a good precedent? Septentrionalis 05:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's just say there are a few people (namely one) over there who won't concede. But that will end soon. And before anyone suggests I look in the mirror, I will remind you that here the sides are more or less equally split on whether there needs to be change to the guidelines/conventions, or not. At TV-NC a clear supermajority favors the status quo, which there is stated clearly to be disambiguate only when necessary. --Serge 17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the argument that these are completely interchangeable leads to a substantial change of practice. If it doesn't matter which is the article and which is the redirect, then it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, maybe we should change WP:DAB to say so. It is, after all, only a guideline. But a difference that doesn't matter can't justify 100's of K of argument, and literally thousands of page moves. Septentrionalis 05:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
By "completely interchangable" we mean those cases where currently [[Cityname]] redirects to [[Cityname, Statename]]; it is not the same as "not mattering" - that's your twist on it. We agree it does matter which is which. Never-the-less, when one redirects to the other, operationally, they are "interchangeable". --Serge 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

hunh?? If it matters which one is which, then they can't be operationally interchangeable. But this may be a side issue. Septentrionalis 23:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Difference

But I think it does matter. Each method gives advantages to the encyclopedia; and WP:DAB is only valuble when it aids the encyclopedia. On the side of "only when necessary" is
- Titles are shorter. This would be more of an advantage if all these articles didn't already exist.

On the side of "Use City, state" is (as stated under #Matawan)

Predictability: You know the article will be under Matawan, New Jersey.
- Ordinarily, this would be an advantage of "only when necessary"; most simple names are unambiguous, so predicting the simple name usually works. Here about half will need disambiguation and half won't, so it's a guess under "o.w.n." which is right.
Natural and intuitive links. Most of the articles linking directly to Matawan, New Jersey actually say "Matawan, New Jersey" at first reference.
Error correction. Mattawan, New Jersey (sic) will either be a redlink or redirect to the intended place. Mattawan, New Jersey sends you the wrong place. Septentrionalis 05:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The biggest advantage on the side of "only when necessary" is that U.S. city titles are consistent with arguably the most-followed naming convention in Wikipedia, as reflected at WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things:

Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

The most common name of Houston is Houston, not Houston, Texas. And this is true for small not famous cities like Pacific Grove, California too, to which the vast majority of references are made locally where adding state context is not required. So the most common name for it is Pacific Grove, period. The advantage of following Wiki-wide conventions and guidelines is that it reduces unproductive debates over conflicts, like this one going on for over three years now. Enough already.

Let me be perfectly clear. If these U.S. city articles were independent, and not part of Wikipedia, then there would be no argument to have them at Cityname rather than Cityname, Statename (where disambiguation is not required). It is because we're in Wikipedia, where the convention/guideline is to name articles accordingly to the most common name of the subject, and to disambiguate names only when necessary, that we have this conflict. To demand some other independent-of-Wikipedia-conventions defense for the change to the guideline, if that's what anyone is doing, is missing the whole point. --Serge 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me be equally clear. Consistency of this guideline with some other guideline makes, as such, no difference to the encyclopedia. Both guidelines are invisible to the readers of Wikipedia, and are justified only by their effect on articles. Insofar as WP:DAB is a good idea, we should follow it, and no further; and this is the only reason why we should worry about consistency with it. People see processes that are quick hacks built out of gaffer tape and string (especially the fragile politicised compromises hammered out over much argument), but assume they are all polished stainless steel devices of immaculate and well thought-out design that mesh together seamlessly. There is an unfortunate tendency to treat processes as received wisdom.

Furthermore, the only phrase in WP:DAB that seems to me to bear on this matter is:

Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band?) When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page.

There is a risk of confusion between Matawan, New Jersey, and Mattawan, Michigan. But, more importantly,
This is, in context, intended to prevent Joker (card), because Joker is the primary name. If it were intended to prevent Matawan, New Jersey, Richard I of England, or the use of both genus and species in a Linnaean name, it would be clearer.Septentrionalis 21:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But the use the most common name convention and guideline does not exist in Wikipedia for no reason. Consistently using the most common name for article titles (or the most common name disambiguated in a manner that makes the common name easy to distinguish from the disambiguation information), does make a difference to the encyclopedia. It means readers and editors can rely on the Wikipedia article title for the following information:

What is the most common name of the subject.
Whether the article subject is a unique subject for that name.

The current U.S. city naming convention does not convey this information to readers which is inconsistent with the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. When you're at Pacific Grove, California or Matawan, New Jersey you have no way of knowing whether there are any other Pacific Groves or Matawans. If you're at Pacific Grove, you know it's the one and only. When you're at Portland (Oregon), you know there are other Portlands. --Serge 21:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why any reader would care whether there is another Pacific Grove or not. If there is some reason why he should, as there is at Mattawan, Michigan, it can be added, as it is there. Septentrionalis 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of the world wide web - links to links to links - is nobody can "see" what may or may not interest others. We all go to some page for a reason, and end up learning about something else, getting interested, clicking, etc., you know the drill. Wikipedia is a subset of all that, and works the same way. For example, I learned about the city Cork by looking for the article on the material. Someone might be from Anytown, Anystate. Finding their town at Anytown, Anystate might peak their interest... "you mean there is another Anytown? Where? I never heard of it." In fact, when I first came upon La Jolla, San Diego, California (at the time I think it was at La Jolla, California, I remember thinking, "you mean there is another La Jolla?" When I found out there wasn't, I began to wonder why it was diambiguated. It confused me. The rest is history.

As far Pacific Grove, California goes, there is no other Pacific Grove, so there is no notice to place there. But the article being at Pacific Grove, California wrongly implies that there is another article in Wikipedia whose most common name for the subject is Pacific Grove. --Serge 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

First there is no real assurance that any article title is actually the most common name--and further there is no real need for the article title to fulfill such a function. Second there is no need for the form of an article title to indicate whether the title is unique, again that added functionality is secondary at best and unreliable in the best of circumstances. If you're at Pacific Grove, all you can really know for any certainty is that is what the title of the article is. There may well be other Pacific Groves for which there are no articles as yet, or it may be the primary topic, in which case you'd have to examine the disambiguation page (assuming it exists). And sometimes articles are disambiguated by choosing an alternate name (i.e., check vs. cheque). Expecting that the article title alone can adequately communicate such information is wrong-headed. The common name principle was intended to maximize reader convenience and search page results. Attributing any other functionality to the common name principle is an after the fact invention. The consistency afforded by the naming convention is a real benefit for readers and editors alike. If you want to link to a place in the U.S., you can, with a fairly high degree of reliability, link to placename, statename and expect to have a good link. Without this convention, one could have little assurance that a link to placename would actually link to what you'd expect. Linking to placename, statename, is consistent (mostly), easy to remember and easy to understand (even if one is unfamiliar with the convention). For readers, having some placenames at placename, state and other as just placename gives the appearance of inconsistency and raises questions of why is one named like that and the other not. older ≠ wiser 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you points are well-taken. The "functional" advantages of using the common name are real, but they're not of major importance. The main point remains: the appearance of inconsistency is much higher with the current guideline/convention as it is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Hence the three years of turmoil and debate. And you can't blame that on me. See the archives and countless U.S. city talk pages. As to the "linking problem", when linking to any Wiki article you should always check in a separate window/tab to look for and make sure you're linking to the correct article. Encouraging people to link without search/verify is not a plus of the current guideline, it's a minus. Enough already. --Serge 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

the appearance of inconsistency is much higher with the current guideline/convention as it is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. You say potayto, I say potahto. The convention is not so much an encouragement for people to not check links, as it is about making it easier for them to get it right the first time. older ≠ wiser 22:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If they're writing an article that links to a city they probably know whether it's unique or not. If they don't know, they guess and check [[Cityname]] and will immediately find out by being either at the correct article or at a dab page. So, worst case, then they have to add a ", Statename" or "(Statement)". Big deal. This is the exact same procedure editors must follow with all links in all articles. As far as the "appearance of inconsistency" and potayto v.s. potahto -- what you and I think does not matter -- the years of endless turmoil here and the sudden peace in Canada when they dropped mandatory comma convention speaks volumes...

"Only when necessary" would produce not only the appearance of inconsistency but real inconsistency between Aberdeen, New Jersey, disambiguated, and Matawan, not disambiguated. Septentrionalis 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's tradeoff between inconsistencies. One inconsistency which causes nothing but turmoil and angst week after week, month after month, and year and year, and another whose adoption results in peace. I choose peace, thank you very much. --Serge 23:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Serge wrote "If they're writing an article that links to a city they probably know whether it's unique or not." I thank him for reminding me of the other point of this example. I see no reason (and Serge has never supplied any) for believing that someone writing about Matawan, New Jersey knows about Mattawan, Michigan; if they do know, that they know how it's spelled. If there is no reason to know, and some reason to believe that some editors will think they know and be wrong, why should we assume this? Septentrionalis 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You lost me again. Why is there any more or less need for the editor writing the article on Matawan to know about Mattawan under one system than under the other? --Serge 23:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If they're writing an article that links to a city they probably know whether it's unique or not. Why on earth would they know something like that? That's a pretty incredible assumption. older ≠ wiser 23:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying there's likelihood of familiarity, including having been at the article and thus knowing it's unique. Regardless of incredible of an assumption that may be, it's a moot point because even if they don't know, they're still in the same situation as any editor using any link in Wikipedia. --Serge 23:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should someone creating a link to a city in the U.S. be likely to have any special knowledge regarding uniqueness? When I'm not spending time arguing with you on this page, I create or edit a lot of articles about minor political figures in Michigan. Many of them, especially in the 19th century, were born in New York, or Connecticut, or Massachusetts, or Vermont. I generally have no idea whether the place name in those states is unique. But I do have a pretty good confidence that placename, statename is unique. I don't see why it's a moot point if the result is a link that works correctly 90% of the time versus a link that requires disambiguation probably half of the time. older ≠ wiser 03:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Matawan, Take 2

Okay, Pmanderson, let's start from scratch and see if we can clear this up.

For the articles in question, you have said you support the following three names:

As to what you think Matawan, Mattawan and Matteawan should be, is still not entirely clear. Above, you've said "there is a case to make Matawan a redirect to Matawan, New Jersey", and there is a case to make it dab, but you would probably leave it as a redirect. Does that mean you would support these redirects?

I would; I would also support, for reasons explained in the article, Matteawan → Matawan, New Jersey, as it now. I don't care about the pointing of redirects, as long as they're reasonable. Septentrionalis 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If not, what would you support for these names (more on this in the final three paragraphs of this post)?

If so, I don't undertand how this would be any different from just following the general Wikipedia naming guidelines (WP:NAME, WP:DAB), which is what I support. In particular, we would have the three articles at these names:

Along with these redirects:

You've alluded to higher "costs" going with what I support over what you support, but have yet to explain how anyone would borne what cost exactly with one system that would not be had with the other.

For example, you have ascribed the "cost" of the dab notice at the top of an article to my system, yet you have not explained how your system would avoid having the need for the same or similar notice. If someone looking for Matawan, New Jersey types in "Mattawan", under either system he is going to end up the article on "Mattawan, Michigan" (except with your system the title of that article will be Mattawan, Michigan, and with mine it will be Mattawan). If this user is to be helped, in both systems, we will need almost identical dab notices. In mine it would be:

This article is about the city in Michigan. For the city in New Jersey, see Matawan

In yours it would be:

This article is about the city in Michigan. For the city in New Jersey, see Matawan, New Jersey

The chief, perhaps the only, reason for a reader of Matawan, New Jersey to care about Mattawan, Michigan is if the Michigan town affects the location of the article, which is true only under the "only when necessary" system. Under the present system, we need no dab header, and don't have one. That's a lower cost. Septentrionalis 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Under the current system someone looking for Matawan, New Jersey thinks it is spelled with two ts will find himself at Mattawan, Michigan. The fact that there is currently no dab header to help such a reader at that article is hardly a solution to this problem, which you raised! If we want to cut costs in this manner, we have no more need of such a dab header in my system either. This is not an example of how one system creates costs that the other does not have - this is an example of system-independent problem and system-independent solution with identical costs in both systems. --Serge 20:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not on my computer. Mattawan, New Jersey is a redlink. Searching for it now gets me a search page with one irrelevant article, which at least tells me I was wrong. If it becomes a redirect, searching for it will send me to Matawan, New Jersey. If, however, we change practice, and people search for Mattawan, that will get them to Michigan. Septentrionalis 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For the life of me, I cannot understand why you think your predisambiguation system/convention has lower costs than following standard Wikipedia naming conventions, and, especially, why you think the Matawan example illustrates it.

Finally, and again, we agree the above decision about whether these particular city names (alone) should be dab pages or not is not a clear call. I just want to point out how things would look with both systems if we did decide to make them dabs. In both systems the articles would be disambiguated at:

In both systems, Matawan, Mattawan and Mattewan would all redirect to the same dab page, perhaps called Matewan (disambiguation), with links to all three city articles in question. So, here too I don't see why you think one system would have higher costs than the other. --Serge 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I recognize that Serge does not share my valuations. All I ask is that he recognize that I do not share his. Septentrionalis 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sharing valuations is one thing. Not understanding them or being able to explain them is another. --Serge 20:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

See my fourth effort at explanation at the end of the previous section. Septentrionalis 06:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your fourth explanation is a fair analysis of the two positions. However, it does not address much less explain what the "Matawan" homophone example is supposed to illustrate with respect to why this situation in particular is more or less problematic with one naming convention than the other. Could it be because there is no such explanation? That the Matawan example does not illustrate this? --Serge 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think at this point, I must quote Dr. Johnson's "Sir, I have supplied you with an explanation", and retire. I have explained what advantages the present convention seems to me to possess. I can only add that, in my judgment, they much outweigh the sole advantage I see to "only when necessary". Serge dusagrees, as is his right. I hope that some other editor will find a way to explain this point which will be clearer, whether or not they use this example. Septentrionalis 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on. I understand "what advantages the present convention seems to [you] to possess". I understand that you feel they outweigh the one and only advantage of the "only when necessary" system that you recognize. I understand that you don't think dictating the use of a name that is less common than the most common name for the subject of an article is a significant problem, despite the years of turmoil because of this.

What I don't understand because you haven't explained it is why you think the Matawan example, being a homophone, illustrates any of this better than any other example. I don't understand why you brought it up in the first place. Why did you think it was worth dredging out of the archives? That's what you haven't explained. In other words, you have not filled in this blank: What the Matawan/Mattwan/Mateawan example illustrates that other non-homophone examples do not is __________________ . --Serge 01:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it shows more clearly than most why the argument "undisambiguated = simple" is wrong. It's hard to know that Matawan is unambiguous. It's probably equally hard to know that any other town is unambiguous; but the fact that it depends on the choice of spelling by a small town in Michigan should be particularly vivid. How do you know, from reliable sources, that Pacific Grove is unambiguous? Septentrionalis 01:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, of course. I can only know (and care), that Pacific Grove, like any other Wikipedia article name, is unique within Wikipedia. That's how Wikipedia works. If nobody else is using it, you assume it's unique until proven otherwise. If an ambiguity is discovered later on, it's handled then. Again, this affects both systems similarly.

In the current system the article is at Pacific Grove, California, but Pacific Grove is a simple redirect to it (thus proving that Pacific Grove is unique within Wikipedia). If another Pacific Grove is found, then maybe Pacific Grove will become an article about that subject and a dab header will be added to it pointing to Pacific Grove, California, maybe it will become a dab page, maybe it will be changed to be a redirect to the new article with a dab header to Pacific Grove, California, etc. How it's handled will depend on the new subject named Pacific Grove, and it's relative notability to the California town.

In the dab-only-when-needed system, the whole thing would be handled similarly. No more or less knowledge is required. Initially, the CA town would be at Pacific Grove. When the new one is found, maybe Pacific Grove will become an article about that subject and the old one will be moved to Pacific Grove, California or Pacific Grove (California), and a dab header will be added to it pointing to the other, maybe it will become a dab page, maybe it will be changed to be a redirect to the new article with a dab header to Pacific Grove, California, etc. The only significant difference I see is that in the case where it moves from the common name to the dabbed name, links have to be updated, but this is standard Wikipedia editor work. Surely the frequency of new articles showing up that share names with existing U.S. cities is not any where near large enough to warrant this being a significant concern. --Serge 03:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And how will the reader know where we are in this process, and so whether to go to Pacific Grove or Pacific Grove, California?
Yes of course it's a concern; some American town changes name almost every year, and there is also the Commonwealth namestock. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Encouraging references that allow for state -OR- city links

Scott, above, you wrote:

I'm inclined to write something like "Joe was born in Horsham in Victoria, Australia"

It's good to know you're so disciplined and consistent. Wikipedia is better for it. But if you pick any U.S. city at random, and check on a half-dozen "what links here" links to it at random, you'll probably find that most references to it are of the [[Cityname, Statename]] form (rather than [[Cityname, Statename|Cityname]], [[Statename]] or [[Cityname, Statename|Cityname]] in [[Statename]]). Thus, most references to Portland, Oregon are of the form Portland, Oregon, not Portland, Oregon (nor Portland in Oregon, United States). In fact, this is one reason I think disambiguating city names (only when necessary, of course) with parentheses rather than the comma improves Wikipedia. It would put Portland at Portland (Oregon) and, since John Doe was born in Portland (Oregon) is non-standard, encourages the use of: John Doe was born in Portland, Oregon.

Of course, regardless of what method is used for cities that require dabbing, for cities that do not require dabbing, use of the optimal method that provides independent links to the state as well as the city is practically assured: John Doe was born in Pacific Grove, California. --Serge 17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the obvious "John Doe was born in Portland, Oregon"? Septentrionalis 21:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is in fact preferable. The link to a state in most cases in which that would be used is of limited value—and easily enough reached from the city article if you want to get there. Gene Nygaard 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -Will Beback · † · 22:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The conclusion of this section appears to be that authors will write the words and create the links they want to appear in the article, regardless of the titles of the pages they link to. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "John Doe was born in Portland, Oregon". It's just that "John Doe was born in Portland, Oregon" is better, and one system encourages one over the other. I just point it out as a counter-point to the advantage of the current system of making the link to the city article name easier to know without looking. The cost is we get a lot of "John Doe was born in Portland, Oregon" instead of "John Doe was born in Portland, Oregon". Neither is a major point; in this respect it's a draw. --Serge 00:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A few of you are missing the point here - it's all about context - a context that Wiki titles don't have. If I read of Bloom speaking of Blackrock, Kingstown and Dalkey in James Joyce's Ulysses, I can be pretty sure that I'm reading about the same in Ireland, but if we were to read here "He was born in Kingstown" here, it could be in Ireland, St. Vincent or the U.S. States of North Carolina or Maryland. "An American author born in Kingstown, Maryland " on the other hand - there you have both context and disambiguation. Kingstown, St. Vincent in a list, on the other hand... many would ask "where's St. Vincent?". Yes, I'm sure there are better examples - yesterday's Sandton, Gauteng for one. In-text links may be given context, but titles themselves have none.

I'm not there yet, but I'm really beginning to like the idea of a parantheses'd title linked (also) through a comma'd DAB and/or redirect. This works in all cases and provides an automatic "in-text context" where it is needed. THEPROMENADER 01:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Minimizing unproductive debates

Will, above you wrote:

Word for word, articles names are perhaps the most argued-over part of Wikipedia. Strong conventions minimize unproductive debates over small details. We certainly can't look back on our time spent here as being the high points of our editing careers.

I agree. In fact, this is one reason I support a change to the U.S. city guideline. Arguably, a measure of how problematic a given naming situation is, be it over a guideline or over a particular article name, is how much debate there is over it, and how long it has lasted. Here are a few examples, to illustrate.

Recently, there was a furious debate about the city in Ireland named Cork. It was at Cork and many of us felt that Cork should either be the article on the material or a dab page. The debate lasted for several weeks if not months, went through a few surveys, admin wars, etc. Finally, the city article was moved to Cork (city) and Cork became a dab page, and everything stopped. The dust settled, and everything was fine. No more debates.
As you know, the Canadian and U.S. city guidelines used to be shared, and there was much debate over that and over individual Canadian city names. Eventually, the Canadian guideline was split away, and changed, to explicitly allow for use of Cityname name only in certain cases, and, there again, all the debate and warring stopped.

As you also know, this debate over the U.S. city guideline has been ongoing with few if any short periods of peace (check the archives) since it was established some three years ago. It was going on when I got here and will be going on long after we're done with it, unless the guideline changes. If you really want to stop the unproductive debates regarding U.S. city article names, then you have to stop defending the current guideline and start working towards finding a guideline that can be supported by consensus. I remind you again that in recent surveys, while we did not establish that there is a supermajority that supports a change to any particular new wording, it is clear that there is no consensus or supermajority agreement to stay with the current guideline either. This is exemplified in how often move requests are made by folks who are completely unrelated to this debate, and how much support they usually get (if not enough to warrant a move).

The reason there is so much angst over the guideline is because it flies in the face of perhaps the most adhered-to naming convention in Wikipedia, which is reflected at WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

You also wrote:

... I support keeping a clear, straightforward naming convention.

So do I, but a narrow naming convention that creates blatant conflicts with common Wiki-wide naming conventions is hardly clear or straightforward. It creates confusion, questions, conflict and unproductive debates. For abundant evidence of this, see this talk page, the archives here, and the talk pages of dozens of U.S. city articles.

The U.S. city guideline has to change to allow for U.S. city naming that is consistent with WP:NAME to end all this unproductive debate, and we would get there sooner if you and others would help. Thanks. --Serge 17:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the arguments will settle when you stop arguing an unsupported position. Gene Nygaard 22:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the archives of this page alone? That's only a fraction of the debate that has been going on for years before I got involved. Putting this on me is disingenuous. Anyway, I'm working towards a big survey in March, and, if that fails, I'm going to back off for at least a few months, if not forever. But rest assured, the debate will not stop until the guideline changes. --Serge 23:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Common names

All WP:NAME#Common names does is refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). It surprised me to find, after all the claims that "use the most common name" is an inviolable principle, immaculate and without exception, that this has a section called Exceptions. It surprised me yet more to find that this begins:

Many Wikipedia naming conventions guidelines contain implicit or explicit exceptions to the "common names" principle.

This is a naming convention guideline. It can therefore contain an exception. At this point the question of whether it should becomes the sort of consideration of relative advantage, the sort of "independent-of-Wikipedia-conventions defense" which is dismissed above. Septentrionalis 23:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem, however, is in the implementation. When exceptions are proposed, the debate does not usually become about the merits of why a particular city can be an exception or not. Instead, a significant portion of the oppose votes are usually just statements saying "change the convention first before proposing a move". If people debated each proposed move on its own merits about whether it is a suitable exception or not, then I think you'll find less contentious discussions. --Polaron | Talk 23:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Polaron confounds two different levels of exception.

What he is discussing are exceptions to the present form of this convention.
Serge, however, has argued that
1. This guideline is an exception to WP:COMMON
2. Exceptions to WP:COMMON are against policy.
1 is debateable, possibly endlessly (Agne does below); but 2 is false. Septentrionalis 23:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I can add "is non sequitur", because guidelines are a result of progressive methods and solutions exposed through discussions like the one we are having now - nothing is written in stone. If we find a better method, the guideline will change, so no point in trying to control this discussion through past conclusions. THEPROMENADER 10:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the biggest strawman argument of it all is the assumption that City, State is uncommon and in some way violate the "Common Names" clause. It's like the Oprah example. It's much more common to hear the singular "Oprah" being used then to use her full Oprah Winfrey name. Apply the same princples as to how the Common Name clauses has been bandied about here, you would think the article be titled "Oprah". There is certainly no ambiguity issues here and if so we clearly have a primary topic usage, yet there are very valid reasons why the article is at Oprah Winfrey despite the trumped up claims of how the "Common Names" clause should be applied to all articles. Agne 23:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk about a strawman. No one has ever argued that city, state is uncommon. We've only argued that Cityname is most common, which means that city, state is less common, not uncommon.

As far as the Oprah red herring goes, that's a single article exception. No problem with that, when there is good reason for it. The U.S. city guideline is about excepting an enormous percentage of the total number of articles in Wikipedia. That's something entirely different. --Serge 23:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's actually more a red mark since it showcases some of the obvious fallacies in proclaiming the "Common Names" clause to mean what you think it means. Your interpretation of this clauses is probably the #1 instigator of this most recent debate and it has been commented on again and again that it is a faulty interpretation. (Even on the WP:NC(CN) talk page). We don't always use the most "common name" especially when the most appropriate name is distinctly common in its own right. It is very obvious that City, State is a common usage (even if it is not the "most common"). However, it is also the most appropriate for a laundry list of reasons that have been rehashes over and over again. The bottom line is that examples like the Oprah articles demonstrates that your "trump card" is no trump card at all. Agne 00:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No I think your argument is faulty. The 'state' is not actually part of the name of any place, it is merely a disambiguation aid. San Francisco is not called San Francisco, California it is called just San Francisco. 'California' has never been part of its name. This is therefore an evidently specious argument. G-Man * 21:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's not right either. We're not talking about formal names here. A "name", as far a Wikipedia articles are concerned, is a term or phrase that people use to refer to something. As such "San Francisco, California" certainly is such a term. It may not be the simplest name, or even necessarily the "most" common. But to say that it is not a name for the place is just wrong. older ≠ wiser 21:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the correct name is, I believe, The City and County of San Francisco. So how do you indicate that the name applies to both? Vegaswikian 00:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What the guidelines say matter much less than how editors behave. Go to WP:RM and see how often a move from A to B is requested (and approved) on "use the most common name" grounds. I'm not making this stuff up. It is the most common basis for moves, bar none. Sometimes it is difficult to ascertain "the most common name" (as is the case for Carl Jung v.s. C. G. Jung), but for cities the most common is clear. And it was the basis for New York City (which I had nothing to do with), Chicago and Philadelphia (in which I had only a minor role). It is also the basis for fairly recent U.S. city move requests that failed, but many not without receiving close to or even a slight majority. It was the basis for the recent move of the article on Cork, Ireland to Cork (city). It is the basis for all the recent corrections of TV series episode names that were predisambiguated. The list goes on and on. Use the most common name is the predominant naming convention in Wikipedia, period. That's not to say there aren't exceptions for individual articles, such as Oprah Winfrey, but it does explain why this guideline has been in dispute for three years'. Three years!. --Serge 00:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Most common name" is a good principle, established by a sensible guideline. It does not mean, and the naming convention denies, that other conventions cannot establish systematic other conventions. Septentrionalis 02:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing about Cork (city) is that if Ireland had a convention like the US there wouldn't have been that massive debate. Cork is the most common name for that city, just like you have been arguing that the US cities should adopt. However, it is clearly not the most appropriate name, which I was please that you were able to recognize. That debate was triggered by ambiguity issues. Thankfully, with the US convention we don't have to worry about debates like. Unlike the parenthetical (city), the US does have a convention that is appropriate and common, in addition to the secondary benefits it give with the disambiguation. Agne 01:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Three year debate". I did take a Sunday drive through the archives and it dreadfully apparent that most active and contentious discussion on this topic are fairly recent occurences which almost perfectly connect to the times of the "exceptions page moves". The archives are quite an interesting read with a very revealing timeline. Agne 01:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You must suffer from inattentional blindness. There are 12 numbered archives. I don't show up until archive 8, almost exactly a year ago. The only exception that was made before then was New York City. Yet there are eight pages of archives. Does any other talk page for a naming guideline have that large of an archive? Most of these archives are dominated by discussion and dispute about the U.S. city naming convention. And the archives are only getting bigger and more frequent. What does that tell you? We need to find a guideline for which we have consensus. Clearly, the current guideline is in dispute and it is not supported by anything close to consensus, and never has. --Serge 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

probably: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) has ten, and it's the first I checked. Septentrionalis 02:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Serge suggests that common name was the primary (or perhaps the sole) basis for moving New York, New York to New York City. That is a rather limited perspective on that issue. There were a host of issues with the title New York, New York. One of the biggest objections was that New York, New York is the post office designation for Manhattan and also the name of the county of New York (essentially Manhattan), and thus implied exclusion of the other boroughs comprising the city that are all separate counties and all have their own postal designations. NY, NY was also ambiguous with the well known Frank Sinatra song (admittedly derivative, but also having a distinctly Manhattan flavor) and the repetition was seen by many as being rather unnecessarily ugly. Those are only the most prominent issues as I recall -- the city also resided at a number of other formulations as well, such as New York City, New York and City of New York (which Nohat claimed was the original title of the article, citing this [1]) and probably some others that I don't recall. In the May 2004 poll, New York City garnered only two more votes than New York, New York. A fair number of people supported the move solely on the basis of the awkwardness of the name and specifically mentioned this as exceptional. (Heh, heh -- in re-reading the discussion at Talk:New York City/Archive 2 (title of article), I can see that back then I was much more strongly in the common name camp. I was still a very new editor then -- I think that since then I've really come to appreciate the value of a consistent naming convention for most places in the U.S.) New York City finally stuck, not so much because it was the most common name as it was the least objectionable name. And there are other contentious issues of style aside from city naming conventions. There are 58 archives for Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) which also cross references 4 archives of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates); Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) has 11 archives and the main Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions has 8 archives. older ≠ wiser 03:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing about Cork (city) is not that there was a lack of guidelines or conventions. It was that the article in question didn't fit neatly into those guidelines. And it is disingenious to suggest otherwise. Ireland is divided into a series of counties yet the major cities are legislatively outside of the county structure. But typically, this fact is disputed by certain agumentative individuals despite transcripts of the relevant acts being provided. So please don't pretend to understand the complexities of local naming difficulties elsewhere in the world. Sort this local dispute out without trying to embroil the rest of the world in your difficulties.

WRT Philly, and also the Windy City (although probably less so), I would suggest it may not be as clearcut across the world that Philadelphia should primarily point at the article about the city in PA. If you went onto a street in London and asked 1000 people (a technique Serge loves to suggest we use) what Philadelphia meant to them, my guess is that 90%+ would refer to the cream cheese. Its also a global brand, worth some huge amount of dollars. Someone might make a case someday for a move to the dab page. If you repeated the experiment with Chicago I think you would get a majority referencing the musical/movie. Probably not in the 90%+, but large nonetheless. The difference is probably down to the number of direct flights from Europe to either city. NY overshadows Philly as a port of entry on the east coast, whereas Chicago gives good access to the entire mid-west. So over here, we have more familiarity with NY, Chicago and Philly, in that order.

Where is all this going and how does it contribute to this discussion? It's just a raincheck to say that this is a local problem to the U.S. cities. Its not a global problem. The vast majority of users don't particularly care what the article title is so long as the link says Cork, Philadelphia or Tucson and the destination contains the information that they want to access. Lets not pretend otherwise. Frelke 08:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive time?

I think we need to do some tidying on these page and close some the active polls (Tariq's is 21/20 and still no where close to consensus) and archive some of these discussions. Even the Matawan discussions (maybe outside of the "Take 2") seems to have hit a lull. Of course then there is the fear that seeing the "blank space" will encourage more polls and more of the same old discussions. Agne 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And the new subsection #difference, which is still useful; in fact, just edited. Septentrionalis 23:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please do. And how about starting a contents page, summary and index? THEPROMENADER 01:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem here is that the discussion is so large and convoluted that many editors may not be participating. I went in to try and reply to what I considered a false claim and gave up since even the sections are too large. Vegaswikian 01:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I actually started some new sections at the bottom based on comments made in the large sections. I realize the size of these sections is largely my responsibility. I'll back off again. The whole Matawan thing is driving me nuts, though. If someone else could explain what Pmanderson is trying to say, or confirm that the Matawan example really doesn't illustrate a "cost" difference between the two conventions, that would be helpful to ending at least that much of it. --Serge 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the cost difference is universal. Most of the fixes Serge has proposed for the difficulties of the "only when necessary" are costs; so are the difficulties, unfixed. Septentrionalis 02:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I think we're using different languages. What does "the cost difference is universal" mean? What are the "fixes" that you think I have proposed for "the difficulties of the 'only when necessary'"? And what are these alleged "difficulties of the 'only when necessary'"? I have no idea what the clause, "so are the difficulties, unfixed." means. The "difficulties, unfixed" are costs? What are the "difficulties, unfixed"? Please define your terminology. Thanks. --Serge 03:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I formally closed the poll in the top 1/4 of the page so it can be archived too. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There were votes as recent as today. It's not like the poll was stale. I know it's been open for several weeks, but I still think it was closed prematurely, not to mention without warning. How about reopening it and setting a deadline, say a week from today? --Serge 03:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that consensus by polling would be achieved by leaving a poll over a month old open for another week? The problems with leaving that poll open include:

People new to the page feel they have to vote first
The discussion of the last month can't have moved us on to a newer position
Either that poll gets archived unclosed, or subsequent discussions are archived earlier than the poll.

We really need to move forwards, not stick with a month-old poll. With 20 oppose votes and a month of subsequent conversation, that poll cannot achieve a consensus outcome to change and should have closed weeks ago. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is reminiscent of the discussion we had weeks ago, [[2]]. -Will Beback · † · 06:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that still the same poll? Serge wanted it to get at least a month. It did. And the overall outcome didn't change. Then it was 17/13 in favour. Now it's 20/21 against. So in the extra 2½ weeks it gained 3 net support votes and 8 oppose votes. Keep going at that rate until March and we might have consensus to keep the current guideline! --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding an additional week to a very long poll won't budge the consensus one way or the other. That's why I originally archived much of the prior votes and discussions because,

* They were not going anywhere in terms of value. What was said was the main highlights; discussions branching from that one month later didn't add that much value.

* There was clearly no consensus one month after the poll started.

It's time to close these and move on. Stop beating the dead horse. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The key issues are (1) the rate of new voting (very slow), and (2) would continued voting change the outcome (unlikely). If Serge would agree to close and archive, we could claim a consensus on something, however inconsequential to the guideline itself. --Ishu 15:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I'm reasonable. Go ahead and close/archive it. --Serge 20:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)