Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

Default

It is possible, however, that this question is close to the intent of the last poll; if so, it could certainly have been better phrased. Consider a town like Sfax. It doesn't have to be disambiguated; and we have no convention for Tunisia. What do we do as a default, pending a national convention?

This would not apply to the United States, the United Kingdom, or any other country for which we have a convention. "Disambiguate most" doesn't seem to make much sense hete; by the time we've decided what "most" means in Tunisia, we have a convention. But feel free to add options. !vote for several if you like.

Disambiguate
Don't disambiguate
  • If there aren't other similar articles, and the name is unique, then there doesn't seem to be any reason to disambiguate. older ≠ wiser 01:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The default should be normal WP rules - use the most common name used to refer to the subject of the article, don't disambiguate if not required, and if you have to disambiguate, that requires individual judgement on a case-by-case basis and depends on what the other uses of the name are. Some classes of articles may develop class-specific naming conventions that apply only when dabbing is required. In the case of cities, these are likely to be country-specific. If the city is in a class with such dabbing conventions, go by those. --Serge 01:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Per Bkonrad. Λυδαcιτγ 03:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If there is no clear trend or method across a given country's articles, nor any previous discussion about the same, I would support this. Otherwise, ... THEPROMENADER 07:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Do what other articles on the country do
  • Weak support This will be a de facto national convention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If there are a sufficient number of similar articles to discern a de facto convention, and the practice has a sound basis (i.e., is not a spurious invention), then I would likely be inclined to support this. older ≠ wiser 01:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ... there is already a consensus, and it is only normal to respect this by default. I'm sure though that you'll find that most every country in the world has a well-defined group of Wiki authours contributing to articles concerning their placenames, so this second rule will most always apply - until good reason can be found for that consensus to change. THEPROMENADER 07:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I am persuaded to fully support this; and I accept Promenader's caveat above (and Bknorad's condition, which seemed implicit). If there is a clear trend, it may be just as well to note it, as a proposed convention, here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Do we have actual consensus? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
        Hey, what's the hurry? THEPROMENADER 21:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
        None at all; better to have objections here, than to put what you and I and Bkonrad agree on into the guideline and then face objection. But if there is none, we should be bold. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Default discussion

For the example Sfax, is Sfax Governorate pre-disambiguated, or is that how it is always referred to? All of the articles about Governorates of Tunisia are named this way, but they appear to all be named after cities. Neither the list article nor the navbox use the word "Governate" for each one. I'd also put University of Sfax on the Sfax (disambiguation) page, and possibly Battle of the Tarigo Convoy as it is also known as the "Action off Sfax". --Scott Davis Talk 16:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Be careful that the "pre-disambiguation" that you speak of is not in fact the placename's real, proper and official name. For example, it was said above that "pre-disambiguation" is the norm in "French usage" but this is not true: these names are complete and official. Please see Champigny-sur-Marne for an example and explanation. I believe the Germany follows the same officialised example. THEPROMENADER 17:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
In any case, the Governorate needs to be disambiguated from the city, and this is an actually attested method of doing it. So with the other Governorates; this is at least a de facto convention, and if is official (and it probably is; after all, the Tunisian Government has to be able to distinguish the two); so much the better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be disambiguated if it is the official name - and even locals today rely on this official naming system, so it is even "local usage" - but we don't need to go there in this debate, do we? THEPROMENADER 21:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
We've already discussed that official names (search back for "City of Richmond") are not particularly interesting to this discussion. Neither of you have answered what the common name of Sfax Governorate is. I asked as I don't know. --Scott Davis Talk 23:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I just wanted to make clear what was disambiguation and what wasn't. As for the Sfax Governorate, why not ask one of the article contributors? Short of that, the French version of the article is much more complete - and it indicates that the Governorate's capital is Sfax. THEPROMENADER 13:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As one would expect for francophone Tunisia.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

General guideline poll

I know polls have tried and failed to get consensus on a general guideline in the past. In theory, the current guideline is The general rule is to name an article about a city or town with a name that does not conflict with any other town or concept as city name (option 1); however, this does not currently apply to United States cities, which follow either 2 or 3. This is an attempt to construct a poll that will establish a consistent guideline. See the section above for why consistency is a good thing.

Instructions: Instead of picking your favorite option, sign off on any options you would be willing to live with. If you would be happy with any consistent guideline, sign on all three. If you feel that there can be no general rule, sign in the fourth section. Please be openminded; the goal is to get as many signatures as possible for each option. Λυδαcιτγ 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added option 5, since I don't think the description "No general rule" accurately describes the status quo, which is to name an article about a city or town with a name that does not conflict with any other town or concept as city name, with considerable latitude for local conventions. older ≠ wiser 21:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right to divide the debate. "Disambiguate only when needed" is one question, "are there exceptions" is another; both of these are actually quite separate from (and second in importance to) "how do we disambiguate". Perhaps this amalgamme is another reason this debate went in circles for so long. Thanks for stepping towards clearing that up - cheers. THEPROMENADER 21:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
But isn't to name an article about a city or town with a name that does not conflict with any other town or concept as city name equivalent to option 1? Don't they both disallow predisambiguation? Λυδαcιτγ 22:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Not if the local convention is to disambiguate. I agree weakly, however, that "only when necessary" is the default (although I observe that the Chileans have chosen otherwise).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Predisambiguation is contradictory with disambiguating only when names conflict. A city, state convention, for example, when applied to all cities, would specify that a city or town with a name that does not conflict with any other town or concept should not be named "city name", but instead "city name, state". Local conventions such as the Australian one are not compatible with the status quo as specified in the General rules section. Λυδαcιτγ 23:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, considering that the General rules section you're quoting from also explicitly states Articles about cities and towns in some countries should be "pre-disambiguated", by having the article named as if there is a name conflict, even if one is not known at the time of writing the article, that pretty much defines the status quo. If you're suggesting that the status quo is not entirely self-consistent, you're probably right. But I'd suggest that is actually one of the strengths of wikipedia -- its policies and guidelines are not a system of pure logic -- they are a set of evolving practices to guide people from widely disparate backgrounds who want to contribute to producing a free encyclopedia. older ≠ wiser 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, contradictions are inevitable during the evolution of guidelines; I agree. But the evolution is a strength, not the contradictions - those should be cleared up as soon as possible. We need to do that regardless of the outcome of these discussions. Λυδαcιτγ 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Not all contradictions and inconsistencies are of sufficient consequence to require eradication. In fact some may actually produce the tensions, dynamics and contrasts which prevent dull uniformity. To paraphrase Walt Whitman, Do Wikipedia guidelines contradict themselves? Very well, then, they contradict themselves. Wikipedia is large, Wikipedia contains multitudes. older ≠ wiser 01:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree with everything you say (and I like the paraphrase), but I don't think your points apply to a naming convention guideline, which is designed to increase conformity. I do see how that line of argument leads you to reject a worldwide convention. Λυδαcιτγ 03:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Is a world-wide guideline is worth the effort and strain of packing every country in the world into the same format? The Whitman paraphrase seems to me an excellent summary of the reasons to (to paraphrase Keats) remain in contradictions and uncertainties, without any irritable searching after guidelines and rules. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Pmanderson, If the idea of an international convention is of no "worth" to you, then I don't understand the motive of your active participation in the debate about the same. Some here do not think that things are fine as they are (especially contradictions), some here (such as myself) do not like to see "rules" used for reason in a debate, so perhaps another paraphrase would be more fitting this time - unless you meant it as an underline to your own point of view. THEPROMENADER 07:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguate only when necessary (1)

  1. Λυδαcιτγ 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Dahliarose 20:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Second choice. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. First and only choice. THEPROMENADER 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. First and only choice. --Serge 23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Has its advantages, especially outside USA, but will need clear definition of "necessary" and clear rules for disambig (comma/brackets/state/country/"(city)"/"(CDP)"/etc - cf Norfolk). Robin Patterson 00:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) in New Zealand
  7. First and only choice. This makes sense - isn't this the rule across the rest of Wikipedia already? (Note that TV episodes are only disambiguated when necessary, people's names go with "most common usage" and are only disambiguated when necessary, etc.) --Tim4christ17 talk 07:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I moved the long discussion below this comment to a separate "Rule already?" section below. --Serge 14:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • But it was, in brief, that this is not the rule across Wikipedia, citing WP:NCNT for two examples. See below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguate most cities, with a few exceptions (2)

  1. Λυδαcιτγ 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Preferred solution. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. 2nd choice. older ≠ wiser 21:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. 1st choice. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. 1st choice. (Something like the proposal posted under my name above.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Will only work if rules for the exceptions are created, such as in Australia and Canada at present. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Best solution for US and possibly Canada. Unnecessary and overkill for most other countries. Dahliarose 23:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. I agree with Dahliarose and with Arthur Rubin's subsidiary comment. Robin Patterson 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC) in New Zealand
  8. 3rd choice - not sure how this differs from #5 - the status quo. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguate all cities (3)

  1. 3rd choice. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. 3rd choice --Bobblehead (rants) 21:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. 2nd choice for the United States. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Has its good points, with any "overkill" not being too much affront to normal speech use of names. Robin Patterson 00:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC) in New Zealand
  5. I think this is my first choice, however I would prefer to call it something like "Always choose a precise name that will not conflict with current or future articles on different subjects". I think this means the same thing, but the emphasis is different. The actual method of expressing the precise name (or disambiguation) is likely to still be different for large English-speaking countries than for small non-English-speaking countries, and maybe there will be other cases in between. --Scott Davis Talk 15:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No general rule (4)

  1. This was presumably where we started, with just general WP guidelines (not specifically designed for settlements), and a few one-country project discussions. I could live with a "return" to that state of affairs. Robin Patterson 00:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. There's actually something to be said for Robin's interpretation here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    Odd. Robin's interpretation appears to leaves no room for country specific conventions that override and conflict with the general WP guidelines" (which is the status quo which you support). --Serge 01:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The status quo (5)

  1. 1st choice older ≠ wiser 21:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. 1st choice; in fact only choice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. 2nd choice --Bobblehead (rants) 21:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. I'm having trouble telling this apart from option 2, but I'm perfectly fine with this as well. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The status quo is country specific: option 1 for some countries, option 2 for some countries and maybe even option 3 for other countries. --Serge 23:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Dahliarose 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. 1st choice. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. 2nd choice, as we won't get consensus for a change. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. I can live with that, fairly easily. Robin Patterson 00:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. If a general guideline proves impossible. Λυδαcιτγ 00:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. This has been acceptable for a long time. It still is, although moving more English towns out of their "I was here first" titles would help. --Scott Davis Talk 15:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

General guideline discussion

Why do I say only choice? Because there are countries, like England, where "disambiguate all" or "most" is horrifically confusing. It would run us right into the problem whether we are using ceremonial counties or not, which should be ducked where possible. I suppose the problem of unitary authorities, like Luton, could be solved by defining them to be among the few exceptions in "disambiguate most". There are also countries, like France and Germany, where the meaning of "disambiguate all" is not clear. Do we disambiguate by department, like Valence? Do we disambiguate by river, like most of the members of Saint-Germain; by fee, like the rest?

On the other hand, there are countries, like the United States, where "disambiguate all" or perhaps "most" works quite well. I realize that two editors will disagree with this; but it does.

"Disambiguate most" has an endemic problem: What standard do we use to choose those which we don't dab? It should be clear and obvious, or it will become civic pride, as Arkyan points out. In an ideal wikipedia, many countries would be "disambiguate most"; but we're not there yet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I cannot disagree with any of the above. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with all of the above. There are a number of artifical counties in the UK (Merseyside, Greater Manchester, West Midlands, London, Bristol, etc.) which are for administrative/ceremonial purposes only and are not in general use. Unitary authorities are very unfamiliar to most English people, and even more so to anyone from any other country and would be quite meaningless as a disambiguator. Also the unitary authorities generally take their name from towns so there would be confusion between the town and the authority. Dahliarose 22:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second. Is this an "international question", or not? In any case, Pmanderson's comments have turned the debate (once again) into a local affair. THEPROMENADER 22:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, all of it is local (as Tip O'Neill said of politics): 200 local questions, one for each country. The questions for Austria and Germany, for example, are probably quite similar; but that's a matter of fact: the de: Wikipedia doubtless thinks the same about the United States and Canada.
I would appreciate it if my !votes were not tampered with again; while I do see a difference between #1, #2, and #3, as indicated, I disapprove of all of them as a global scheme, and do not wish to be counted in their favor. Anyone who does can simply continue with a #. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Your method of commenting (voting?) is not clear, and you are attempting to turn the debate into one on your own point of view. When in doubt about a question, ask for clarification before answering. I'm pretty convinced by now that the quesition (international method) isn't important to you, but this is no reason to corrupt the debate. THEPROMENADER 22:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it is important; I strongly oppose any "international method". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
So don't impose your point of view on the vote in that manner, please, it will skew its purpose. THEPROMENADER 23:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoo, too late. Enough for tonight. THEPROMENADER 23:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that expressing my point of view inconveniences your purpose. Perhaps tomorrow you will find a more collegial purpose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Nowhere in the voting guideline was it mentioned that we should vote on different rules for different countries, but your method of voting made it seem exactly that way, in complete contradiction to the rather explicit " This is an attempt to construct a poll that will establish a consistent guideline." Drop the insinuations of intent and argue reasonably, please. Good night. THEPROMENADER 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Stop with the sniping - it gives me edit-conflictitis. Bickering and blatant assumptions of bad faith to the side, Promenader is correct that this poll is only supposed to deal with this section. Opposition to an "international method" can be expressed with the "No general rule" option. If consensus is that there can't be a general rule, we can then get down to rules for particular countries, but I'd appreciate if we avoid that subject in this poll. Λυδαcιτγ 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bkonrad that "No general rule" does not describe the status quo; and I'm not convinced that everybody voted on the question you think was asked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't fully describe it, but the status quo is a patchwork of country-specific rules varying from 1 to 3. You're right that my intentions weren't fully understood, as everyone who supports the status quo should have supported option 4 if the poll was taken the way it was meant to be. Λυδαcιτγ 00:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

2 vs 5

Status quo is disambiguate all by state/province in the US, Canada, and Australia with a few exceptions (specified in Canada and Australia, and fought over by Serge in the US), disambiguate only if absolutely necessary in the UK, and disambiguate with local conventions where appropriate in other countries. The other large English-speaking country, New Zealand, doesn't seem to have a policy yet. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Rule already?

The following discussion follows Tim4christ17's question above: "isn't this rule [disambiguate only when necessary] across the rest of Wikipedia already? (Note that TV episodes are only disambiguated when necessary, people's names go with "most common usage" and are only disambiguated when necessary, etc.)" --Serge 14:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    • No, it isn't. We disambiguate monarchs, like Louis XIV of France; we give peers title, full name, and number. There are a number of other specific exceptions. All of these have the same basic reasons (and there may be other reasons): when most articles of a given type need to be disambiguated, it makes them predictable to disambiguate all of them (possibly with exceptions for glaring cases) so that the location of articles is predictable. It is also prudent; we may have overlooked an ambiguity — so we disambiguate, so we don't have to move later. So here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is. Some categories of subjects have the characteristic where the subjects tend to have multiple legitimate names, and where there is typically no clear single most common name. In such categories sometimes a naming convention is used to establish consistency about how which of the multiple legit names is chosen within those categories. Thus for people in general we tend to use full name, for monarchs we use full name with title and number. But in these cases the titles of the articles are still unquestionably the name of the subject of the article, and not a disambiguation. U.S. city articles that have unique names but yet have additional information in the title (the name of the state) are in the unique situation of being "predisambiguated", for no reason. There is no question that Louis XIV of France is the name of the former king. Seattle, Washington is not the name of Seattle, yet there it sits, disambiguated, for no reason. --Serge 19:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Well yes Serge, we're all well aware that you refuse to acknowledge "city, state" as a legitimate alternative name for a U.S. city. There are quite a few others who do not agree with your narrow interpretation. U.S. placenames are quite rightly treated as a category where there are frequent duplication of names and where there are legitimate alternative names to describe them. older ≠ wiser 19:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Of course I won't acknowledge that "city, state" is a legitimate alternative name for a U.S. city. Richmond, California, for example, might be a reasonable answer to the question of "where do you live?". But it is not a legitimate answer to the question, "what is the name of the city where you live?". When filling in a form, there is a box for city and a box for state; they are separate and independent names. One is the name of the city, and one is the name of the state. Combining them does not a name of a city make. The , Statename information in Cityname, Statename qualifies which city with the name Cityname is being referenced, but it is not part of the name of the city. In fact, it is misleading and incorrect to use Cityname, Statename as a U.S. city article title precisely because doing so wrongly implies to the uninitiated that Cityname, Statename is a legitimate name of the U.S. city of the article in question. San Francisco is the name of the city that is the home of Coit Tower, not San Francisco, California. --Serge 20:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Your question is biased. How would anyone know from the article names of Richmond, California or Richmond that Richmond is a city? Settlements are not always cities. In any case, the correct response is the City of Richmond. The city is City of Richmond so that would be the correct answer. There is a different issue of how many people know the correct answer. But now knowing the correct answer does not turn it into a wrong answer. Just like implying the that the correct name of a place is Richmond or San Francisco. Vegaswikian 21:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Why would anyone have to know from the article names whether the subjects are cities? It is not the explicit or implicit purpose of the title in any Wikipedia article to convey anything to the reader other than the most common name of the subject of the article and whether it is unique/dominant or not (which is implied by whether it is dabbed or not, except of course for U.S. city articles where that information is obscured by the current use of the city, state convention even for most cities that don't require dabbing). City of Richmond may be the official name of the city, but Richmond is a name too, and certainly the most common name used to refer to that city, and that's the information that should be conveyed by the title of an article. In fact, City of Richmond is so obscure it's not even a redirect, so moot it is as a name. But Richmond, California is not the name of the city at all, and so that title is wrong and misleading. --Serge 21:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Also, Vegaswikian, Virginia City and Sand City are the names of those cities, and appropriate answers for residents of them to answer as such the "biased" question of the name of the city in which they live. --Serge 22:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Except that Richmond, California, is a name for the city. You don't like it, but it is in common use and is easily recognized for what it is. older ≠ wiser 00:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
        • The title of an article is not necessarily identical with the name of the subject of the article. older ≠ wiser 21:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
          • By Wikipedia convention the title is the name of the subject unless additional qualifying information is required to disambiguate the name of the subject from other uses of that name. In most cases this is done in a manner that makes the name distinguishable from the additional disambiguating/qualifying information. That this is true by convention can be verified by anyone simply by clicking on Random 10 or 20 times in a row and noting how rarely if ever this convention is violated (not counting any U.S. city articles if they happen to pop up, of course). --Serge 21:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I should also note that Bkonrad appears to be simultaneously contending (above) that city, state is a "legitimate alternative name for a U.S. city", and conceding (here) that "city, state" is not a "legitimate alternative name for a U.S. city" but that it doesn't matter since "the title of an article is not necessarily identical with the name of the subject of the article". Regardless, both contradictory contentions have been soundly refuted independently as well as through contradiction by Bkonrad himself. --Serge 22:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Bzzzzt. Wrong again Serge, on a couple of points. A name is not an intrinsic immutable property of a subject. As we've discussed many times, a subject may have many names, applicable in different contexts. The name used for a subject may change over time. The name that we use for a subject is in fact governed by social conventions. "City, State/Province" is nothing more than another conventional manner of referring to a place. It is, to be clear, a name for that place. Perhaps I should have said above that The title of an article is not necessarily identical with the shortest or simplest name of the subject of the article. Such a convention is easily recognizable and names the place with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. older ≠ wiser 00:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
              • There are many naming conventions that use neither the shortest possible nor official legal name for an entity as the title of the article about it. For example the article Foster's Group is correctly named according to the naming conventions, but the article is about "Foster's Group Limited", commonly known just as "Foster's" in the financial markets. The " Group" part could be construed as "additional disambiguating/qualifying information" to disambiguate the company from Foster's Lager (also known simply as "Foster's"), but is not (nor should it be) distinguishable from the name of the company. Also Serge, I didn't see Bkonrad saying the second part of what you claim he did. --Scott Davis Talk 04:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                • Don't forget that all of the versions "Foster's" you mention above are the group's own name - Foster's is a group and its corporate statute is "Limited" - these all are elements of the entity that is "Foster's". "State", on the other hand, is not a city's name, nor is it an element of the thing that is "city". THEPROMENADER 13:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                  • OK, so turn the example around: Foster's Lager is not a common name for the beer - it's just "Foster's". Neither "Lager" nor "Foster's Group Limited" are any less an element of the thing that is "Foster's" than a state is an element of a city it contains. --Scott Davis Talk 14:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                      • "Foster's" is the beer's own name, as is "Foster's Lager" - what does it matter that one is used more than the other? The same, when speaking of the company instead of the beer, for "Foster's", "Foster's Limited", or "Foster's Group Limited" - they all describe the topic discussed - the group that is called Foster. "State", on the other hand, has no place in this logic - it is another thing entirely from "city". It would be like me saying that, because the Foster's is in a glass, that "glass" is also the beer's name. THEPROMENADER 17:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                        • And "City, State" is a perfectly acceptable and commonly used alternative name for places, at the very least in the U.S. and apparently also is several other countries. The State is not something completely different as you say, it is a commonly recognized convention for naming places. older ≠ wiser 18:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                          • Although you discarded it, I think my point was clear. Again, it may be commonplace for Americans to disambiguate with "State" (that they can locate) when speaking of "City" places, but this does not by any stretch logic or definition make "State" city's own name. THEPROMENADER 20:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                            • Your point is mistaken. It is NOT merely a matter of disambiguation -- although I very much doubt that saying it one more time will have any impact on tin ears -- but "City, State" is very much a NAME commonly used for places in the U.S. (and apparently elsewhere in the world as well. I'm not sure how much more can be said without merely repeating ourselves. older ≠ wiser 21:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                    • (edit conflict) Scott, I'm okay with Richmond, California, for example, as long as it is recognized that adding , California is a disambiguation. That it is not clearly a disambiguation is a problem and reason to use Richmond (California) instead, but that's a separate issue from the question at hand. Of course there are single article exceptions where titles use disambiguated names. My objection is to make the entire class of articles -- all U.S. cities -- an exception to this fundamental Wikipedia naming convention. However, it turns out that the company itself refers to this product as Foster's Lager. There is no question that Foster's Lager is the name of this beer. So even this one article is not an example of disambiguation, and it's certainly not unnecessary disambiguation (Foster's is a dab page). Seattle, Washington is an example of unnecessary disambiguation (Seattle redirects to Seattle, Washington). Tell me how many times you have to click Random before you find an example of an unnecessary disambiguation that is not a U.S. city. --Serge 15:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                      • Serge, the state is both a conventional part of the name for cities in the U.S. and it is also disambiguating. Is that so difficult to understand? older ≠ wiser 15:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                  • State is a part of a common alternative name for cities, at least in the U.S. Cities are municipal corporations under the authority of the state in which they are located. While the specific practice may vary by state, or even by city, the municipal charter and municipal ordinances often include state in the title. I checked for my town, Albion, Michigan, and the ordinances are titled "Code of Ordinances City of Albion, Michigan" [1]. I looked for a city of comparable status in another state and the first one I happened on was Cookeville, Tennessee. In the charter and ordinances, there are frequent references to the "City of Cookeville, Tennessee" and to the "City Council of the City of Cookeville, Tennessee"[2]. Just to be sure it wasn't just a fluke, I next looked at Alamogordo, New Mexico. Once again, frequent references to the "City of Alamogordo, New Mexico" and the "City Commission of the City of Alamogordo, New Mexico"[3]. See, the thing is, the state IS a part of the common name of the city in many contexts. older ≠ wiser 15:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                    • You are confusing qualified/disambiguated references with names. There is no argument that adding , Statename is a common and natural form to disambiguate a city name in the United States. And this is what your examples show. But that doesn't make the , Statename part of the name of the city. --Serge 15:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                      • No, including the state is a conventional way to referring to places (at least in the U.S.). It is in effect an alternative name. older ≠ wiser 15:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                      • (edit conflict) So Serge, what do you believe the city founders of Cookeville and Alamogordo felt the need to disambiguate against? It seems to me they were seeking only precision and protection from the future, much as some of us here are. --Scott Davis Talk 15:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                        • A method of disambiguation is not a "name" of any sort - it is a descriptive. In this case, the descriptive is neither the name nor definition of the object of discussion: city. 'City, state' is: "this is what it is, this is where it is". Saying that the "where it is" is "what it is" is more than a bit of a stretch of logic. THEPROMENADER 18:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                          • A name is a term of convention. When cities in contexts where no disambiguation is necessary, refer to themselves as the "City of Place, State", what does that indicate? That "City, State" is a conventional alternative name. older ≠ wiser 18:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                              • Apologies, but no; juggling definitions does not a reality make. Why so much effort to make "State" seem the city's own name? Is this to permit a reference to the "common name" Wikilaw that I've seen mentioned cited here before? I'm sure that convention was never made with "city, state" in mind.
                              • "State" may be commonly used (in the US) to locte which "city" we are speaking of, but that can never make "State" city's own name. Wikipedian interpretations matter little to readers, so perhaps the debate would be clearer if we'd construct our arguments around the concrete functional role "State" has in a Wiki title: its role as a locator and disambiguator. THEPROMENADER 20:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                                • What juggling? It is a simple matter. "City, State" is a common NAME for places in the U.S. (and apparently many other places around the world). It may not be the simplest name, nor even the official name, but is it a name nonetheless and is in common use (and NOT in the U.S. only), and can be easily understood by any reader with a minimum of effort. older ≠ wiser 21:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
                            • No, such a reference means someone wants to convey the name of the state that the city is in (for whatever reason) as well as the name of the city, that's all. In any case, even if city, state was an acceptable alternative "name", do you have any examples of other classes of articles where the alternerative is used even when the primary/common name has no ambiguity issues? That's what's out of whack with U.S. cities - the current convention calls for using the "alternative" name for no reason. --Serge 19:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • (shrink left indent) No, our reason has been stated already, often. It's the reader's and editor's convenience. If Serge would bother to take his fingers out of his ears, he would have heard us. I find it useless to discuss his peculiar variant of realism, that San Francisco is the only genuine name of the City and County of San Francisco, except to ask if anyone else agrees with it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • What? I have never held that San Francisco is the only genuine name of the City and County of San Francisco. Where did you get that? It is, however, the most common name for the city, and, so, should be used if possible. If it can't, then we can look at disambiguated/qualified alternatives. Can you find any class of Wikipedia articles other than U.S. cities where the most common name is regularly not used in favor of some alternative? Where the clearly more common name redirects to the alternative? Why should the class of U.S. cities be the only ones treated this odd way? --Serge 23:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Pmanderson, I really don't understand your (and a few others') insistence on misinterpreting this trifling point. Yes, a place can have several names, but it is the subject spoken of that determines these; you can call San Francisco County that because it is an administrative division (named "county") named San Francisco. California is a name of nothing that is the city of San Francisco. The role of California in San Francisco, California as a locator and disambiguator is something we all can agree on, but to insist that it is a name in itself is pushing it a bit too far. You can continue to think it a name if it comforts you, but to take this first lengthy overstep as a connection to the "use common names" convention makes an argument too weak for any constructive debate. THEPROMENADER 23:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nominalism and realism

The above discussion makes clear, at last, one fundamental problem. Serge (and, if he is not exaggerating, Promenader) believe that there is One True Name for every city; for San Francisco, California, it is San Francisco (what it is for San Francisco, Quezon, or Texas, or Bilbao he has not said.)

This is philosophical realism. It cannot be a basis for consensus here; too many people disagree with it; I believe in nominalism myself, and I gather others do too.

More importantly, it is no way to run a railroad. One True Names are perceived, and can only be justified, by mystic insight (which is why Serge has never explained why San Francisco, California or City and County of San Francisco are the wrong names, but only and perpetually asserted that they are. This is inherently and unavoidably subjective; there is no rational means of deciding between two mystic insights which give different One True Names. We cannot possibly base a guideline on something so disputable.

I therefore propose that this conversation be ended; it serves no useful purpose. I expect to continue to watch this page; and I will cite this section to explain my strong objections to any more repetitions of past proposal; but I do not expect to comment further at length. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Again telling people to shut up? This is no solution for anything. The philosophical realism comparison is a load of ill-applied authoritarian bull too - the strangest part is that it is actually you (and a couple others it seems) who are trying to create an idealism of your own ("state" is a city's name?) and push it ahead of basic fact and common sense; it is wrangling such as this more than anything that corrupts any honest attempt at debate. Also, who cares what wikipedians want to call something? It's only its function that has any use to a reader.
"Right" name? "Wrong" name? No, a working and coherent Wiki-wide system is what we're trying to discuss here. You've made it very clear (not only by the above) that you are totally against this idea, but there is no call to tell everyone in authoritarian tones that they should think the same.
Perhaps a conversation about a Wiki-wide convention has no use to you - if this is the case, all you have to do is leave it to interested others. THEPROMENADER 23:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it's very useful; all I can say in it, however, is that I strongly oppose any argument based on the assertion that San Francisco, California is somehow the Wrong Name for San Francisco, California; I see no hope of common ground with those who believe it is a Wrong Name. I also strongly oppose any international convention that is more than a default arrangement which applies in the absence of national convention; my reasons are stated above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That's clear, then. We'll let you know if ever there's ever any vote on an international convention. THEPROMENADER 16:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Utter nonsense based on the totally absurd premise that I "believe that there is One True Name for every city". This has been refuted above. However, if you need to believe such nonsense in order to refrain from participating any longer, I welcome your confusion, for your contributions are normally based on absurdities like this. --Serge 23:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Separate the debate?

In a discussion about an international convention, I suggest that we divide the debate into four separate questions for clarity:

  1. method of disambiguation (namely: parenthesis or comma)
  2. the disambiguator (lowest administrative division, country, second level, etc)
  3. pre-disambiguation (needed?)
  4. non-disambiguated placenames (exceptions to the rule)

...these are the issues, non? I think that if we argue each as a separate question we can come to a clearer and quicker conclusion on all. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you appear to hold, and Serge certainly holds, beliefs on the nature of names with which many people cannot agree. End it now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the relation of the above comment to anything here; is it misplaced? THEPROMENADER 07:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, although I would combine 3 and 4. Λυδαcιτγ 02:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I did think the same (3 and 4 are one), but they seem to be two separate issues (at least in this debate); some who would have major placenames with no disambiguation can also subscribe to the "disambiguate all" proposition, or any other - perhaps it would be clearer if first we decide on the rule to use before deciding there can be exceptions to the same. THEPROMENADER 07:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Splitting the question(s) into bite-sized pieces is probably a good idea, but I'm not sure if this is enough/the right questions. This draft set doesn't consider issues of (possibly) needing different rules for large vs small countries, or English- vs non-English-speaking countries. Past attempts have fallen over because of one of these issues. There needs to be at least a fifth question of can we allow some variations to accomodate national or linguistic variations? --Scott Davis Talk 11:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I've thought this through, and thus far I'm persuaded that, in order to make an international standard, we may have to give up "linguistic variations" altogether - by this I mean linguistic local-habit phrasing, not individual words (eg: if the government has an official translation for "oblast", then that should be used). If every country has its placenames located/disambiguated in the "local manner" (like the U.S. ", State") then we'd have... the present system. THEPROMENADER 12:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
So when discussing an international convention, there's not much point in going there, is there? Thanks for the support. THEPROMENADER 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
And if we're not interested in the bed of Procrustes, to which all nations must conform, there's not much point in having an international convention. Why discuss the length of the bed before whether to have one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
If you're not interested in such a debate, then what can you possibly have to say in it? Please halt your continued disruptions to the same. THEPROMENADER 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason we go around in circles

Is that Serge keeps going around in them. He keeps asking the same questions, although in this case the answers are still on this page. He will get the same answers until the crack of Doom, if anyone has the patience to still give them. There are ways to deal with single purpose accounts; shall we begin? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Serge is far from the only one at fault here. A few are pointing "answers that others aren't seeing", but that is because the "answers" are often only interpretations that those asking the questions don't share. Best to ask hard questions and answer straight fact and case examples - but of course this is next to impossible when you're just dancing around each other's hypotheses. Serge at least tries to stay polite it seems, and never strays to lower "methods" of argument.
"There are ways to deal with single purpose accounts; shall we begin?"
...Pmanderson, what does the above mean? It smacks of aggression. I suggest you either clarify or remove this. THEPROMENADER 20:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Despite your baseless claims, my question above remains unanswered, PMAnderson, as does your denial of its validity. You have failed at actually identifying a class of articles each of whose primary-common name is as obvious as it is for any city, and yet for which it is not used even when there are no conflicts. Why should U.S. city articles be treated differently from every other article in Wikipedia? --Serge 22:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
And round the merrygoround we go: They're still not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It's like you guys are arguing over who has the best invisible friend. Tell me that Paris, France is given the same treatment as Akron, Ohio. Does this not speak volumes for itself? Really. THEPROMENADER 22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Promenader, I'm sure your point is clear to you, but for me, for one, it is not. Paris is not at Paris, France, so I'm not sure why you even bring that up. Paris IS given the same treatment as Akron, Ohio in that both adhere to the "use the most common name if possible; disambiguate if not" fundmanetal Wikipedian naming convention. There are over a dozen Akrons on the Akron dab page. The argument could be made that the one in Ohio is clearly the most well-known, but that argument applies just as much with the current convention as it would otherwise. The only difference is that with the comma convention the issue is over whether the redirect to Akron, Ohio or the dab page should be at Akron; without the comma convention the issue would be over whether the city in Ohio or the dab page should be at Akron. No convention can avoid such debates. --Serge 22:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Paris is at Paris, because it is no longer common usage to call it Paris, France and no other reason to do so. Serge, "always disambiguate" does avoid such disputes, that's one of its virtues. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • PMAnderson, you missed my point. The current U.S. convention is "always disambiguate", and yet we still have to decide whether the redirect to Akron, Ohio or the Akron dab page is at Akron. No convention can avoid such debates. --Serge 23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This section is very well titled. Pmanderson, your "no longer in common usage... what? To who? Since when? To most here on this page anyways, Paris would be disambiguated by its country (as it was), whereas Akron by its State. Serge, how is this the same?
What is this "most common name" - common to who? I don't see the logical application of this rule here - the only use I've seen it have here is to "prove" that "city, state" ... is a name? Whatever it is, it is a method best recognised by who? Americans who know their country's states. City names, I mean! Oh, vey. THEPROMENADER 23:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Promenader, perhaps you need to review the definition of "common name". It has nothing to do with general popularity. It has to do with being the most popular name among those who refer to the subject. There are many subjects with which the vast majority of the world population is totally unfamiliar, yet we have articles named according to the most common name used to refer to those subjects by those who have heard of it. Just because almost nobody has heard of Sandpoint doesn't mean it shouldn't be at Sandpoint. Unfortunately, the redirect to Sandpoint, Idaho is currently at Sandpoint, but we can fix it! Where do you think that article should be? --Serge 23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll do nothing of the kind - no wikilawyering, please. Even then, your definition is pointless for Wiki: people from one country will never refer to a place in another in the same way that those who live there do. Common to one; not to the other. A disambiguated city name is not a city name, no matter how anyone mangles language. You're asking me where I'd like Sandpoint? If it needs no disambiguation, exactly there, but were I to decide it would most likely be Sandpoint (United States, Idaho) THEPROMENADER 00:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else get the sense that this discussion has slipped into a somewhat surrealistic parody of itself? older ≠ wiser 23:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Evading, I see? You too have not answered my question. --Serge 23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It's already been asked and answered dozens of times over. You reject the answers because they don't suit you . Sorry, but I can't help with that. older ≠ wiser 23:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty much pointless to discuss naming conventions with Serge. He's right, you're wrong, get used to it.--Bobblehead (rants) 23:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Personal opinions and interpretations do not fact nor answer make. The only "right" people here will be the majority (no matter the "rightness" of what they say). I suggest you take it to a poll - elsewhere than here! To the greater public. Very simple questions: "is a State a city's name"? I don't think anyone will be suprised at the results. THEPROMENADER 23:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I trust you mean "Is the state a city is located in part of the city's name?", since the answer to your wording of the question is rather obvious. Washington is not the name of Seattle. But then, if you were to ask, "Is City, State a common name for a City?" I don't think anyone would be surprised that a majority of people would answer yes. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --Serge 00:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean that - at least I don't think so with that awkward wording. If you really wanted to be fair, you could also ask the question "Is "City, State" a common way to talk about "city"?" and the listener would think and answer exactly the same thing as your version - but without "name" in the question (and in that question, it was not the principle point nor subject), you'd lose your "city, state is a name" edge. This is not a what you can call a strong argument if it lies on the wording or context of the question alone.
The question here is - "Is "state" a city's name"? I say - it doesn't matter! The only thing important to the reader is that he recognise the disambiguation - and by using low-level disambiguation only, you cater only to those who know already the same. THEPROMENADER 00:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've really had enough of all this narrow-mindedness - I'm out of this "U.S.-only" debate. THEPROMENADER 00:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Bkonrad, seriously. Read the new question. I honestly don't think anyone has answered it. We've made progress. I'm beyond the "City, State" is not a "name" argument (though I can't speak for Promenader). I concede it's a semantic question based on how tightly or loosely you define "name". But my question, about why U.S. cities (and non-captial Australian and some Canadian) are treated differently, as a class, from all other articles in Wikipedia, has not been answered. To be fair, I've never asked it before either. Yes, cityname, statename is a name of cityname, but cityname is the most common/primary name of the subject. For any other class of articles, we use the common/primary name. But with U.S. cities, we systematically use the disambiguated form. Why not for film names, TV episode titles, book titles, rivers, flower names, bicycle manufacturers, diseases, etc. etc.? Why are U.S. cities treated differently from all other classes or articles in Wikipedia? Frankly, I don't even know if you would try PMAnderson's "answer" (they're not - apparently based on nothing more than some Australian and Canadian city articles doing the same thing), or if you actually have an answer in mind. --Serge 00:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a flat lie; Serge knows perfectly well that my answer was, and is, based on WP:NCNT. If he had bothered to read WP:NAME, instead of having fun with the bold key, he would have found more examples, but I'll save them for his next vain repetitionSeptentrionalis PMAnderson 01:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot about the WP:NCNT "basis" since I anticipated and dismissed it when I first posed the question. As I just explained elsewhere (below), you're still totally missing the point. I don't mind if you disagree, but when you disagree with an argument that you clearly don't even comprehend, that's just frustrating. --Serge 05:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

... is because you three won't stop attacking each other. Often there's not even a pretense of searching for a consensus in your discussions, just repetition of old arguments that have no chance of convincing the interlocutor. Now, Anderson agreed below that he "would support moving the best known American cities to their bare names". That looks like the most consensus-forming statement I've heard since coming to this page. With more of that, and less of the personal attacks, we have a chance of getting somewhere. Λυδαcιτγ 03:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did I attack anyone? (I certainly have "attacked" what others have said, and with good reason, but where did I attack a person?) --Serge 04:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I concede that you attack others' views, not their persons. Perhaps "personal attacks" was a foolish choice of words. Nonetheless, the verbal skirmishes that you engage in with Anderson and Promenader are not constructive discussion, in almost every case. Λυδαcιτγ 05:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

World-(Wiki)-wide Settlement Naming Convention

Let's use this section to propose and discuss what worldwide city guidelines might look like. The idea is to have one set of guidelines replace all of the country-specific guidelines.

I'll start with proposal 1a (if you want to suggest an alternative based on this, call it 1b, 1c, etc. ; if you want to propose something entirely different, call it 2a, 3a or whatever).

Proposal 1a

  1. If there are no ambiguity issues with the name of the city, use the name of the city for the title of the article. Examples: Seattle, Los Angeles.
  2. If there are ambiguity issues, but the most common use for the name is clearly to refer to the city that is the subject of the article, use the name of the city for the title of the article. Examples: Paris, Boston, London, San Francisco.
  3. If the name conflicts with one or more cities, none of which are in the same country as the city that is the subject of the article, then disambiguate by specifying the name of the country in parenthesis. Example: London (Canada)
  4. If the name conflicts with one or more cities, some of which are in the same country as the city that is the subject of the article, then disambiguate using the national disambiguation scheme, such as specifying the name of the state/province/district/county with a comma. Examples: Rothenburg ob der Tauber, Oradour-sur-Glane, London, California, Ōbu, Aichi.
  5. If the name conflicts with other significant usages (such that rule 2 does not apply) of the name, none of which are cities, then disambiguate with city, in parenthesis, unless the word city is commonly used with the name. Example: Cork (city), New York City.

There you have it, five simple rules that can apply consistently to any city in the world, and is already consistent with many current conventions.

--Serge 18:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1a Discussion

I'm not sure San Francisco is a good example of a city without any ambiguity issues. San Francisco (disambiguation) has a pretty lengthy lists of non-US cities by that name that makes it a better fit for 2. Perhaps Seattle would be a better example of a reasonably sized city without any ambiguity issues. Also, why include 3 and 4, why not just keep 4 if there is ambiguity between city names? 3 requires a certain knowledge of a country that most will not know and/or care. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I changed the San Francisco example to Seattle (and Los Angeles). Thanks. The point of having 3 and 4 is that whenever the naming of any article is determined in Wikipedia, all other uses of that name are supposed to be considered. Cities are no different. The hallmark of Wikipedia article title disambiguation is that how any given title is disambiguated depends on the other uses of that name. --Serge 19:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
And remember, this would replace all of the country specific guidelines on this page. Dozens of rules reduced to five sounds like a huge simplification to me. --Serge 19:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I meant what's the point of having both.;) What you're proposing is much simpler than what currently exists, but it is still more complex than it needs to be. Why not just eliminate 3? It seems to needlessly complicate the disambiguation process by requiring one to check if a city is the only city by that name in its country.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point. The reason I include 3 is to convey why the name is being disambiguated. It's for the same reason that a movie title that conflicts with a book title of the same name is disambiguated with (film) (e.g., The Bridges of Madison County (film), while a movie title that conflicts with another movie with the same name is disambiguated with the year (e.g., Cape Fear (1991 film)). So the rules of how to disambiguate depend on what we're conflicting with. This, again, is the hallmark of Wikipedia disambiguation. One might ask why not disambiguate all films with (year film), and the reason is then you would lose the ability of knowing whether a given film is the one and only with that name, or if there have been others, simply by looking at the article title. Similarly, I oppose disambiguating all cities with state, because then we wouldn't have the information of knowing whether that is the one and only city in the given country, or if there are others, simply by looking at the article title. Yes, it's a bit more work at the time the article title is determined, but it pays dividends every time that article title is seen. Since we're supposed to put the interests of readers above editors, it seems like a no-brainer tradeoff to me. --Serge 19:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do you want to "convey why the name is being disambiguated"? Isn't that just as bad a reason for putting something in the title as you think about putting ", state" which shows it is a city or town? --Scott Davis Talk 05:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone was going to catch that apparent contradiction. The answer is no, of course, it's not just as bad. The only reason to put extra information, besides the name of the subject, in the title of an article is to disambiguate the name from other uses of the same name. If we adhere to that principle consistently in Wikipedia, then the "why the name is being disambiguated" information is there implicitly. If we predisambiguate for any other reason, then the principle is violated and the "why the name is being disambiguated" information is lost. Also, the intro sentence of any article indicates whether a given article is about a town or city. So encoding that information in the name is redundant. But the information about why the name is disambiguated can only be found in the title itself, and then only if the above principle is adhered to consistently. Make sense? --Serge 05:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No, that doesn't make sense to me. If the article title is not precise, the {{otheruses}} template at the top tells about other things with the same name. If the article title is longer, it is preferred by WP:D to use a longer name rather than something in parentheses if possible. If it is important to the subject why the article title might have been disambiguated, the article will say something like "...named after the founder's hometown, ..." or "A play and a movie have been named after...". --Scott Davis Talk 09:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Scott, compare Seaside, California to Pacific Grove, California. Are there any other cities with either name? How can a reader tell? With this 1a proposal he would know immediately, because the article titles would be Pacific Grove (not dabbed, so unique) and Seaside, California (dabbed, so not unique). He might think, "huh, Seaside is disambiguated - I wonder what other Seasides there may be...". He would also know that Pacific Grove is the one and only. Thus his Wikipedia experience is enhanced. With the current convention, there is no reason to wonder, since all cities, whether they are unique or not, are predisambiguated, so the fact that a given name was disambiguated is meaningless. --Serge 14:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm surprised there isn't a "Pacific Grove" in Queensland. So under 1a, the article about town of Pacific Grove should be named "Pacific Grove", until other articles are written that could also have that name. Then it gets moved to "Pacific Grove (town)" because there are two other articles that could use the short name. Then an enterprising developer in Queensland, New Zealand or Fiji builds a new holiday resort town, and the article gets another rename to "Pacific Grove (United States of America)". Some time later, another developer does the same thing in Hawaii or Oregon, and the article should get its fourth name under proposal 1a, and get moved to Pacific Grove, California, right back where it started!? --Scott Davis Talk 23:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This silly argument again? What you describe is theoretically possible, but in practice highly unlikely. First, how many new towns are created per year worldwide? 2, 5, 10, 100? Whatever it is, it is certainly a very manageable issue. Second, the newly developed town would have to be significant enough to warrant knocking out the original usage as not clearly the most common use of the name. That's unlikely simply since the new usage is likely named after the original one. The loss to readers of meaningful and useful information about other uses of the same name from the title itself in order to use a naming convention that "protects" editors from having to move one or two names per year (at most) is simply not worth it. It's silly to even suggest it, Scott. I'm frankly surprised you haven't given this one a rest. --Serge 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The majority of our municipal articles are on places so small that the average development would be comparable to them; which is all this proposal would require. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I was challenged below to find example cities where proposal 1a does not clearly identify a single name for the article about that city. Step 2 of the process raises issues by a loose definition of "most common use": Among locals to the place in question, English Wikipedia editors, all English speakers, or all humans? People in North America might not make the same choice of "most common" for Sydney or Melbourne for example, choosing Sydney and Melbourne instead. What is the most common use of "Truro", "Scarborough" or "San Jose"? Step 3 requires the person naming the article to know about all other places in the country, to know for example that Perth (Australia) can not be the name of an article as there are two of them. My particular issue was that step 4 is itself ambiguous, and still needs country-specific rules to identify which of state/province/district/county should be used, and in what form (eg "(USA)" or "(United States of America)", "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or some shorter form or smaller entity?). This proposal has the interesting hidden message (i.e. only obvious to those who know the code) that city articles could have a country in parentheses, but a sub-national entity would follow a comma. Who gets to determine "most common" for step 2 and "significant" for step 5? If I'm going "to Chicago" am I going to see a play, a film, a concert, or a city? That probably depends on whether you know where I am, and what might be playing at the local theatre tonight or whether I'm planning a holiday to South Africa or the USA. Is "Waco" an event, a misspelling of "Wacko" or a place? --Scott Davis Talk 05:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Very good. But these are challenges that must be addressed for every single article in Wikipedia, including every city article for any country for which the comma convention is not currently the convention. I don't understand why you guys seem to think there is a requirement for the naming convention for U.S. city articles to be able to avoid having to resolve challenges like determining whether one usage or some other is the "most common". As if that's some big insurmountable issue. Besides, most if not all of these issues are already resolved, as shown by whether Cityname alone is a redirect to the article entitled with Cityname, Statename. In fact, the comma convention does nothing to alleviate the need to address these issues, since having an article at Cityname, Statename still requires editors to decide what to do with Cityname. Should it be an article for some other more commonly known subject? Should it redirect to Cityname, Statename, to Cityname (disambiguation) or to some other disambiguation version of Cityname? The comma convention does not resolve any problem. At most, if moves it from one particular article to a redirect. --Serge 05:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
My personal preference is that Cityname should be either a disambig page or a redirect if the name really is only used for one thing at present. One day something else (a ship or an event for example) may be named after it. One thing I've noticed is that most of the proponents of City, State are people who have been involved in disambiguating links and fixing links to the wrong pages. I have not noticed any of its opponents doing the same thing (maybe I just haven't paid attention?). --Scott Davis Talk 09:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, "if the name really is only used for one thing at present" can only be determined by the same process that 1a requires. Your observation about city, state proponents may be accurate, which only goes to show that the primary motivation behind the city, state convention for U.S. cities is to benefit editors over readers (assuming worldwide city naming consistency is a reader benefit). --Serge 14:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
My motivation is to increase and maintain the quality of Wikipedia as a reference work. Links to the wrong article reduce that quality, however they got there. --Scott Davis Talk 23:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that changing to a naming convention similar to what is already used by the majority of countries would lead to "links to the wrong article". More silliness, Scott. --Serge 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. This would mean moving thousands of obscure US communities, like Lucas Township, Minnesota to the name of the community alone, while leaving others, equally obscure, with disambiguators. Pointless, ugly, and unpredictable, for readers and editors alike. This requires that everyone know whether there is any other Lucas Township in the world, which may change without notice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Again with Scott's silly argument? How can the appearance of another Lucas Township come without notice? Someone would have to notice it, and care enough about creating an article for it. The first thing he would do is follow the standard Wikipedia article creation process: see if there is already another article with that name. With the current system, he would find a redirect at Lucas Township. With 1a, he would find an article. Either way, changes would be required. Yes, with 1a there would be more work for this editor, but we are supposed to favor the experience for reader, not the editor. With the current convention this editor would change the Lucas Township redirect to be an article about the new town (assuming it's in a country which does not predisambiguate). Wonderful. That's the problem with not having a standard worldwide guideline. --Serge 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it means that the reader will have to know whether there is a Lucas Township, Queensland or not to get where he wants to go without trouble. Serge's refutation would prove editors will be warned. Considering his claims below to be arguing solely from the PoV of the readership below, I find this disingenuous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I modified item 4 to cover national disambiguation per Pmanderson, and item 5 to cover cases like New York City. Dhaluza 10:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 1b

The only difference between 1a and 1b is that #3 from 1a is gone. This is what I understand Bobblehead to prefer.

  1. If there are no ambiguity issues with the name of the city, use the name of the city for the title of the article. Examples: Seattle, Los Angeles.
  2. If there are ambiguity issues, but the most common use for the name is clearly to refer to the city that is the subject of the article, use the name of the city for the title of the article. Examples: Paris, Boston, London, San Francisco.
  3. If the name conflicts with one or more cities, then disambiguate by specifying the name of the state/province/district/county with a comma, as appropriate for the relevant country (if the city is not within an appropriate sub-jurisdiction, use the country itself). Examples: London, California, Santiago, Chile.
  4. If the name conflicts with other significant usages (such that rule 2 does not apply) of the name, none of which are cities, then disambiguate with city in parenthesis. Example: Cork (city).

--Serge 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1b Discussion

Well, let's say I prefer it to 1a. Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 23:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I like this proposal, and I think it's close to what we have presently (except that a lot of North American cities would lose their preemptive disambiguation, which I don't mind). My only concern is how to decide whether there is an "appropriate sub-jurisdiction". Should we use such sub-jurisdictions for countries that self-identify as federations? This is close to what we have: Mora, Maharashtra and Mora, Sweden, for example, but we do have Halle, Belgium, not Halle, Flemish Region (probably because Belgium is a very strange federation) and most, but not all, of the Swiss cities are disambiguated by country rather than by canton. -- Jao 16:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 1c

The only difference between 1b and 1c is that #4 from 1b (#5 from 1a) is gone. This would mean Cork (city) would be at Cork, County Cork.

  1. If there are no ambiguity issues with the name of the city, use the name of the city for the title of the article. Examples: Seattle, Los Angeles.
  2. If there are ambiguity issues, but the most common use for the name is clearly to refer to the city that is the subject of the article, use the name of the city for the title of the article. Examples: Paris, Boston, London, San Francisco.
  3. If the name conflicts with the name of any other article (such that rule 2 does not apply), then disambiguate by specifying the name of the state/province/district/county with a comma, as appropriate for the relevant country (if the city is not within an appropriate sub-jurisdiction, use the country itself). Examples: London, California, Santiago, Chile, Cork, County Cork.

--Serge 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1c Discussion

Proposal 1d

Same as 1c with the added requirement that a place must have some kind of "international recognition" to stand alone. (Conditions as to what determines this "international recognition" to be determined later -- let's do this one step at a time).

  1. If there are no ambiguity issues with the name of the city that is internationally recognized, use the name of the city alone for the title of the article. Examples: Seattle, Los Angeles, New Orleans.
  2. If there are ambiguity issues, but the most common use for the name is clearly to refer to an internationally reocgnized city that is the subject of the article, use the name of the city alone for the title of the article. Examples: Paris, Boston, London, San Francisco.
  3. If the name of an internationally recognized city conflicts with the name of any other article (such that rule 2 does not apply), then disambiguate by specifying the name of the state/province/district/county with a comma, as appropriate for the relevant country (if the city is not within an appropriate sub-jurisdiction, use the country itself). Examples: Santiago, Chile, Cork, County Cork, Newark, New Jersey. For cities that commonly use some other form of disambiguation that is not the comma style, use that instead, e.g. Stratford-upon-Avon.
  4. If the city is not internationally recognized, use an additional qualifier by specifying the name of the state/province/district/county with a comma, as appropriate for the relevant country (if the city is not within an appropriate sub-jurisdiction, use the country itself). Examples: London, California, Assawoman, Virginia, Pacific Grove, California. For cities that commonly use some other form of disambiguation that is not the comma style, use that instead, e.g. Rothenburg ob der Tauber.


1d Discussion

Frankfurt (Oder) is a bad example; English usage (such as it is) remains Frankfurt an der Oder. I have changed it to one where this question does not arise. See WP:GERCON. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That being said, this is a world-wide version of the "except world cities" variant, found in the archives; I continue to support that, provided that "international recognition" does mean Chicago and Minneapolis, not Lucas Township. This proposal reward discussion, unlike many of thesel it does need discussion, however.

It will require a discussion of disambiguation by nation, as we have now; so the principal effect beyond "world cities" will be to require that small European towns be pre-emptively disambiguated. This has the problem that Groß-Gerau has no standard German disambiguation, since it doesn't need one; I suppose we could work something out. But is it worth it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Follow the main place naming convention. From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), 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.

So use what is currently the most common form and is actually in use in most countries on a limited basis. Use the comma convention of (place name), (country, state, province, etc.). No need to worry about ambiguity, very little need to keep moving articles or even to discuss moves. This lets editors do things right the first time and establishes a very clear and consistent style sheet convention for city names improving the overall quality of the encyclopedia. Simple and not subjective. Vegaswikian 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The problem is that we're talking about names of places and the (country, state, province, etc.) is not part of the name of a city - it's disambiguation information which should only be there to disambiguate a name from other names. Also, what is "currently the most common form"? San Francisco or San Francisco, California? I say the former, you say the latter. So much for "not subjective". --Serge 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Take a hard look at the names of most places in the US. Las Vegas, Nevada is not officially Las Vegas it is the City of Las Vegas Nevada from the seal. San Francisco, California is not officially San Francisco, it is the City and County of San Francisco. Wappinger, New York is the Town of Wappinger. The names vary all over the place. By sticking to a basic naming convention and going with a simple editorial style for the article names, we get something that is predictable and is almost always lacking in ambiguity. Making the blanket claim that the state is is part of the name is wrong in many cases. This is not a disambiguation issue, just style and a minimum of ambiguity. It is clean and simple and accurate. Vegaswikian 23:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, this is simply arguing that the official name of a city is often not the most common name used to refer to that city. Agreed. So what? Anyway, the bottom line is that for any city article in Wikipedia, Proposal 1a specifies one name for the title, while Proposal 2a is very vague and requires per-country clarification for most cities, starting with Paris and San Francisco. --Serge 00:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • How is this proposal any different from what we're doing now? It seems to still require a per country clarification of whether the comma convention should be used, or not. Or are are you saying Paris would be moved to Paris, Île-de-France? Either way, please clarify the wording of this proposal so we know which it is. Thanks. --Serge 22:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Serge, we are discussing names of Wikipedia articles about places, not just names of places. These are not quite the same things. Yes, rigorously following a comma convention-style naming convention for all cities would lead to something like Paris, Île-de-France, Paris, Ile-de-France, Paris, Ile de France or Paris, France. The 1a proposal also needs a lot more detail added to it so that if rule one (unique name) fails, there is a single path through the maze to find the name for the an article about the place. --Scott Davis Talk 23:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any examples of articles about cities for which 1a does not clearly specify what the name should be? Please provide. --Serge 23:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have an example, but it could clearly create additional ambiguities in cases where a state name is the same as the name of country. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless we can come up with a single state or province name that is the same as a country name, this is a moot theoretical point that has no practical significance. If it's a real practical problem, then we can adjust the rules accordingly, citing a special rule for cities in states with names that conflict with the names of countries that do not have sub-jurisdictions. Say there is a country named Oregon with no sub-jurisdictions, and a city named Portland. We could have a rule that says for cities that require disambiguation that are in states with names that conflict with country names, the city would be disambiguated per the following format: Cityname, Statename (countryname)'. Thus: Portland, Oregon (U.S.A) and Portland (Oregon) (for the city Portland in the country of Oregon). --Serge 00:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, I don't think there is even a theoretical conflict. If both countries have sub-jurisdictions, then the disambiguation would use those. If one doesn't have a named sub-jurisdiction (e.g., state, province, county), then it would be disambiguated by specifying the country in parenthesis (per 1a(3)), while the city in the country with a sub-jurisdiction would use the comma convention. So you would have Portland, Oregon and Portland (Oregon) (again, assuming there is a country named Oregon with a city named Portland). The only potential problem is if a country with no named sub-jurisdiction would have two cities with the same names, but that would be an issue no matter what naming convention we would use. And it's a highly unlikely scenario. Virtually impossible. --Serge 01:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is very similar to what is in place for the US and other areas. But your tone seems to suggest that because of this it is a problem. The wording of the proposal is totally clear. If this proposal gets consensus, it will be up to the consensus of the editors on how to apply the guideline to places in France. For me to be try to dictate the nuisances of every place in the world would be stupid. Exceptions will happen the only question is how they will be decided on based on the consensus for countries or regions. Likewise the need for per county clarification which would still be needed for either proposal 1 or proposal 2. Vegaswikian 23:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, please provide an example city for which proposal 1a requires further per-country clarification. If you can't, please stop claiming that it requires it. Thanks. My point is that 1a does not require per-country clarification, and 2a does, which leaves us right where we currently are. Thus 2 is not really a single worldwide city guideline, which is what we're supposed to be proposing here. --Serge 00:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
When did "Oregon" become a country? I knew it was a state and a kind timber, and Oregon (disambiguation) says it is several US cities/towns, too. The state/country ambiguity is clearly about Georgia. --Scott Davis Talk 03:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I used Oregon because I couldn't think of an actual example Georgia is better. Thanks. --Serge 04:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is just WikiLawyering existing conventions (that weren't even made with the "settlement" naming convention in mind) into an argument that tries to work "for" the existing "City, State" convention. Even this is a weak argument: Who's to say that someone from the U.K. will know where Oregon is (or even that it's in the US)? If you really did want to use "what most English-speakers would recognise", you would disambiguate with the most-recognised term (as most internationally-published English references already do) - with the Country. THEPROMENADER 10:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 3a

Use the proper name of the subject of the article as a title, and anything else is (disambiguated) with brackets, just like the rest of Wikipedia (and every other respectable encyclopaedic publication). When disambiguation is necessary for "cityplace", use "city (country)" - in the same reasoning as every other international-oriented publication. If no disambiguation is needed, don't disambiguate. I do understand that some article titles may become longish, but it's all in the interest of a more widespread recognition. I'm not yet sure, but this may also reduce the need to consult a disambiguation page.

Whether there is a "un-disabiguated top dog" locale is a debate I think it simpler to leave for later. THEPROMENADER 10:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

3a Discussion

This proposal is unclear. For example, it does not specify how to title the article about the city of Portland in Oregon. Should the famous Paris be at Paris (France) or at Paris? This is not specified either. --Serge 04:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the comma instead of brackets (fixed) , but aside from that it's very clear. The US city of Portland would be "Portland (United States)" if disambiguation is needed and "Portland (Oregon, United States)" if even further disambiguation is needed. This would be a naming convention adapted to the rest of Wiki and well-adapted to world-wide use. THEPROMENADER 10:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
PS: A bit advice : to avoid more going around in circles, best try to come up with a convention that satisfies as many Wiki-media demands as possible, and only then start wrangling with "exceptions". The "who gets the no-disambiguation top place" - would Wike ever want to create this sort of exception from a convention - is entirely another debate. THEPROMENADER 10:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It was not clear to me that it would be Portland (Oregon, United States). So, is it Paris or Paris (France)? But it would be Paris (Kenosha County, Wisconsin, United States) and Paris (Grant County, Wisconsin, United States), correct? I added 3b as a clarified version of 3a. I hope you don't mind. --Serge 14:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind, but it needlessly complicates things as, although it is longer, it says exactly the same thing. You would be kind to remove it, or perhaps add a few examples below my proposition. Your above statement is correct, as are the examples. Initially a convention should apply to anything needing disambiguation - but whether there is a "top no-disambiguation" article is another step and another debate. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 14:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually 3b is shorter in that the editorializing in 3a is avoided. Besides the list of clarifying examples, the only extra words are: "If there is more than one cityplace within the same country, disambiguate further, as appropriate. " I believe this is necessary as in 3a it is not clear whether it would be Portland (Oregon) or Portland (Oregon, United States). The "disambiguate further" language clarifies that the country as a minimum is always there (when disambiguation is required). Without that language this meaning may be clear to you, but it's not to me. --Serge 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
What "editoralising"? It's the proposition that's important, not our contribution of the same. The lower version is also vague - thus an invitation for more wikilawyering. To the point == no fussing about. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
"just like the rest of Wikipedia (and every other respectable encyclopaedic publication)" is editorializing. Such wording should not be in a guideline. We're supposed to be proposing wording for an actual guideline here. By the "lower version" do you mean 3b? How is it also vague? If so, let's fix it. --Serge 20:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatever are you going on about? I was reasoning, and using the reasoning of other more professional, longstanding and respectable publications (than Wiki) as an example for the same. Yet it's only the reasoning we should maintain - who said anything about putting talk-page discussion into a guidline? THEPROMENADER 20:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It was part of the proposal for the guideline. It wasn't separate. These are supposed to be specific proposals for actual guidelines, not vague descriptions with mixed in commentary. The devil is in the details, and that's what we should be trying to work out. --Serge 21:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, you seem to be the only one declaring discussion details to be fixed guidelines. Keep discussion simple - and coherent! - please. THEPROMENADER 23:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
For every proposal, there is a section to present the guideline being proposed, and section to discuss the guideline being proposed. Why mix in discussion in the guideline presentation section? If you're proposing a guideline, great, but please do so clearly so we know what we're discussing. Thanks. --Serge 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Contrary to American usage for names including states, which is clearly Springfield, Illinois. Strongly oppose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Also contrary to usage for French and German places, as above. Doing naming conventions differently by country is the sensible way to do things; not doing so is provincialism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Concerning the two comments above: No wikilawyering please; There's really no call to compare a proposition to a method that the proposition itself finds fault in. Wiki is not only for "American use": the above also seems to forget that people read references (such as Wiki) when looking for information unknown to them, most often meaning "other countries" where placenames are concerned. I don't see how this goes against French or German usage, even though such comparisons are moot to this argument - it's the functionality of a new method we're discussing with the above proposition, not the weight of an already-existing one. THEPROMENADER 17:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 3b

Same as 3a, except clarified to the best of my understanding.

  1. Use the proper name of the subject of the article as a title, and specify anything else, if required for disambiguation, with parenthesis.
  2. When disambiguation is necessary (per normal Wikipedia naming conventions) for "cityplace", use "cityplace (country)". If there is more than one cityplace within the same country, disambiguate further, as appropriate. Examples: Paris, London, San Francisco, Pacific Grove, Monterey (California, United States), Santiago (Chile), Cork (city) (because Cork (Ireland) is ambiguous, and there is no sub-jurisdiction to disambiguate further), Paris (Texas, United States), London (Ohio, United States), Paris (Kenosha County, Wisconsin, United States) and Paris (Grant County, Wisconsin, United States).

--Serge 14:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

3b discussion

May I suggest that this proposal only use as much disambiguation as is necessary to uniquely identify the town being discussed? In other words, I think Paris (Texas, United States) is unnecessary, and that Paris (Texas) is sufficient to disambiguate the city from others with the same name. I'm basing this suggestion on my understanding that article titles need not provide context, since that is the job of the first line of the article. I think this would result in Paris (Kenosha County) and Paris (Grant County), unless there are other similarly-named towns in other similarly-named counties. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 19:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But this does not take into account the international nature of Wiki. To disambiguate with the most "world-known" term first would be the best practice in this direction - and this would be "country". Lesser-known and smaller administrative divisions should only be used with the first, and only as neccessary. Let's get out of this "local that we know" clique. THEPROMENADER 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Toby, see Proposal 3c. Is that what you're looking for? --Serge 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 3c

Same as 3b, except minimizes disambiguation information. It results in being a combination of 1a and 3b.

  1. Use the proper name of the subject of the article as a title, and specify anything else, if and only if required for disambiguation, within parenthesis.
    Examples: Paris, London, San Francisco, Pacific Grove.
  2. When disambiguation is required, use the highest administrative division possible, starting with the name of the country, that results in a unique title, while also utilizing the least number of divisions possible.
    Examples: Santiago (Chile), Monterey (California), London (Ohio), Paris (Texas), Paris (Kenosha County) (not Paris (Kenosha County, Wisconsin) which would be used only if Paris (Kenosha County) was not unique) and Paris (Grant County).
  3. When no appropriate anministrative division is appropriate, use the word city.
    Example: Cork (city) (because Cork is a dab page, the city of Cork is not officially part of County Cork, and Cork (Ireland) is ambiguous with the county).

--Serge 23:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

3c discussion

How many articles would have to be moved, and how many links fixed, if this proposal is adopted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Literally tons, I imagine. Most likely the situation will be the same if any new proposition is accepted. THEPROMENADER 09:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That is the inevitable one-time cost (how many articles have to be moved) and part of the benefit (number of links fixed) of going to a consistent worldwide convention. Hopefully much of it can be done with bots. But do not think that the primary purpose of going to a single consistent world city (place?) naming convention is to fix broken links. It's much more than that. --Serge 16:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So this propositon would be "disambiguate from the lowest administrative division possible, moving upwards for extra disambiguation, using parenthesis" - correct? THEPROMENADER 17:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, at least not how it is currently written. But it would be cleaner and more specific if it said that explicitly (and the examples were consistent), and I think that's what Toby had in mind, so I'll revise it accordingly. --Serge 20:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 4

The status quo. Aside from a handful of vocal malcontents, is there really such a problem that needs to be fixed here? I mean seriously folks, I don't see that there is much of any problem here that need fixing. Despite the lengthy disputations of some, there is NOTHING inherently unencyclopedic about using the place, state convention. And this being a wiki, there is NOTHING very unusual whatsoever that there are some inconsistencies. older ≠ wiser 01:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the best suggestion I've heard yet. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The goal here is to come up with a uniform worldwide city (or, ideally, place) naming convention, so we don't need separate and inconsistent guidelines for each nation. Surely you can appreciate that. --Serge 04:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Whose goal? The goal of some of us is to write an encyclopedia, rather than to debate changes to naming conventions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Whose goal is to debate changes to naming conventions? Certainly not mine. My goal is to have a consistent naming convention for all place articles in Wikipedia, but at least for all city articles, that is hopefully consistent with the naming conventions used by other articles in Wikipedia. And to come up with a proposal that achieves that goal is the purpose of this discussion in this section of this talk page. If you're not interested in participating in an effort to achieve that goal, perhaps you should go do something else? No offense... I'm just saying... --Serge 05:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The existing naming convention is working well-enough, and a major change will likely result in disruption. That may not be the goal, but it's likely to be the result. These new proposals appear to address non-existent problems. Now if someone can find a general solution to the problems that do occur, like Gdansk/Danzig, then that woud be time well spent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixing gross inconsistencies is not disruption - it's improving Wikipedia, no matter how much work it will require bots to do. Having a separate guideline for each country on how to name cities is a gross inconsistency that needs to be fixed if it can be. That's what we're trying to do here. Will you help, or not? --Serge 14:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So this 'proposal' as "majority (for the English-speaking) already rules, leave it alone!". Disruption is not the goal - unification and standardised treatment is. Doesn't it bother you that non-English-speaking countries are treated with one method, and English-speaking countries another (yet a method most only recognizable to people from that country)? Has anyone considered this from a media-wide point of view, and how it looks (and works!) for the publication as a whole? I tend to think "no". THEPROMENADER 10:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Disruption is the effect. I see no sufficient reason to treat names in Germany and names in the United States under the same set of rules; English doesn't. This does not bother me in the slightest; inconsistency between articles in the same county or Bezirk does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you know of any encyclopedia or any professional publication that uses different naming conventions for cities in Germany than cities in the United States? Please. --Serge 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes; I can't think of one off-hand that doesn't. They disambiguate French and German ambiguities by river, American ambiguities by state, and UK ambiguities by county. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait wait wait. The fact that the argument is moot (local disambiguations for locals can't be expected to be understood internationally), the French "sur Rhone" or "sur Marne" disambiguation (as you call it) is an integral part of the placename. It is not, in fact, disambiguation. THEPROMENADER 20:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
      • How we disambiguate is a separate question of when we disambiguate. We should of course use a disambiguation method that reflects common usage. However, this still doesn't mean we should pre-disambiguate as a policy. --Polaron | Talk 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Exactly. I should have asked: do you know of any encyclopedia or professional publication that predabs city names in one country, but doesn't predab city names in another country, as a rule? --Serge 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I would also agree that disambiguation should only be used where necessary. THEPROMENADER 20:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The status quo reflects the consensus of move requests. New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago are exceptions this year; there may be a different list of exceptions next year. This is a guideline; it admits of exceptions, but they shouldn't be written in unless there is a consensus reason for them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The "status quo" that you refer to is the U.S. city guideline/convention. This discussion is about a potential worldwide convention. --Serge 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No, there is a status quo on non-American places as well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course there is a status quo on non-American places as well. But the status quo that you refer to, in terms of the New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago "exceptions", are all-American. --Serge 16:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Been busy since I made the proposal. Responding to some comments. It doesn't bother me in the least that "non-English-speaking countries are treated with one method, and English-speaking countries another". If it bothers me at all, it is that the disambiguation methods in place for places outside the U.S. (and Canada and Australia which have adopted the same canonical base form) is maddeningly inconsistent and confusing. However, if it weren't for some editors who would turn exceptions into the rule -- I'd have no problem with expanding the list of exceptions somewhat. But so long as there is such determined cult-like fanaticism to elevate the principle of Use Common Names into the equivalent of a foundational principle (and along the way misinterpret and misunderstand disambiguation), then I'd prefer that the rule be kept more towards the exception-free side of things. older ≠ wiser 00:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I have to strongly support the "status quo" proposal here. Per my comments made above in the United States section, I haven't really seen a lot of consideration for technical issues here. From the point of view of someone who operates a bot (that specifically targets US city articles) having a clear, consistent and objective naming scheme is extremely important to technical applications such as a bot - it is infinitely easier for my bot to find the right article titled San Francisco, California, rather than being confounded by disambiguations and redirects. The simpler the naming scheme, the better it is for all involved really. This may sound like laziness on my part for wanting my task as a bot operater to be simpler, but as Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia and reliant on technology, creating additional and unecessary complications for those of us involved in the more technical aspects of the 'pedia is really not in the best interests of the project. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 5

Move Pacific Grove, California to Pacific Grove and ban Serge from this page.

Proposal 5 discussion

This is tongue-in-cheek; but enough already. There is no consensus for a massive change; there never has been; there is never likely to be. Drop it for a year. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No consensus usually means the discussion keeps going on. If we can all agree to some compromise, then all these discussions would probably stop. Asking people to shut up is not the right way to resolve this. The current convention is still in place only because it has the advantage of status quo not because there is consensus for it. --Polaron | Talk 16:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The present convention describes what we actually do; if there were consensus to change that, it would be a reason to change the convention; but until then, it is the best available waiting ground. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You do not seem to recognize that the discussion here is much broader than anything we've had before, which has mostly been focussed entirely on the U.S. It's way too early to decide whether the consensus is for or against having a consistent worldwide naming convention for cities. Think out of the box for the moment. Ignoring the current myriad of inconsistent naming conventions for cities, what would you propose as a single consistent convention to be used by all cities in the world? If you had a magic wand to instantly change all city articles to anything you wanted, what would you have it do? That's what this section is about. --Serge 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I would break it and leave them alone. Wikipedia is inconsistent; that's a feature, not a bug. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Again a "leave it alone, I like it like that" argument - in spite of an accompanying admission that the present system is faulted? Are we really to be happy with imperfection? What of the disparities between English-speaking and non-English speaking countries - don't you think that this may be difficult to those who don't know what country "City" is in because they've never heard of ", State"? Isn't it a bit odd that the Country of "City" in countries normally unknown to the English-speaking public is clearly pointed out for the same, but those non-English-speaking countries don't enjoy the same privilege of clarity? Don't you think that some would find this difference in treatment a tad self-centred, ignorant, or xenephobic even?
I do not agree that the present system is "faulted"; which does not mean it is perfect. The only thing I find odd in this discussion is the California provincialism which assumes every municipality is a city. The closest thing I see to xenophobia is the unconscious arrogance that would set rules for the world. What's next, Godwin's Law? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I find that analogy offensive; I would also suggest that by making a unique convention for all countries we would be accomplishing exactly the opposite of that you indicate. What country the rules "come from" doesn't even matter - all I'm asking for is equal treatment for all. THEPROMENADER 17:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Serge's methods of arguing/organising debate aren't the best, but I would never suggest banning anyone. And I've seen far worse, trust me. THEPROMENADER 17:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the ban would be for the perpetual summoning of polls. He has never had a majority, let alone consensus. Enough is enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Although practice may be annoying to some, I don't think anyone reserves the right to ban voting. Rather, this should be taken to a theatre bigger than this - it's been the same old actors since years now. A village pump anouncement, anyone? Let the world decide. THEPROMENADER 17:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to hammer out what we can here before making any major announcements. This is the first time an effort has been started to come up with a worldwide consistent naming convention for cities, as far as I know and can recall. --Serge 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
PMAnderson, accusing someone for "perpetual summoning of polls" is an odd comment coming from someone who is the only who has tried to change this discussion into a poll[4], and has just made a change to the project page altering something that was reached through discussion, consensus and collaboration (I just reverted that change, by the way). --Serge 18:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
From the archive box at the top of the page, there appear to have been at least two previous attempts to come up with a worldwide consistent naming convention for cities:
The first of these appears similar to Serge's current push, the second was the exact opposite - commas everywhere. Both appeared to conclude that it's not practical. --Scott Davis Talk 02:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Both were specific proposals and very different from my "current push". My "current push" is not for anything specific. I'm trying to get everyone to work together towards one common convention. I have my preferences, of course, but I would prefer just about anything to the current every-country-does-its-own-thang mess. The structure I've layed out is meant to encourage folks to look at other proposal, leave their comments, and/or brainstorm new guidelines, or modified versions of what others have proposed. For example, what we're currently missing in the list of proposals is a worldwide comma convention. --Serge 05:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Reasons we should not have an international convention

  • The reason not to have an international convention of "always disambiguate" is that it works poorly in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Austria.
  • The reason not to have an international convention of "disambiguate only when necessary" is that it works poorly in the United States and Australia and is opposed in Chile.
  • The reason, so far, not to use a standard of "disambiguate most" is that it will still work poorly in the United Kingdom and no clear standard for which cities are primary usage has been proposed.
  • The reason not to adopt a world-wide method of disambiguation is that different countries use different methods and (in general) English follows them. We should not invent names.

These are the bars that must be crossed; any international standard must have reasons enough stronger than these to justify massive moves. What more needs to be said? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Then let's cross them. Your list of selective arguments does not at all address the entire concept of an international method, nor the benefits it may bring, and, authorative tone aside, it is certainly not reason enough to abandon all idea of debate on an international method - au contraire, actually.

The silliest in the your stance is that many of the world's major publications already have an international naming scheme; how can you continue to pretend that no possibility for the same exists? Perhaps you don't want it to, but taste is certainly no subsitute for reason. If you do not want to help find an international method, then there is no reason for your participation in a thread dedicated to this endeavour. THEPROMENADER 17:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Perhaps an example of a single naming convention used by a major world publication would be useful to the debate. In particular, a link to the specific wording of said convention so that we have something to compare to? ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The Larousse in front of me, already - no disambiguation for any name unless neccessary, and then it uses parentheses for a sometimes lengthy and descriptive disambiguation. I'll see if I can find some other examples. THEPROMENADER 18:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Please find examples in English. That Larousse differs from American usage on Ameerican cities does not surprise me; how many Springfields does it have? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly - an English langauge example would be appropriate, considering this is the English wikipedia. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I knew you'd say that : ) I don't see your "U.S. usage" point though, as few respectable publications adapt to local usage - name a few yourself! Anyhow, Encyclopedia Britannica uses no disambiguation for placenames (a quick search for Denver and a comma convention for proper names ("Denver, John", "Denver, University of") for alphabetisation - yes, even for its electronic version. Different methods, yes, but consistent across the board in all cases. THEPROMENADER 18:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
...and while we're being French (in an English encyclopaedia), here's a quick search for Britannica's "Paris". No disambiguation, across the board. To each its own method, but they are always consistent for places the world over. Like any respectable publication! THEPROMENADER 18:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoop, here's another - section "Par" from "The World Gazeteer" - only placenames, and they use a "Name (Country, region)" disambiguation. These are not cherrypicked, these are pulled from the first places I thought to look! THEPROMENADER 18:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoop, here's another online reference - Yahoo encyclopedia - that uses no disambiguation at all whenever possible ("Denver" again); their "Paris" (example because existing in countries the world over) uses a "Name, description, Country" convention. Consistent across the board, again. Have I made my point clear? Now, can we get some forward motion, please? THEPROMENADER 18:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Are these based on your observations of a convention or the wording of a convention itself? ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
My meaning was clear. Use the word "method" instead of you so prefer, it changes nothing. I gave you exactly what you asked for - that's a pretty vague reply. THEPROMENADER 20:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Go back and re-read what I asked for, and that was the specific wording of the convention in use. It seems to me you have sampled some references and given us your observation on what naming scheme they seem to use. I don't care which word you use - method, scheme, convention, etc. My question was do you have any examples of the actual method itself, and not just an observation thereof? ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don't see the point of your question - in what way does it refute anything? The method is clear for all to see in the examples I gave - look, and judge for yourself! THEPROMENADER 21:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
And I remind Promenader that, unlike most works of reference, we are forced to disambiguate. It might be better to have all the Springfields at separate articles, all called Springfield, but we can't. Printed works can, and some do; but, nowever simple and elegant this may be, it is impossible for us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, but that doesn't force us to use local lingo. How about the other examples above - the "World Gazetteer", listing every city on the planet, was a very complete example. Why do you ignore these? THEPROMENADER 20:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for taking this discussion totally off-topic. I'm making the last bit of this a thread of its own. THEPROMENADER 21:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The world gazetteer example above appears to use some sort of "always disambiguate", but it's not clear from the examples exactly what their rules are. It appears to always use a country and sometimes use another level of administrative region, but I didn't pick the rule for it. --Scott Davis Talk 14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should U.S. city articles be treated differently from all other articles in Wikipedia?

I've asked this question several times, and no one has answered it, so I'm asking it again in a separate section.

While there are certainly individual article exceptions to the Use Common Names guideline, and there are some classes of articles where, since the most common name is typically not obvious, a naming convention is used for consistency (like names and titles, ships and certain types of aircraft), I don't know of any class of articles outside city articles where the names that are obviously the most common name for the subjects of the articles within the class are systematically not used in favor of disambiguated/qualified less common alternative names, even when there are no ambiguity issues to resolve with the most common names. If I've overlooked some obvious examples of such classes of articles, please let me know. Otherwise, if you favor the comma convention, please explain why cities, and U.S. cities in particular, should be treated differently from every other class of articles within Wikipedia. Thanks.

To be clear, this question/point is based on the assumption that Boston, Seattle, Houston and San Francisco are more commonly used to refer to the respective cities than are the state-qualified alternatives (like San Francisco, California) which are currently used as their Wikipedia article titles. --Serge 18:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my jumping in here too, but I wouldn't give the "common names" argument any credibility - common to who, where? The vagueness of the "what is a name" debate (name to who?) makes the logic of the "city, state" attachment to this rule even weaker. What I can say for certain is that, in my reading the Wiki disambiguation guidelines this morning, I found nary a mention of a comma anywhere there; the guideline uses only parentheses as examples. Is this the origin of the "'City, State' is not disambiguation" idea? THEPROMENADER 19:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Promenader, certainly with some topics determining the most common name is not an obvious thing. But with cities, there is no question that the most common name for any city anywhere in the world is simply the name of the city, period. Whether it's Rome, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, San Francisco, Pacific Grove, Lemon Grove or Beijing, the fact that these names are either the article about the city, or are redirects to it, makes this absolutely clear. Whether this most common name conflicts with other uses of the name and requires disambiguation, and, if so, how that disambiguation is done, are separate issues.
Also, I'm trying to avoid the "what is a name?" question because that really is semantics. Whether San Francisco, California is a "name" of that city simply depends on how you define "name". If you go with a strict definition, no. If you go with a more loose and general definition, yes. Which definition is intended by the common name guideline is anyone's guess. Similarly, the question of whether Cityname, Statename is a disambiguation or a legitimate alternative name is also an issue of similar semantics. Depending on how you define "name" the answer can be "yes", "no" or "both". This is a question that cannot be answered, because it depends on the definition of a term that cannot be clearly defined. So, let's not waste our time on it, okay?
So, the point of this section is to inquire why so many seem to feel that U.S. cities, unlike all other articles in Wikipedia, should not be at the clearly most obvious common name for the subject of the article (which in the case of a city, any city, is, well, the name of the city), even when there are no ambiguity conflicts with that name per the WP:D guidelines. Why should U.S. city articles be treated differently from all other articles in Wikipedia? --Serge 19:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Your points are valid, and it's true that we should not get lost in semantics - but that's all we seem to get in answer to certain questions. The best thing to do is take case examples of working place-naming methods in other encyclopaedic publications - national or international. Let's find the method first, approve it, and set the rules after, accordingly. You'll find that the people who cite most the rules are those who least want them to change. THEPROMENADER 21:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The answer is quite simple: They aren't. There are other finite classes of articles, which have standard methods of disambiguation and which frequently need it. We disambiguate these generally, both to avoid future conflicts, and to make them predictable. It gets tiring being asked the same question, on the same false premise, over and over again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
So now you're conceding that the comma convention is a method of disambiguation? Anyway, your they aren't assertion is meaningless without specific examples. What specific "finite classes of articles" systematically use some alternate disambiguated naming format rather than the obvious most common name even when there are no conflicts with the most common name? --Serge 20:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I concede that Springfield, Illinois disambiguates Springfield, nothing more. Similarly, George Byron, 6th Baron Byron disambiguates Lord Byron; although that's his most common name, and unquestionably primary usage. Louis XIV of France disambiguates Louis XIV, although it is unambiguous. There are others at WP:NCSeptentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
PMAnderson, there are certainly exceptions in the class of royalty where certain members clearly have a "most common/primary name". But, they are the exceptions. The most common name for most royals is not nearly as obvious as it is for an exception case such as Lord Byron, and not nearly as obvious and consistent as it is for cities. Cities whose, well, name, is the "most common/primary name" are not exceptions. To the contrary, every single city on Earth has a single "most common/primary name" without exception. There is no other class of articles within Wikipedia where the "most common/primary name" is systematically not used in favor of disambiguated/qualified less common alternative names. Why should U.S. city names be treated differently from every other article in Wikipedia? --Serge 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Serge, comma convention is a method of disambiguation and a common name, particularly in English speaking countries. US, Canada, and Australia tend to refer to lesser known/ambiguous cities as "City, State/Province/Territory" (ex. Darwin, Northern Territory, London, Ontario, Issaquah, Washington, the UK tends to refer to lesser known/ambiguous cities by "City, Country" (ex. Lincoln, England), Ireland is a bit different in that it has different methodology for cities and towns with cities going by either "City" or "City, Country" (ex. Dublin or Dublin, Ireland) and lesser known/ambiguous towns going by "Town, County" (ex. Ballina, County Mayo). That isn't to say that "City" is not the most common manner in which to refer to some cities (ex. Dublin, London, New York City), just that "City, High Political division" is also a way to commonly refer to a city/town/village/etc. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Bobblehead, yes, "City, High Political division" is also a way to commonly refer to a city/town/village/etc. - no argument there. But my point is it is never the most common way to refer to a city, for any city. Even Paris, Texas is most commonly referred to as Paris. Now, for that city, of course, disambiguation is required. But why for U.S. cities, unlike any other class of articles in Wikipedia, do we systematically use a common, but LESS common name, rather than the most common name when there is no conflict issue? Why should U.S. city names be treated differently from every other article in Wikipedia? --Serge 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
They aren't being treated differently than any other article on Wikipedia. They are located at a common name for the city that is not confusing to anyone. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
How is that being treated like any other article in Wikipedia? No one is yet able to identify a class of Wikipedia articles (outside of U.S., Aus, Can cities) which have as clear a primary/most-common name as do cities, and yet for which this primary/most-common name is systematically not used for the title of the articles, in favor of some other "not confusing" disambiguated/qualified alternative, even when there are no conflicts with the primary/most-common name. Since there is no such class of articles, why should U.S. city names be treated differently from every other article in Wikipedia? --Serge 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good lord, will you two stop dancing around each other's interpretations of reality? Pmanderson, your examples are apples to oranges: all of them (save the placenames) can be considered to be different versions of the subject's proper name. Choosing a different version of a subjects own name to avoid conflict is one thing, but using the name of another subject or place as a disambiguator is quite another. Don't even try to pretend that "State" is the same to "city" as "Baron" is to "Byron" - Byron is a Baron, but City is not a State : ) THEPROMENADER 21:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when did proper name have anything to do with how articles are named on Wikipedia? --Bobblehead (rants) 21:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"Own name" then, as that was my meaning. Words that are the identity of the subject itself. I'm sure my meaning was clear. THEPROMENADER 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yet again... Since when does Wikipedia use "own name" to determine how to name an article? The only thing that matters is that the name is not confusing to readers, hence Steven Georgiou is at Cat Stevens, not Yusuf Islam or Steven Georgiou. Like it or not, it is common practice in English to refer to "settlements" as "Placename, Higher Political Division" regardless of the higher political division being in the "settlements" own or proper name.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's not stray through interpretation. Of course it is preferable to use the subject's own name, whatever version, to title an article about the same. "State" is not a city, and a practice is not a name. THEPROMENADER 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Who is parsing now? A term by which something is referred to is the subject's name, regardless of it being their own name or not. A subject's own name has no place in determining an article's name on Wikipedia and to think otherwise is to make an interpretation of the naming conventions that is simply not supported by any of them. The only name(s) that is important is the name(s) by which the subject is commonly known as and "Placename, Higher Political Division" is a name by which most cities are commonly known as. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To say the above defines is a "name" is stretching it to the extreme, and then some. Why this effort? It is logic to anyone that "State" is in no way the name of a city, but shall we just forgo this basic common sense - in favour of a selective opinion whose only role is supporting the use of a local tradition in Wiki? THEPROMENADER 22:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Why, I'd say it is quite the opposite -- it accurately reflects exactly what a name is. Why do you insist on such resisting such a common sense understanding of a simple concept? older ≠ wiser 23:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Just because you say it is common sense doesn't mean it is. Common to... who? "State" is not a city's name, no matter how you juggle. THEPROMENADER 23:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Still no answer.

While there have been a few attempts to claim that U.S. cities are not treated differently, the only examples given are the Australian and Canadian cities which I acknowledged from the outset when I first posed this question above, and hardly prove anything. So the question remains unanswered. Here it is again, slightly refined... Why should U.S./Australian/Canadian city articles be treated differently from all other non-city (and most city) articles in Wikipedia? --Serge 01:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Still no reasonable question. There are a number of different types of articles which have specific naming rules which differ from the general WP:NAME guidelines. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that there are "a number of different types of articles which have specific naming rules which differ from the general WP:NAME guidelines" is undisputed (at least not disputed by me), but has no relevance to the question, which makes no reference to, and has nothing to do with, general WP:NAME guidelines.
Again, while there are certainly individual article exceptions to the Use Common Names guideline, and there are some classes of articles where, since the most common name is typically not obvious, a naming convention is used for consistency (like names and titles, ships and certain types of aircraft), I don't know of any class of articles outside city articles where the names that are obviously the most common name for the subjects of the articles within the class are systematically not used in favor of disambiguated/qualified less common alternative names, even when there are no ambiguity issues to resolve with the most common names. If I've overlooked some obvious examples of such classes of articles, please let me know. --Serge 01:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is such a class of articles. WP:NC(flora) specifically says to use the scientific name even if there is a clear common name. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not an example, because like for ships and royalty, individual cases where there clearly is a primary/common name is an exception for that class. Such is not the case for cities, where every single member has a clear an unquestionable primary/common name: the name of the city. --Serge 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, not. Exception 2 reads "Plants which are economically or culturally significant enough to merit their own page, using the common name as a title, describing their use." That's more restrictive than having a unique common name. 01:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, not what? The example they use for exception 2, is coffee, preferring two articles, one for coffee, about the culturally and economically significant substance, and another science-oriented article with the scientific name. This is like having one article about the government of San Francisco at City and County of San Francisco, and another about the cultural city at San Francisco. Anyway, it goes beyond making my point. Flora that is commonly known is at the common name. See rose, carnation, oak and pine. --Serge 04:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
For the U.S., the answer seems to be 1) because that's how it has been 2) because U.S. cities often require disambiguation. I happen to disagree that these are good enough reasons, but I don't think they're meaningless. Λυδαcιτγ 01:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Finally someone is paying attention. There are many classes in which members "often require disambiguation", such as TV episode names. And, by the way, TV episode names are much more likely to develop conflicts in the future than are city names. Yet they, like other classes of articles in which each member has a clear single primary/common name, only dab when necessary. I agree those reasons are not meaningless, but #2 is surely not an explanation for why they are treated differently, and #1 is obviously lame as a justification for continuing the practice. --Serge 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Another answer is, because they aren't. US/Canadian/Australian cities are located at a common name by which the cities are referred to. The only difference is that the US convention decides which common name should be used instead of leaving it to a free for all. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Because they aren't? Your statement simply reraises the question! Why should U.S./Can/Aus cities be different from every other article in Wikipedia for which the decision of which common name to use is made by your much-feared "free for all"? It is particularly odd with city names where the most common name is totally clear: the name of the city. Anyway, why should U.S./Can/Aus cities be different from every other article in Wikipedia? The question remains unanswered. --Serge 04:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well my answer from further back up the page was

:Lists of reasons and explanations get ignored, but here are the most important to me (again):

  1. Articles are given a name that is unlikely to need changing on the discovery of more information about other places.
  2. It is easy to distinguish between the many links that deliberately link to the article, and any others which might need to be checked and properly disambiguated.
  3. The title is precise enough that readers can fairly quickly identify what the article is about.
— Scott Davis Talk 09:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This is actually a suggestion of support for adopting something similar to the US convention world-wide, not an argument that US/Aus/Can should be different. --Scott Davis Talk 15:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing that, Scott. Essentially, what you are saying, and boldly so I might add, is that U.S. (and Can/Aus to an extent) city articles are treated differently, and the solution is not to reverse that, but to extend it to other areas within Wikipedia. In fact, the lists of reasons above would seem to apply to any so-called precise class (defined below) of article names. You would, for example, presumably favor the predisambiguating of all TV episode articles, yes? --Serge 17:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

By the numbers

For what it's worth, I ran a survey of 10,000 US cities that fall under one of the subcategories of Category:Cities in the United States by state and Category:Towns in the United States. This was a simple survey that checked the article at City, State (or in some cases City, County, State) and compared it to whatever is found at City. Here's what it found.

  • 22.3% had a redirect from City to City, State indicating a unique city name
  • 4.8% had a redirect from City to somewhere other than City, State, indicating a need for disambiguation
  • 42.4% had a disambiguation page at City
  • 30.5% had an article at City that did not correspond to City, State

This indicates that 77.7% of articles for US cities require some form of disambiguation. This is honestly less than I expected but still the vast majority of them, and shows that, at least among US city articles, the user will ultimately end up at a disambiguated article most of the time. It is therefore reasonable to say that a user will come to expect US cities in the disambiguated form of the title (currently City, State). Having the 22.3% of the articles that do not require disambiguation nevertheless redirected to a disambiguated form results in greater consistency among articles, at least for US cities.

My whole point is thus - disambiguation by default is the best method for US cities. Retaining the method of disambiguation in the City, State format is the best method as it conforms to expected naming conventions. I don't think I could really support any other method for US cities. Whether this is the best method for countries other than the US I cannot authoritatively say, and I have no desire to enforce this standard upon those other countries if people more knowledgable about their situations say otherwise. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, those numbers may more or less describe the state of things in the sources you chose, but I don't see where they conclude in a "best method". Let's leave the hypothesis about what people may or may not "expect" - the norm for reference works is to assume ignorance. And what about the rest of the world? THEPROMENADER 21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I am admittedly ignorant as to the "rest of the world". I could try running a sample of cities from other countries as well, although it will be technically more difficult and require some time. This is why I make no claim as to whether the method I prefer would be useful to cities in other countries. Finally, using the "assume ignorance" method, a person truly ignorant of convention will come to expect that the naming convention used by those 77% of US city articles will also be used on the rest. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, but just let me remind you that you describe a majority within only a section of Wikipedia, and this doesn't mean that it is a "best method" for the same. While I'm here, what does "does not correspond" mean? Also, I do find it hasty to conclude that all the articles that are disambiguated require it. THEPROMENADER 22:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"Does not correspond" means that the article at City has nothing to do with City, State - such as Troy and Troy, Michigan. To keep the survey simple I could not dig any farther than that, but it still conclusively shows that some measure of disambiguation is needed. I'm not sure how you could argue that the disambiguated articles could possibly not require disambiguation - whenever 2 subjects share a name, some method of disambiguation is always required. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
First, thank you very much for doing this! Second, the results are not surprising, very consistent with my expectations. Third, I think your 77.7% estimate is missing a key point, and that is those cities that clearly are the most common use of a name would still fall into your 77.7%. For example, San Francisco redirects to San Francisco, California and yet there is a San Francisco (disambiguation) page. All the other San Franciscos rightfully fall into the 77.7%, but the main one doesn't. Most importantly, whether it's 22.3%, 10% or 50%, the cities that fall into that category should be at Cityname only. Why should U.S. cities be treated differently from every article in Wikipedia? --Serge 22:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not to disambiguate cities like San Francisco, California because of "most common useage" is not a question I attempted to answer. My point was merely that it falls in the "requires some form of disambiguation" category, whether that be through a dab page, a redirect, or an {{otheruses}} tag. The whole Boston/Houston/Seattle question is a different debate :) And as for why the cities should be treated differently, you bring up a good question. I suppose the root of the question is thus. Disambiguating the unambiguous 22% will seem insconsistent to those familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions in general, whereas leaving them under Cityname will seem inconsistent to those familiar with US city names but not Wiki in general. Ultimately we must ask which inconsistency is "more acceptable". ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The second inconsistency would be glaringly obvious at Category:Cities_in_California.
And 22% is probably an overestimate. San Francisco (disambiguation) contains three more San Franciscos, on which we don't have articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That sounds a tad hopeful. 78% of all Amercian cities require disambiguation? There has to be a place to find more about that. THEPROMENADER 22:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. We are talking about "normalizing" (putting each at the primary/common name) vs disambiguating about 22% (assuming your numbers are accurate) of the U.S. city articles. As far as "will seem inconsistent to those familiar with US city names but not Wiki in general", I suggest that's a temporary short-lived problem in each case because anyone who is lacking the level of familiarity with Wikipedia required to not understand why the apparent inconsistency must be a total newbie. In almost every category one will soon encounter normalized and disambiguated names very quickly. This same question regarding TV episode name titles was resolved wisely: disambiguate only when necessary (even if that means only a minority are normalized). Why should U.S. city names be treated differently? --Serge 22:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
They aren't any more than 5 minutes ago. Australian cities are another example for Serge to ignore. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Australian cities are not outside the realm of articles about cities, PMAnderson. Yes, Australian and Canadian cities, to an extent, make the so-called U.S. city error. That's why I asked for examples outside of the realm of city articles. Perhaps you missed it here? But if you genuinely require the question to be asked so precisely.... Why should U.S./Australian/Canadian cities be treated differently from all other non-city (and most city) articles in Wikipedia? --Serge 22:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting data, thanks Arkyan for running that. There will undoubtedly be "doubles" (hey, there are lots of places called Springfield) and places in the US that are less famous than a foreign equivalent (I would expect to find the Anatolian place at Troy rather than its Michigan namesake) and even lots of places with names that have some thing rather than some where as notable (hence a dab at Intercourse) or more so (e.g., Fox for the animal, not the 300-person town in Alaska). However, there are certain US cities that are the most notable thing with the name and that they must remain at City, State due to past practice is unfortunate. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I would support moving the best known American cities to their bare names, if only we had a clear and transparent standard for which ones they are; otherwise we get the "my town is as good as his town" effect. The Australians, for example, disambiguate all but Capitals, which won't work for us. (Too many American state capitals are less well known than other cities in the same state.) Have you a suggestion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see a sign of reasonablness. What can be more clear and transparent than "is a member of those 22% quickly and easily identified by Arkyan"? In other words, if [[Cityname]] redirects to [[Cityname, Statename]], swap 'em. Easy. Simple. Clear. Unambiguous. Transparent. Done. --Serge 22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Almost anything would be more transparent. Is White Lake Township, Michigan on it? Maybe (he only did 10000), but how can anyone tell without running a search? And also, we know, thanks to Bkonrad, that it shoudn't be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
White Lake Township currently redirects to White Lake Township, Michigan, so if the article were there the situation would be no different than it is now. Totally clear and transparent. --Serge 23:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Serge, I've always supported this position; it would be nice if you read my posts at some point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • So much for being reasonable. That didn't last long (by the way, I never said you didn't always support this position, and I do read all your posts). My question above remains unanswered, by the way. Why should U.S./Australian/Canadian cities be treated differently from all other non-city (and most city) articles in Wikipedia? --Serge 23:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, for a start, how about this (the first sentence is from Proposal 1a):

If there are no ambiguity issues with the name of the city, use the name of the city for the title of the article. If there is a possible conflict with another city in the USGS database, or with another another encyclopedic subject, use the "comma convention".

White Lake Township, Michigan would remain where it is. Colorado Springs, Colorado would be moved to Colorado Springs. Λυδαcιτγ 01:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Carlos, it would be unfortunate if indeed they had to stay at City, State. Fortunately, they don't. Reason and logic can prevail. Your assistance on behalf of reason and logic is appreciated. --Serge 22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It's clear to all that this is but a debate on taste. Best not play by those rules - find real definitions about how things work - this "what we call things" justifies nothing and has to end. Unless the goal is that there is no end : ) THEPROMENADER 23:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for being reasonable. You admit your position is based on taste, and you assume mine is too. You are half-right. Your position is based on taste, while mine is based on logic and reason. Only when you stop looking at this issue from a perspective of "taste", and try to see it objectively with logic and reason, will you be able to understand my position. --Serge 00:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome, but I have always been reasonable. Sorry for my lack of diplomacy and my tendency to call a card a card, but if you are arguing from a point of logic and reason, you have a funny way of going about it - you are attempting to use justification theories ("common name") invented by those who oppose you to your own end! Or is it you, the inventor?
Do you even know what my position is? In any case, it is not at all based on "taste"; in fact, I'm still undecided. The only thing I am certain of is that this "by locals for locals" isolation scheme has to end, but if we can ever get pass the tail-chasing and stonewalling (in perhaps taking this debate somewhere else more populated) perhaps we can together find some solutions. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, here you go, a list of every populated place in the U.S., straight from the government, no less. THEPROMENADER 22:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC) FWIW, I have nothing against disambiguating placenames, just in a recognisable and informative way good for all. The World Gazetteer site has already done it, an example that really went "click" for me. It's nice to see some well-thought out work. THEPROMENADER 22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Promenader has yet to produce any English speaker to whom Lucas Township, Minnesota is either unrecognizable or uninformative. By the way, it doesn't appear to be in his zipped file either, although we have an article on it, sourced to the census. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Get real. Tell me you know where your all U.K. counties are - and that they're even in the U.K. and not, say, Ireland - and you'll answer that attempt at an unaswerable challenge yourself. THEPROMENADER 23:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You can find Lucas Township here - and the whole list of U.S. cities, by individual state, here. You're very welcome. THEPROMENADER 23:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
What's you're point? Who cares who knows or does not know about U.K. counties? older ≠ wiser 23:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
If that is a question, then who cares about U.S. States? Do you mean that counties are too small? Regions, then. Do you know your U.K. regions? Can't mix that up with Ireland - but do you know that for sure? If not you, then others from, say, the U.S.? THEPROMENADER 23:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
For the places where City redirects to City, State perhaps swapping them is a good idea; if however, a later thing were to claim the City spot, we'd have to go back to City, State, and of course how could we be sure that the newcomer is or isn't more notable than the other one, particularly where the newcomer is not from the US, say from Latin America or the Philippines, where lots of cities in San- & Santa- that don't yet have articles, may dislodge a California or Texas incumbent. Carlossuarez46 00:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Which brings us back to the question of the day. These questions of deciding which is most notable, or whether any is so notable that it warrants being at the name in question, or what to do when a new subject is found with a name that conflicts with a previously used name, are issues that every subject in Wikipedia must contend with. Why should U.S. city articles be any different? --Serge 00:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Because they aren't.
  • WP:NAME#Legislation in the United Kingdom says: "Acts should be titled with the short name form and then the year, without any comma between them (i.e., Foo Bar Act 1234). There should be a redirect from Foo Bar Act if the Act is uniquely named." This is the same question, with the addition that any name more common than the short form, like Great Reform Bill, is completely ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Likewise, for broadcast stations in North America, it provides "If the official call sign has a suffix (-CA, -CD, -FM, -LD, -LP, and -TV are the only suffixes currently in use in the United States; only -FM and -TV elsewhere), a redirect or disambiguation should be added for the call sign without the suffix." The redirects are, and must be, for cases where the call sign is unique even without the suffix. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
← ← ← ← ← ← (left shift) ← ← ← ← ← ←

Still missing the point

← ← ← (left shift) ← ← ←

PMAnderson, quite apparently, you're still missing the point. As noted when the question was first posed, many classes of articles don't have a clearly most common name for each member. At that time royal names and titles, ships and aircraft were cited as examples of such classes. Similarly, for both the classes of legislative acts and broadcast stations that you now mention, each member does not have one clear primary most common name the way cities do (other examples of classes that have clear most common names for most if not all of their members are books, movies, TV shows, TV episodes, company names, etc.). To illustrate with broadcast stations, should KGO AM be at KGO (AM), KGO-AM or KGO Radio? Which is most common? None is clearly the primary most common name, so having a naming convention for that class (and others with a similar dilemma) makes sense. But San Francisco is clearly the primary most common name for the city that KGO radio is in, and such is the case for every city in the world. No naming convention is required for city articles to resolve questions about which is the most common name for any city: it's the name of the city! Now, IF that name has conflicts and needs to be disambiguated, yes, a disambiguatory naming convention is helpful. But a naming convention has no application for cities with names that don't have conflicts per WP:D. This is the case for any article that belongs to any class for which the primary most common name is clear and obvious, including most city articles. Why should U.S. city articles be any different? --Serge 05:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You have little chance of getting any answer, at least not here. For the "U.S. convention" to remain intact, as it so different in many ways from the rest of Wiki's majoritary disambiguation/naming practices, it must remain isolated in its own oasis of reason, and this very talk page is helping the same to subsist. All of the more questionable theories ("City, State" is a name, not disambiguation) have obviously been invented with existing Wiki "rules" in mind, but this is in misunderstanding the very purpose of Wiki's rules - they are a guideline that result from a "best method" decided in places like here. Talk pages are a place to find solutions through reason, not stall debate through wikilawyering, weak theories and non sequitur rulebook citations "proving" the same.
Another reason that you will never get a reason, Serge, at least for the time being, is: no-one has to give one. Even if you are 100% correct in your reasoning, (although in your own Wiki-rule citation-reasoning, you are not), and no matter how "wrong" those promoting/defending the "city, state" method are, the latter have the majority in most U.S.-based articles, and contributors to the same, or so it would seem, are the actors most present and most agressive in this talk page debate.
There's one problem with this, though: Wiki is much bigger than U.S. articles. Take the debate to a wider scale - an international one - and this isolated little corner of Wiki, with its own rules and "reasoning", will appear to be quite exactly that. THEPROMENADER 07:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't be so quick to give up, Promenader. No one has ever explained the comma convention dilemma in these terms before. Many don't even get it yet. PMAnderson obviously does not. I'm not sure you do. There are two types of classes of articles:
  • Imprecise Classes, like names and titles of royalty, ship names, broadcast station names, etc., where the most common name of each article in the class is not clear and obvious. There may be exceptions (e.g. Lord Byron, Titanic), but for the most part, the most common name for most members in these classes is not clear. --Serge 14:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Precise Classes, like books, movies, TV shows, TV episode names, hotel names, etc., where the most common name is quite clear and obvious. Again, there may be exceptions, but for the most part the most common name is quite clear and obvious. Cities clearly fall into this category because the name of the city is clearly the most common name for each one.
Now, because of the problem with imprecise classes, naming conventions for them have naturally developed to provide a consistent means to choose the article titles for members of each class. These naming conventions apply for imprecise classes whether or not disambiguation is required, because, even if there are no conflicts, the most common name is not clear and obvious.
On the other hand, no such naming convention is required for precise classes. For them, the name to use for the title is obvious, by definition. Only when there is a conflict with another use of that name is a naming convention required to resolve the conflicts in a consistent fashion. Indeed, with the exception of U.S., and some Canadian and Australian cities, all city classes, and every other precise class of articles is handled this way in Wikipedia, so far as I know. Every time I ask for an exception to this, someone offers up another imprecise class, missing the point entirely.
Yes, no one has explicitly distinguished classes of articles into precise and imprecise before, but this has been done implicitly and consistently within Wikipedia, with the glaring exception of U.S. cities, where a precise class is treated as if it is an imprecise class. That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the current U.S. city naming convention.
And if anyone ever does find another precise class treated as if it is an imprecise class, I and others would apply this argument (in some form or another) there too. In fact, this is how the naming conventions for TV episode articles were resolved. In other words, this argument has nothing to do with U.S. cities per se, or even cities in general. It's about the overall consistent treatment of article titles in Wikipedia. --Serge 14:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Settlements are an imprecise class, under that definition. People use different, and ambiguous, names for settlements.. The name of the city (even if we could determine it), is not necessarily what it's called. For example, the city of Rancho Cucamonga, California is usually known as Cucamonga, even by the people living there. There we choose to use (a qualified or disambiguated version of) the name, rather than what it's called. On the other hand, in the case of San Francisco, California, the name is The City and County of San Francisco[5], where we chose to use (a qualified or disambiguated version of) what it's called, which is part of the name. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It's less precise than I thought. The name of my first example is The City of Rancho Cucamonga. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Come on Arthur, don't be silly. If any city like Rancho Cucamonga really did have a conflict over which is the most common name, then the comma convention would not help. In this case if there was any dispute about whether the most common name was Rancho Cucamonga or Cucamonga, then the debate would be only slightly shifted by the comma convention to whether the article should be at Rancho Cucamonga, California or Cucamonga, California. Of course, there is no such dispute or debate, because like for any other city in the world, the most common name is clear and obvious. The first line of the Rancho Cucamonga, California article reveals the clear and obvious most common name for the subject of that article: "Rancho Cucamonga is a city in ...". Also, the title itself is simply Rancho Cucamonga disambiguated by the state per the current convention. There is no history of dispute about whether it should be at Rancho Cucamonga, California or Cucamonga, California.
Of course cities have multiple names by which they are commonly referenced. That does not make them imprecise under the above definition. What distinguishes imprecise from precise is not whether there are multiple common names, but whether the determination of which is the most common is precise or not. Even if Rancho Cucamonga was an exception, which it is obviously not, it would be an extremely rare exception. No class of articles is more a precise class than are cities. And City of Rancho Cucamonga and City and County of San Francisco are maybe the correct official names, but they are hardly candidates for the most common names used to reference those cities. City article title debates are never about which is the most common name; that's always given. U.S. city article title debates are only about whether the (clear and obvious) most common name alone should be used for the title, or whether the Clear-and-Obvious-Most-Common-Cityname, Statename disambiguated form should be used, despite the lack of conflicts.
It is very revealing how determined some of these efforts are to avoid answering the question by trying to dismiss the basic underlying assumptions, regardless of how lame such efforts may be. --Serge 16:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add my thanks to Arkyan for inserting some proper analysis to these discussions. I also note that the 22.3% includes San Francisco (and other cities where the short name is a redirect to "city, state" but there is also a "city (disambiguation)" article), so in fact the cities that do not require some form of disambiguation is even smaller.--Scott Davis Talk 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I have always held that the United States should be "disambiguate most". I agree that San Francisco, California should probably be in the exceptional few if it is primary usage (I think so, but Carlos Suarez may be expected to disagree). Others hold to "disambiguate all".
    • But this requires a brightline, like the Australian Capital Cities, between the few and the many. Propose one.
  • The argument that American cities differ from the other predisambiguating classes is wrong on one count, and doubtful on the other.
  • None of this answers the argument that if we must disambiguate four American cities out of five, it is more convenient for everybody to disambiguate the fifth as well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The brightline is the same as used by all other precise classes in Wikipedia, follow WP:D: Disambiguate only if there are conflicts and the subject is not clearly the most common use of the name.
    • The fact that some royals like Lord Byron may have clear most common names does not mean royals are a precise class. For the vast majority the clearly most common name is not nearly so obvious. Why is Henry IV clearly the more common reference? Why not King Henry or King Henry IV? Cleary, royal names are an imprecise class, and that's why a naming convention that applies even when there are no conflicts with the most common name makes sense: because the most common name is usually not clear and obvious.
    • The fact that Springfield, Illinois is there and not at Something Else, Illinois, reflects that the most common name is clearly and obviously Springfield and not Something Else (not to mention that the article itself repeatedly refers to the city as Springfield and not as Something Else).
    • To understand why we should not dab the 5th out of 5 cities as well, it's important to understand that most of the 22% that don't require dabbing include most of the well-known cities, and most of the others are the less frequently visited/referenced. This is true because the most famous cities are the ones that will not be dabbed even if there are naming conflicts, per WP:D. That some not so well known cities who don't have conflicts would also not get dabbed is just a free bonus, but the main benefit/convenience to all from not dabbing the 22% is to get the famous/well-known cities undabbed. --Serge 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should U.S. city articles be any different?

Since this question seems to be regurgitated ad nauseum in spite of several attempts to answer it, I'm just going to put my reply here so there can be no confusion on the topic.

The comma method of disambiguation is understood almost universally among English speaking people. It has not been shown that its use has been a source of confusion among Wikipedia readers or editors. It is the preferred method of disambiguating a city in the majority of print media, when disambiguation is necessary. It is my opinion that it is preferable to defer to a universal method over the Wiki standard of parentheses.

I have shown that approximately 4/5 US city articles require some form of disambiguation. It is my opinion that it is better to then use the disambiguated style for the remaining 1/5 (with room for a few exceptions for certain high-profile cities) to achieve greater consistency. This also lessens the liklihood for future article moves and renames in the future.

It is my opinion that having a naming convention along the lines of "Always disambiguate except for high-profile cities using the City, State" method is the preferable and superior method for US cities. I will make no demand that the same be applied elsewhere, but unless a compelling new argument is made it is not likely my opinion is going to change. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bravo! Thank you! Let the record show that the question is answerable. --Serge 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for getting through to Serge what some of us have been trying to communicate to him for years. I concur absolutely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • PMAnderson, you agree with this? How do you consolidate this answer with your they aren't denial above? You denied that U.S. cities are treated differently. Now you "concur absolutely" with an answer that concedes that they are treated differently, and explains why they feel it is justified. No wonder I have trouble understanding your position. This is why we go in circles. Which is it, PMA, are U.S. cities treated differently or not? --Serge 19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe we're having semantics issues again, Serge. The intent of your question seems to be why are US cities being treated as exception to the common names convention. Correct? If so, PMAnderson's answers are more in response to a broader interpretation of your question that includes the exceptions that already exist to the common name convention. So PMAnderson is saying they are not being treated differently than any other article on Wikipedia, because of the other exceptions, while you're looking for a more fundamental answer of why they are being treated as exceptions in the first place. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Bobblehead, semantics? I spend a lot of time here explaining my terms as clearly as possible. If someone does not understand what I mean, they should ask for clarification. I explained my question in great detail, including taking into account the inherent exceptions of the imprecise classes here, and repeated and clarified it numerous times, and will not do it again. I will say I did not ask, "why are US cities being treated as exception to the common names convention"? Anyway, based on my explanation, PMAnderson said in no uncertain terms that he believes U.S. cities are not treated differently from other precise classes in Wikipedia. But by agreeing to the above, he's saying he agrees they are treated differently. --Serge 21:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 2nd Edit conflict-Do you agree that this issue can be put to bed if there is consensus and then discuss when to deviate as a follow on discussion? Vegaswikian 19:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would love for nothing more than some consensus to be reached and this issue put to bed :) ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we've shown several times that we have consensus for the general idea of allowing undabbed city names in some cases. The hang up has always been in terms of determining which cities to allow to do this. Suggestions have varied from "any that does not require dabbing" to "cities on the AP list", but none have achieved consensus. But given that we now know that even if we undabbed all U.S. cities that could be dabbed, that would only be 22%, maybe more people would support it? --Serge 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Arkyan, you summarize your position as, "Always disambiguate except for high-profile cities using the City, State method". Why except only "high-profile" cities? Why not be consistent with the way all other precise classes are treated in Wikipedia and except for any article that does not have conflicts? Is there any precedent in any other precise class of articles to make exceptions only for "high-profile" cases? Sorry to ask again, but what makes cities any different from anything else that justifies treating them differently like this?

Also, are you suggesting that any class of articles for which some high percentage around 75% (give or take) must be disambiguated, every article should be disambiguated? Or are U.S. cities a special case? --Serge 21:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You could interpret my stance that way, yes. The main reason I believe it beneficial to disambiguate all (most) is that when a large portion are already disambiguated, a number of casual users may come to expect the disambiguation and be confused upon finding one that is not disambiguated. By and large the same could probably be applied to any "precise class" (if I understand your definition correctly) although I am unfamiliar with any precedent one way or another. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, this is more progress, and this is why: for once I can at least see an "agree to disagree" ending point for some of this, which I have not seen before. What we seem to agree about is that no other precise class in Wikipedia is treated the way the U.S. naming convention treats the precise class of U.S. cities. Again, by precise class, I simply mean for every (or almost every) member of the class, the most common name is clear and obvious. In the case of cities, the most common name is the unqualified name of the city (hopefully everyone sees through the silly Springfield, Illinois and Rancho Cucamonga alleged counter-examples). For every other precise class in Wikipedia, the most common name is used for the title of almost every, if not every, article in the class, unless there is a conflict. In those cases, the naming convention usually specifies how to disambiguate. In contrast, the U.S. city naming guideline calls for disambiguating even when there is no conflict.
On that much we have agreement. Our disagreement seems to be about whether this conflict with how other precise classes are treated is a problem that needs to be resolved. I believe use of the most common name only, whenever possible (i.e., in precise classes), is a valuable characteristic of Wikipedia (for reasons that I've explained before), and I hate to see it foresaken. You and others (notably Scott Davis) seem to feel the conflict is not a problem, and actually would like to see it resolved by having the use of this approach (always, or almost always, dab, whether you need to or not) expanded into other precise classes. And that's exactly what I seek to avoid. I know acceptance of the "always dab" approach is what caused the big furor over TV episode names some months ago. Luckily, the "always dab" gang in that case was a relative minority. I'd hate to see the "always dab" approach grow in acceptance and reopen cases such as that one, not to mention those in which there never was such a question raised. Why not, for example, dab all book articles with the suffix, (book)? I don't know off-hand what percentage of books require dabbing, but whether it's 1%, 22%, 78% or 99%, I know I don't want Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to be at Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (book), but I think acceptance of your argument for U.S. cities eventually leads to that conclusion. I suppose we can agree to disagree on that.
Thanks again for being honest, logical and reasonable. You obviously read what others post, genuinely try to understand, and think about it. Such a rational approach is a breath of fresh air on this page. --Serge 22:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreeing to disagree is probably the most important step to reaching consensus and resolving a debate :) ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Progress!

Despite the claims of going around in circles, I think the following progress has been made on this talk page recently.

  1. We have near consensus (Promenader is the only dissenter, I believe) on the notion that Cityname, Statename is a legitimate "name" for a city, at least in the U.S. for some relatively general/broad definitions of "name". I for one have been convinced it is semantic nonsense and pointless to try to argue otherwise.
  2. We seem to have achieved some consensus on the notion that U.S. cities are treated differently from other Wikipedia articles. Scott Davis for example not only recognizes this, but applauds it for specific reasons he has outlined several times, and supports the spreading of this different treatment to other classes of articles within Wikipedia (though it's not yet clear to me if he believes this spreading should be limited to cities/settlements or to go beyond). Arkyan also recognizes the difference in treatment and explains why he believes this different treatment is justified for U.S. cities. PMAnderson seems to have backed off from his initial They aren't position and now agrees with Arkyan.
  3. I've introduced the notion of precise and imprecise classes of articles to the lexicon which helps distinguish the classes of articles for which the most common name is clear and obvious for almost all if not all class members, from those in which this is not the case.
  4. My argument that city articles form a precise class and yet U.S. cities are treated as an imprecise class has been presented, with mixed results in terms of comprehension, much less agreement. The jury is still out, I feel, but at least it's out there.

Anything else? --Serge 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Progress towards... where? A few of you have made it clear what you want (namely preserving the "city, state" convention for every placename you aren't ignorant about), but I haven't a clue where you're headed with this new "imprecise" and "precice" class... interpretation of... what? Let me remind you that a reader sees none of this wikipedian interpretation. Consistency is both comprehension and credibility for a reference, yet more than a few of you seem to forgo this simple fact in favor of personal per-wiki-re-definitions of the practices you are most comfortable with. Should we just accept, for these trifling narrow-minded local social issues, that Wiki will always be limited in these regards? Those who would say "yes" do not have the reader in mind. THEPROMENADER 22:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Can someone translate this into something intelligible? I can't. --Serge 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I can't seem to find the "Serge" setting on my intergallactic translator : ) THEPROMENADER 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I dispute the last three. They are one of a number of classes of articles which are predisambiguated; since there are other large classes, this is not "different from all other articles on Wikipedia"; there are also other articles, which are not at their most common name for one or another reason. WP:COMMONNAME is a good thing; but it is not the only good thing. The idea of precise and imprecise classes is unconvincing both in general and detail. 22:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • PMAnderson, you seem very argumentative. The idea of precise and imprecise classes is not supposed to be "convincing". It's just a way to differentiate those classes for which the most common name is obvious for nearly all articles, from those where this is not true. Examples please. Name a precise class other than U.S. cities for which every article, or nearly every article, is predisambiguated. Royalty is not a precise class, by the way, as explained above. Nor are ships, broadcast stations, or aircraft. Look at how true precise classes are treated in Wikipedia, like TV shows, films, TV episodes, books, etc. --Serge 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I disagree, to begin with, that royalty, nobility, or ships are "imprecise classes" (individual members of the class may well be; but that happens everywhere). I am not convinced that American cities are a precise class. And I am quite certain, having been part of the discussion, that that is not why those exceptions to WP:COMMONNAME were accepted; Arkyan's "disambiguate all if you have to disambiguate most" is much closer - although perhaps more coherent than any actual discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
        • PMAnderson, your obstinance with respect to "disagreeing" that royalty, nobility, or ships are "imprecise classes" is astounding. You say, "individual members of the class may well be; but that happens everywhere"... what does that mean? Individual members of the class may well be what? Imprecise? Indeed. Most of them are. That's what makes the class imprecise. Look at the articles within these classes, and see how the subject is referred to within the article. Even from the article itself you often can't tell which is the most common name. But with cities, there is not one single city that does not have an unqualified city name which is also the most common name used to refer to that city. This is perhaps made most evident by the fact that that most common name is used repeatedly all over the article for each city. And what does this have to do with the reasons "those exceptions to WP:COMMONNAME were accepted"? What exceptions are you talking about? --Serge 23:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
            • There is a real distinction close to the line you are attempting to draw, that I admit exists: Kings, nobles and ships usually have more than one valid name, depending on the degree of formality with which they are being discussed. Written works and television episodes usually have a single title. If that is what you meant, we could continue. Is it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • How about US state highways? Vegaswikian 22:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
        • US state highways is a great example of an imprecise class. The vast majority of US state highways do not have one clear and obvious most common name. They all have multiple names, including their official names, and there is no telling which is the most common. For example, for California State Route 52 candidates for most common name would include SR 52, SR-52, SR52, CA SR 52, etc. etc. This is why imprecise classes like US state highways need to have naming conventions for even the default name. --Serge 23:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, you guys go on and on and on about your own interpretation/comparison of whatever to whatever, but the reader sees none of this. All he sees is one method on one page, another on another, and he won't neccessarily understand why until he browses dozens of articles. Are you really happy with this, or are you thinking about it at all? THEPROMENADER 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is inconsistent. That's one of the consequences (it may not even be a cost) of being a wiki.Local consistency is the best we can hope for; local consistency is one of the arguments for "disambiguate all" for the United States. (I don't hold this position, but several do; and for this reason.) On the other hand, "don't disambiguate the 22%" will be an invisible consistency even locally. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
PMAnderson, you claim "don't disambiguate the 22%" will be an invisible consistency even locally. How so? Most if not all of the big famous cities are in that 22%, and, so, they will all consistently not be dabbed. And with respect to the not-so-famous within the 22%, yes, they will appear "inconsistent" with other U.S. cities which are dabbed, but so what? Book articles, film articles, and all other articles within precise classes are inconsistently dabbed. Why should U.S. cities be any different? --Serge 23:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The big famous cities are (however counted) a dozen or a few dozen. I am prepared to consider something like the Loughborough proposal especially for them. The overwhelming majority of the 22% are places like Assawoman, Virginia and Tinton Falls, New Jersey. It is those articles which should be consistent with the other towns in the same county; and it is they that will form a confusing and error-prone patchwork. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
As I have stated, no one has really pointed out any evidence to believe that this will be problematic for readers. It is my opinion that this is a largely imagined fear and the liklihood of a reader being confused by the fact that a city is named City, State is slim to none. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Beliefs, persuasions and hypotheses do not a coherent system make. Wiki readers take what's given to them; It is only wikipedians that bicker among themselves about the quality of the content. It seems by the above that few in this debate are willing to think outside their "own" little box. THEPROMENADER 23:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Touché. However, I have never tried to assert that my position was in any absolute fashion a superior position and have always been willing to concede the fact that other people may feel entirely differently than I do. Sans hard evidence one way or the other, the only things that we do have to go on are beliefs, persuasions, hypotheses and opinions. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh stop already. If you have a solution, spit it out. Otherwise, please note that the only way to resolve what you're talking about is to insist on a specific naming format for every class of article within Wikipedia that guarantees uniqueness. You are, in fact, arguing that every book article title should be suffixed with (book). Otherwise you have Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Wheels (novel). Inconsistent! Why does one end in (novel) and the other doesn't the reader will surely ask. How do you resolve that? Regardless, that problem is much broader than naming conventions for cities. If that's what you're trying to solve, you're on the wrong page. --Serge 23:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, yes, I am more than persuaded that some sort of coherent disambiguation system is neccessary - organised by subject - one for personna, another for places, etc, just like every respectable reference work - as it is by subject that readers look for disambiguation/article naming patterns. Open any mainstream reference work you like if you need examples of the same. THEPROMENADER 23:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Auto archiving

Can we turn on auto archiving of inactive discussions here using one of the bots? If we did this, I'm thinking that we could use either 14 or 21 days. Currently this talk page is over 500,000 bytes. Vegaswikian 07:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think its needed. I think 14 days would suffice. AgneCheese/Wine 07:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Please please please. Thank you : ) THEPROMENADER 08:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There ya go.. one autoarchiving set up for 14 days to go to newly created archive 16. Just need to increment the counter when the current archive page fills up, which will probably be right after Miszabot II runs today.--Bobblehead (rants) 18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I just realized, the oldest discussion on this page ended on July 21, so the earliest anything will be archived will be on August 4th or 5th unless someone makes a comment in those sections or lowers the number of days a discussions needs to have been ended before it is archived.--Bobblehead (rants) 18:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What does everyone think about 10 days? A week and a half should give any proposal or section a fair shake to have at least someone comment on it.AgneCheese/Wine 18:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan to me. Lately if something isn't responded to within a couple of hours it's a dead discussion. :)--Bobblehead (rants) 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There was an autoarchive on August 1. So the process has already started. I suggest leaving the setting at 14 days for a while to see how that works. This is an active time here and may not represent the historic average activity. We seem to have spikes of activity and when they finish, activity really drops off. Vegaswikian 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What is a city?

If it's not a stupid question, I just wondered if we're all talking the same language here. On reading the Wikipedia article on City it would appear that some US cities are only very tiny settlements. Is the use of the word city in the US part of this guideline intended only to refer to the large metropolitan cities in the US or does it cover all US settlements? I presumed the dispute was only over the naming of the large US cities but I'm now wondering if I've misunderstood as the American meaning of city seems to be completely different from the English equivalent. Could we not perhaps at least reach an agreement that for the sake of consistency all cities mentioned in the Global city article should not require any form of disambiguation in their article titles? The US cities are the only ones which have the extra parameter in their titles. It seems incomprehensible to me that such large cities as Los Angeles and San Francisco should require any qualification whatsoever. Dahliarose 23:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. In favor of not qualifying any city in the Global city article (unless it conflicts per WP:D). It would be easy to modify the guidelines accordingly, and clearly. --Serge 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe, for the purposes of this debate, the terms city, town, hamlet, township, village and settlement are all interchangeable. There's probably a few more. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 23:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Arkyan; personally I use "city" to mean "very large settlement", but in California all municipalities are cities, and I believe this debate began in those terms. As for the global city, that's a reasonable brightline. The questions are:
    • It does not include Colorado Springs, Colorado. Is this a robust enough criterion to hold the line? Or will we have the "we're just as good as Minneapolis" discussion, and how often?
    • Can we phrase the criterion so that it does not reward someone for revert warring an irrelevant mention of Colorado Springs into the article?
Note: These are questions; this could well be the solution.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The list of "Global cities" is a list that is defined by the geography department of Loughborough University, so trying to edit war a certain city onto that list is something that is easily countered. If the city isn't on a list of Global or World Cities provided by the university, then it can't be included in the article. However, there really isn't anything to stop someone from pointing at a city on that list and saying their city is just as good as that city and should therefore be at "Placename". --Bobblehead (rants) 01:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my second point is just a matter of wording; we have to refer to the list, not our article. The first point is: how much weight does Loughborough have? I am not averse to trying it. To avoid a mass of move discussions, it might be just as well to phrase it "any city which [conditions] may be moved to City alone" and see what happens. If all of them move, we can change it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support with Anderson's wording. I wouldn't expect Colorado Springs to be listed as a global city; the main reason I advocate its nondisambiguation is that its name is unique. "We're just as good as Minneapolis" might come up, but it will come up (with one city or another) with any guideline except for total disambiguation. Λυδαcιτγ 01:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

American cities with no disambiguation needed

Is there consensus for this addition? If there are no ambiguity issues with the name of the city, use the name of the city for the title of the article. If there is a possible conflict with another city in the USGS database, or with another another encyclopedic subject, use the "comma convention".

This is built on Proposal 1a, but it addresses the White Lake Township problem. Unless a new city is built or added to the database, there should be no problems with cities that were un-disambiguated having to be re-disambiguated. Why do this? This is how Wikipedia's naming conventions work. Why not? The only reason I find convincing is this one, as stated by Arkyan: "when a large portion [of U.S. cities] are already disambiguated, a number of casual users may come to expect the disambiguation and be confused upon finding one that is not disambiguated." This is true, but by the same token, when a large portion of Wikipedia's articles are only disambiguated when necessary, a number of users, both casual and experienced, may come to expect the lack of disambiguation and be confused upon finding a U.S. city article that is disambiguated. Λυδαcιτγ 00:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • But Matawan isn't unambiguous - see Matawan (disambiguation). It wouldn't be moved. Take Colorado Springs, Colorado, though, which would be moved to Colorado Springs. Will some readers wonder why Colorado Springs and Aurora, Colorado follow different conventions? Sure. What if it's not moved? Will some readers wonder why Colorado Springs, Colorado has such a long title, when everything else in Wikipedia has short titles when possible? Definitely. Which is the larger effect? For most readers, I would say the latter. The average reader will be looking at all varieties of Wikipedia articles, not just city articles. Λυδαcιτγ 02:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. Do I need to give my reasons again? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, because I think this proposal addresses your main objections. You worried about "The occurrences where an editor thinks that his White Lake Township, GA is the only one, and just specifies White Lake Township, rather than White Lake Township, GA or White Lake Township, MI would be frequent, and virtually undetectable." That wouldn't be a problem. You stated that "the default for human-named settlements, in or out of the United States, should be that they should include a disambiguator or qualifier, because people tend to name places after other places." That wouldn't be as much of a problem - this would only affect places that aren't named after other places in the U.S., or after places outside the U.S. which have Wikipedia articles. Λυδαcιτγ 07:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Still flawed I can still see endless debates even with the "guidelines" mentioned above. The glaring hole is the "subjective and vague" primary topics debates. For instance, Philadelphia conflicts with other cities and articles as does Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, Seattle, Atlanta, etc . All these are cities that undoubtedly the "City only" crowd would want as "City only" so I don't see any real consistency or stability with the proposed guideline. AgneCheese/Wine 06:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comment I will add that while I still favor 100% consistency, as a compromise, I could support this proposal if the guidelines that Audacity laid out are actually followed and only 100% unambiguous city name articles like Assawoman are the ones that are city only and cities like Chicago, Illinois are kept at City, State. I still see much more benefit to the encyclopedia in across the board consistency for articles like Assawoman, Virginia but I am willing to work towards a compromise along the lines of Audacity's proposal. AgneCheese/Wine 06:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that endless debates would occur, but aren't they occurring anyway with the current guideline? In terms of your compromise offer, I would accept that; however, this page is only a guideline, so Chicago would not necessarily move back if the consensus at the talk page remains to leave it there. Λυδαcιτγ 07:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with Agne that this proposition would not produce a consistent method (so prefer not to vote on it) - but for sure it would produce a stable one, as a conflict check with the provided link (all contributors would use?) would indicate whether disambiguation/pre-disambiguation (if the conflicting namespace's article hasn't been written yet) is needed... but the result would be an inconsistent "some disambiguated, some not". Add the "which one deserves un-disambiguation" and the mess gets greater... and wee no-conflict cities like Peterton [6] will seemingly have (to the reader) the same treatment/level/importance as Chicago. I'm practically convinced that, for reasons of both reader comprehension and consistency, that pre-disambiguation be applied to all cities (the world over!). At least this way the "biggest cities non-disambiguated?" question would be a clear and secondary one, whose results would not be confused with the rest. THEPROMENADER 09:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum - Audacity's proposition is one of the clearest I've seen to date in its use of reference and language. THEPROMENADER 09:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I dunno, Promenader. Again, we need to consider that most readers will not be exclusively looking at city articles. These two reasons for non-disambiguation are in use across Wikipedia. Think of your average Wikipedia user, who has never read Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and comes across a disambiguated page. Let's say he is looking at three articles, Albert Einstein, James Smith (musician), and Google. Won't he be able to figure out that the first page has no disambiguation because it is the only meaning, the second has disambiguation because it is one of many meanings, and the third does not have disambiguation because it's the main meaning, although there are others? I think this reader will be able to come to the same understanding with any reasonable city guideline. Λυδαcιτγ 07:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - and great to see someone else thinking of Wiki as a whole. I agree with your first two examples (as they are instinctive in all situations), but I find the third to be a tad speculative - in all honesty I don't think the reader will ever have any concept of "main meaning" until he a) sees that there are other pages that are disambiguated and b) learns from this experience to have second thoughts (is there another page on this subject?) when seeing a non-disambiguated page. Perhaps not so much for Google, but how about placenames such as Paris that exist in several countries? At present we must go first to the "main" Paris to find the disambiguation page, or do a search for the "right" Paris (instintively, this would be done with Country, that in the present system will not turn up well-ordered results). These steps need not even exist.
For a comprehension of titles to be instinctive, the method of disambiguation should vary with subject. But this is another debate. THEPROMENADER 08:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Any comparison between "no-disambiguation-needed-smalltown" and "exempted-from-disambiguation-big-city" will do to explain my point... they are both non-disambiguated, but for different reasons invisible to the reader. No big deal, but I do think it's a glitch. THEPROMENADER 16:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • According to the guideline, yes; however, it's only a guideline. Λυδαcιτγ 07:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite get you - I was describing a situation that the guideline would create, not the guideline itself. I suppose that was your meaning. : ) THEPROMENADER 08:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I was replying to Scott - even if we say that "all U.S. cities should follow the comma convention", Chicago may choose not to if there is a consensus among its editors, because this page is a guideline, not policy. Λυδαcιτγ 01:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It sounds like a reasonable proposal, although I still have to say that my preferred method would be to disambiguate all (with a few exceptions). The idea of using the USGS database to check for potential conflicts is not a bad one, however I must point out that the USGS names database is painfully outdated. The majority of the information there is over 20 years old and it does not include names for relatively recent settlements and may be inadequate. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No comment on the proposal, just a correction to Arkyan's assertion that "that the USGS names database is painfully outdated" -- do you have evidence for this? While much of the data was collected beginning 30-odd years ago, to my knowledge it is actively maintained. See here and here. And FWIW, the USGS data also plays a major role in U.S. Census data. older ≠ wiser 01:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Dewey-Humboldt, Arizona is one example of a recently incorporated city that does not have an entry on the GNIS. There are others, primarily those that have a name derived by combining two preexisting names such as Black Point-Green Point, California that do not have an entry on the GNIS. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That it doesn't have an entry for something that was incorporated less than three years ago is not very surprising. It does have an entry for Humbolt, Arizona. The hyphenated names for CDPs are primarily an artifact of the Census Bureau -- which for a variety of reasons may present data about separate unincorporated communities as a single CDP and use a combination name. GNIS also has an entry Black Point, California. Strangely, there is no entry for Green Point, California, although it is labeled on the topozone map for Black Point. Hardly evidence that it is painfully outdated -- although it seems obvious that simply because a place name does not appear in GNIS is not conclusive that it does not exist. older ≠ wiser 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There's other examples, like Lake Santeetlah, North Carolina - but I don't think an exhasutive list is necessary. My use of the term painfully might be hyperbole - these and some other omissions from the GNIS have created some headaches for me and I'm a little hypercritical of it as an absolute source. But that was my whole point, that the GNIS - while certainly useful - is not the end-all in checking for conflict in names. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
But it's a damn good start. Perhaps you have a better source? THEPROMENADER 23:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Really though that's one of the reasons why I support a "disambiguate by default" scheme, as it does not require any database checks, Google checks or the like to make sure a name isn't potentially ambiguous. GNIS is about as good as it gets for a database of place names. The fact that it is not entirely reliable means there is no entirely reliable source and - in my opinion - it is better to play it safe. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that your choice of naming method is based on that database/source "lacking" - so why even use it to back your argument? Nothing personal, but I think this debate would be much clearer if we all only used reason instead of tacking any "fault" we can find onto opposing points of view - this just doesn't make a reasoned argument. I'm actually coming to agree with your "disambiguate by default" point of view - but for another reason: making placenames recognisable as such across the board. I see a better disambiguation method, and one using countries (and not just the inside of countries) better suited to the international media that is wiki, but perhaps that's another debate. THEPROMENADER 23:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Arkyan meant specifically and exclusively that he supports "disambiguate by default" because the GNIS gazetteer is "lacking", so much as that any gazetteer will likely be incomplete, out-of-date or at the wrong level of detail for something. Therefore, a naming system that does not require a global (or US) gazetteer to be complete for every place that ever was or has recently come into being is preferred. --Scott Davis Talk 06:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That is logical, apologies if I misunderstood. THEPROMENADER 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
On your point about whether to use countries or parts of countries as the disambiguating text, this is part of the issue that there may need to be variations for large vs small or different government types. Many of the states in some of the larger federations have more area and more population than many of the smaller countries. Also, in theory, a federation could break down (eg USSR) or admit new states (Nova Scotia was not part of Canada in World War II). A state-based naming scheme for federations would mean the articles need not move, even if they all require editing to change the text. Imagine the grand renaming if Country is the discriminant, and the European Union decided to call itself a single (federated) country called "Europe" instead of the twentysomething countries it presently is! --Scott Davis Talk 06:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a pretty selective reasoning - only a few territories become countries as you describe each decade, and shall we balk at devising a system for the entire world just for these very few? If a territory does indeed change its statute to country, it is not only its article title that must change, but its text - as the new and old statutes must both be explained and described therein - so I don't think moving the same is such a big deal. Apologies, but the "European what if" argument is weak at best: with that scenario not even near realisation, even then, should it come to pass, we would also have to modify the articles themselves. So should we halt all progress towards a world-aware convention because of a very few isolated cases and speculative (at best) "what if" eventualities? THEPROMENADER 12:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not "selective reasoning", but I accept that the creation and dissolution of countries is a very minor consideration. The issue that states of larger English-speaking countries might be more appropriate, but entire smaller countries is still relevant regardless. It only needs to be sorted out once we get agreement that there should be some kind of en.wikipedia-wide settlement naming scheme. --Scott Davis Talk 05:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Split (city in Croatia) move request

I've submitted a move request to move Split (currently the article on the city in Croatia) to Split (city) to make room for the Split dab page at Split. A similar recent attempt to move Split to Split, Croatia failed to achieve consensus. I'm nominating Split (city) per suggestions from others in the comments of the previous poll, and to follow the convention set by Cork (city). Go here for the poll and discussion. Thanks. --Serge 06:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No consensus?

Substantial debate on this topic seems to have all but died out. It doesn't appear to me that we were able to reach any sort of consensus on any of the questions or suggestions made. Is the relative inactivity of the debate indicative that we've all pretty much given up on the hope of making any real progress and are just going to default to "No Change" and do things the way we've been doing them? ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dahliarose's proposal is new and different, and has the support of both Serge and Anderson (qualified). Can we get some more opinions on that before giving up? Λυδαcιτγ 01:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I wasn't aware that was a proposal per se but more of a question. For what it is worth I don't really care for the GaWC list as a criteria - it undergoes periodic changes in terms of inclusion criteria itself. Would we be using the newest list? An older version? All of them? I feel if there is going to be some kind of strict "exception" policy, it needs to be based on something more quantitative than any given arbitrary list. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The newest and any further going forwards, I suppose. A quantitative method would be nice, but there's no quantitative criterion that establishes whether a city is known worldwide. Λυδαcιτγ 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The proposal is this: "for the sake of consistency all cities mentioned in the Global city article should not require any form of disambiguation in their article titles". Λυδαcιτγ 17:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It's an interesting proposal but there are still some flaws that could have some negative consequences. For one, the 1-6 point cities (Gamma and below) don't have the clear worldwide recognition that "everyone" knows and even major news sources will include the country in articles or AP lines about the city-See Düsseldorf, Warsaw, Jakarta, etc. Secondly, some of these cities conflict with other articles like Santiago, Chile, Washington, D.C. (listed in the article as just Washington), and Luxembourg (city). It looks like the Global City is not the most reliable of sources for finding any consistency. AgneCheese/Wine 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
If there's a conflict, then disambiguate. The proposal is not saying the cities in this list *must* be at the stand-alone name, but only saying they *may* be candidates for the stand-alone name. We still have to make sure the city is the primary topic for that name, as with any unqualified Wikiepdia article title. --Polaron | Talk 19:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Right. Why is this so hard to understand? It's the same rule under which every article in Wikipedia is named. Why are the expectations for cities, from Wikipedians like Agne, so different? Once again, why should cities be treated differently? --Serge 20:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel obliged to repeat: This is an error of fact. United States cities are one of several large classes of article which quite often have to be disambiguated; the figure above was 77% of the time. Most of these classes have, in guideline or in practice, gone over to disambiguating all of them, because once four out of five members of a class are disambiguated, it is simpler to disambiguate the fifth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
What percentage of films are dabbed with (film)? Are you suggesting that if some magic percentage (coincidentally 77%?) of any class of articles are dabbed, then all members of the class should be? Did you realize that over 95% of all John Adams are dabbed, but John Adams is not? That there are dozens of entries on the Paris dab page, yet Paris is not dabbed? What difference does it make whether it 27%, 7% or 97%? That again is pulling a special U.S. city-specific rule out of an area where sunshine is normally unable to reach. --Serge 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why you bring this up again, Serge, as it's all been discussed and didn't go anywhere. There are reasons for treating cities the same as other articles, but consensus says that they are not going to be. That argument is no longer persuasive. Λυδαcιτγ 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The substantive question, then, is what cities are both

Let's have a list. If it looks likely to agree with most people's intuition of what is a global city, so we don't have the "My city is as good as your city", we can go for it. (I agree, by the way, the change must be permissive. A Philadelphian tells me that Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is local usage, which we should follow.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. They don't call it Philly locally, they call it Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Please. --Serge 23:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)]]
Yes, actually, at the level of formality that would be comparable to an encyclopedia; try proposing a move to Philly and see what happens. I trust Filthadelphia is a redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

GaWC city list

Based on the 1999 list (down to gamma level), the U.S. cities that would qualify are

If we include the those in the 1-3 points range, we add:

If we use the 2004 list, we would get:

  • New York City
  • Los Angeles
  • San Francisco
  • Boston
  • Chicago
  • Miami
  • Atlanta
  • Denver

I am tempted to support the 1-3 points range, on the grounds that we have already moved Philadelphia. If we do that, however, I foresee a flaming row over whether Richmond, Virginia is primary usage — and, yes, Serge, that is also attested as local usage; see the works of James Branch Cabell, a native son. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

However, Richmond is currently a dab page so there has been essentially a stable consensus that the city in Virginia is not the primary usage of the term, which is why I did not include it in the list above. --Polaron | Talk 04:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I would probably !vote to end the row that way; but I predict there will be one, nonetheless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with the GaWC list (which is the list provided in Global city) is that the list is heavily skewed toward cities which are economically dominant while lending less importance to cities of political or cultural significance. The old (1999) list is wholly based upon economic indicators such as the presence of certain types of companies and is admittedly ignorant of cities important for cultural, social and political reasons. The newer (2004) list attempts to make some allowances but again is heavily based upon economic indicators. I do not believe this is very indicative of general "global notoriety" but rather a list of "regional economic centers". For an example I offer Las Vegas, Nevada, which I believe few would argue is not well-known world-wide but does not appear on any of the above lists. For these reasons I cannot support either GaWC list as a "master list" for exceptions. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Except Las Vegas is a dab page. The main reason being when someone says "I'm going to Las Vegas" nine times out of ten they actually mean the Las Vegas Strip, not the city. However, I get your point. How about using the AP list that is described in the archives instead of the global cities?[9] There are still going to be some cities on that list that will need to be disambiguated, but it identify cities by their recognizability rather than economic dominance. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The AP list makes a lot more sense to me than Global cities. I would much more readily support using that as a baseline than the GaWC list. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Common informal but inaccurate statements shouldn't be catered to: "I'm going to England. Where? Glasgow." Ah yes, the whole of the UK is often informally called "England" on this side of the pond, as the whole of the Netherlands is often called Holland (technically just two provinces of the country). Las Vegas meaning "The strip" is an informality, and will no doubt be linked from the article of the city. Also geographical names being used as an expression of something associated with them needn't force a disambiguation: "Moscow" (the one is Russia) is used also for the Russian government, I would't move Moscow to a dab page so that we can have the Russian city under Moscow, Russia. etc. Carlossuarez46 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you might have missed my point. I wasn't arguing that we must force disambiguations, but rather was saying that if we are to have exceptions, that I find the GaWC list an unacceptable "list of exceptions". That's all. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess I did, but I wanted really don't want the solution to only encompass 30 cities (maybe 28, see below). We need something more comprehensive. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The AP list has 30 U.S. cities, two of which (Phoenix and Washington) do not redirect to the city article, leaving 28 cities. I agree that the AP list is better because it is primarily based on recognizability of the name, which is what the general naming guidelines on Wikipedia also use for the most part. Based on the discussion in the summary of discussion, the AP list also looks like it has the fewest cons of the proposals. --Polaron | Talk 20:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

AP city list

Here's the list of cities on the AP list. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, it looks like someone moved Milwaukee on August 11 without discussion.--Bobblehead (rants) 20:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that we are only interested in clearing this issue up for US cities, I am willing to support a proposal that uses the AP list above for cities that are an exception to the disambiguation rules. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I prefer the AP list for US cities as well, so would support the move of the above to Cityname. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Heh, the move is obviously a controversial move, Serge. the August 11 move was not appropriate. But then, the end result of this little discussion might result in a move of the article back to Milwaukee. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
We can hope. --Serge 21:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(settlements)/Archive_17&oldid=1136058302"