Daniel Mayer wrote:
On Friday 12 July 2002 12:01 pm, : Karen AKA Kajikit
wrote:
I don't think it sounds silly... sure within
the context of a single
country it's wierd and wouldn't be used, but when you're talking
worldwide then it's quite normal to use the country name as well as the
city just as an identifier. You want to make it obvious to people who
are ignorant just where Sydney is, and if they don't know where
AUSTRALIA is then the situation is hopeless and you can just give up
This is called a disambiguation block and this form of disambiguation is
useful in cases like this where a famous thing has the same name less famous
things. Paris is an even more obvious example.
The point of my "disambiguation block" suggestion was that at least one
city would get the plain, unquantified name.
I agree with Lars:
"Sydney, Australia" and "Stockholm,
Sweden" just sound silly in any
text. It would be as strange as "floppy,
computer device" or cheese,
food item". Writing [[Sydney, Australia|Sydney]] is not a good solution.
I've suggested before that for countries which do not have an existing
disambiguation nomenclature, we use standard Wikipedia format: "Paris
(France)"
Someone just created "Shikoku, Japan" -- AFAIK there is no other
"shikoku". There may be a need for "Shikoku, Japan" to exist, should
another writer link to it, but the article should be on "Shikoku".
In general, like Lars said, phrases such as "Paris, France" are poor
style. If the context is not already clear from the article -- "French
composer, born in Paris" for instance -- it is better to write "Paris,
in France" or even "Paris (France)".