Talk:List of city nicknames in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

NYC

I read an article in a local magazine a while back that prolaimed NYC "The Wine Captiol of the World" so I decided to add it. --Shell 03:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Not acceptable if you can't cite it. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 10:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Not acceptable? LOOK AT ALL THESE NAMES! Half of them probably aren't cited, especially the most popular ones. so get over itzz <3

NYC the wine capitol of the world? What? LOL! What the hell is the origin of THAT! I've never heard that in my life. Furthermore it makes no sense. If anything, that nickname would be for Sonoma, CA. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames added by User:Joececchini

I've reverted these until sources can be cited. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 10:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

PA cities/towns

After looking at the ones for Pennsylvania cities/towns, I think this list is pretty accurate. I would like to know if there is a complete compilation of these nicknames, ie: "source". Wrightchr

According to the Wikipedia policy on verifiability, the editor who adds information to an article is required to cite sources for that information. In fact, it does not matter whether the information is true or not, it should not be in Wikipedia unless and until a varifiable reference to a credible published source is provided. By the way, it's easiest to sign your comments by added ~~~~ at the end. The automaticall adds you user name and the date and time. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for citations

User:Dalbury has been requesting citations on this article, such as [1]. I can't speak authoritatively on all the cities, but IMO requesting these cites on this page is just stupid. All of the nicknames tagged are identified in the Cincinnati article (and are indeed pretty straightforwardly obvious). If anywhere, that is where the request for citations should go. A list article such as this derives authority from the referenced articles. It would make this list incredibly unusable to have citations for every entry. But Perhaps that is the real purpose, as Dalbury has also nominated this article for deletion. older≠wiser 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Many of the nicknames, such as the official city slogans, will be well documented. But you have to be a local to know that you don't say "Frisco" in San Francisco, or that when you mention "the Keys" in Honolulu, you mean Waikiki and not the Floriday Keys. Local, colorful, nicknames such as that are a lot harder to find evidence for, but it's undeniable that they exist. I can't claim to understand the reasoning behind nominating the article for AFD, but I do think it was needless.--Mitsukai 13:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, there is sort of a problem here. This list really violates WP:V. I can say for sure, I have lived in several of these cities, and when I looked at them I saw several nicknames I've never heard before. What makes a nickname notable enough to be on this list? That some people say it? That an editor claims that they heard someone say it? There's a couple of things on this list that I am sure the editors made up out of whole cloth. How about a compromise — a nickname stays here only if the city page mentions it. This would remove the need to cite everything here. Also, if a nickname isn't notable enough to mention on the city's own page, well, then, it's probably not notable enough to be here. --Deville (Talk) 03:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, noone answered the concerns here, but this article has the problem that there are some patently false nicknames here, and there is certainly some stuff made up in school one day. I say again, if a nickname is not notable enough to be mentioned on the page of the city in question, it is not notable enough to be here. I think it is fair, however, to relax WP:V in this article and allow nicknames which are not explicitly verified here, but stated on the city page, to remain here. I'll consider anything not mentioned on a city's page to be fair game to be deleted; if you want to add a new one here, add it to the city page in question and see how the editors like it over there. --Deville (Talk) 05:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• A lot of these "nicknames" are ridiculous. They're just morphings of the actual city names that are used in a derogatory way. Aside from a couple friends that the creator might have, these kinds are not in use. -newkai | talk | contribs 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please join me in an attempt to clean this article up? Im from Albany, NY and have never heard it called smalbany or the 518 (yes it is in the 518 area code but so is everything for over 100 miles around it, including many of the other cities in the New York section) and smalbany? Some people who live in the suburbs and think the city is dirty make up a name in school and suddenly its a nickname? How about keeping the list to nicknames that have been made official by the individual city or marketed by the chamber of commerce? this would keep derogatory nicknames out and keep people from adding things they and their friends simply invented and want a nationwide audenience to make it stick (in the spirit of stephen colbert's "truthiness")

List maintenance

Since it is starting to look like everyone's starting to put their hometown and 300 nicknames for it on the list, does anyone have any suggestions for keeping the size down? My proposal would be for the ten largest cities in each state, with no more than five nicknames per city. An alternate proposal would be to split larger states as this goes, but that's not a good idea overall because eventually those lists will get filled, causing county splits, ad infinitum.

Anyone else got an idea?--み使い Mitsukai 20:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How about making the page a table so it would be easier to organzie, or perhaps each state then links to an article "City nicknames for state X" This page would simply link them all togeather. --DragonWR12LB 00:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Only the ten largest cities" isn't an option. Some states have LOTS of large cities with lots of valid, real nicknames. Each state needs its own nickname article. NOW. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Appleton, Wisconsin

Is Appleton, Wisconsin supposed to be listed without a nickname? --All in 00:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked at this article a while back and was amused by all the humorous and sometimes derisive nicknames etc for cities, especially those I know in California and Arizona. Now it seems theyve all been deleted by the self appointed PC Police. So, do you work for the chamber of commerce or what? So much for the fun, I guess its not allowed...

PS: It doesnt satisfy, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.51.122 (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My changes and reversion

Ok, I've been making a lot of changes with this list and at least one editor is unhappy with my being so "bossy". Unfortunately, the list as it stood before I started making changes was completely unacceptable. There are several reasons why.

The first is that we need to satisfy WP:V. A lot of the nicknames were added here without sources. Now, of course, it would be somewhat unwieldy to source every one of these in the article, so I took the compromise position that any nicknames which were mentioned in the city's article would be acceptable here. I actually went through and checked; any nickname which appeared in the article for a city was retained. If it's not notable enough to be mentioned in the city's article, then it doesn't belong here either. And "me and every one of my friends in high school says this" is not a source.

The second was that a lot of this list was what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. It is not for things made up in school one day. Many of the entries I deleted might be clever in some way, but they were clearly made up on the spot by the submitter. I know that many users have found it clever to find the name of their barely-consequential hometown and add "P-Town", or "H-Town", or "Q-Town", or whatever. This is not what Wikipedia is for. -- Deville (Talk) 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hockeytown

Why is Warroad, Minnesota listed as a "Hockeytown"?. There's less than 2,000 people there and their claim to fame is a 2nd place girl's state championship once. The City of Detroit has "Hockeytown" registered as a trademark. I've never even heard of Warroad, Minnesota. Rafe101 19:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)rafe101

Because the entire town is hockey obsessed, it's produced dozens of Olympians, NHL players, and college stars, and five inductees to the the United States Hockey Hall of Fame, and it has a 1700 seat hockey arena (town pop: 1722!). Because it's the home of the Christian Brothers, as in "Christian Brothers Hockey Sticks." Also because they've been Minnesota high school class A champs four times, not once. The name is even referenced at the Warroad Chamber of Commerce website [2] And by the way, your having heard of a town is not a prerequisite for it having a particular nickname. Spottacus 18:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Totally unreferenced

I have read the previous discussion and wish to suggest a solution

This list is almost completely unreferenced. A lot of it violates WP:NFT and WP:V. Just because something is true does not mean it should be included: it must be verifiable. Any nickname should either be sufficiently well known to be verifiable and have a citation, or else it is non-verifiable or original research and must go. On the other hand, I am not insensitive to the problem of cluttering the article endlessly with hundreds of references. I suggest that if the main article for a particular city contains a reference to a nickname, that should qualify as sufficient citation. Otherwise, it either needs a reference here or it must go. —Dgies^t c 08:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

um

somebody wann consolidate w/ List of city nicknames? kzz* 17:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact tagging

I have just gone through and tagged almost all of the unreferenced claims for the A-L states. (I'll do the M-W states tomorrow). Any nicknames that remain unreferenced by 1 July are going to get nuked. This article is ridiculously long with a ton of unreferenced drivel. My first instinct is to nuke it entirely, but I'll see what a couple of weeks can do to fix it. Horologium t-c 02:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll start this again - way to many without any citation that should be deleted. This isn't the place for names people make up on their own for cities. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm! I just tagged (almost) all the unsourced nicknames in Florida. I'll try to help with the rest. -- Donald Albury 20:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just delete some of the ones that seem obviously made up by folks, but will give due time (week or so). Others might have citations at their main article, which we should check before removing as well. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I usually check for citations in the articles before tagging. Most city articles do not cite references for nicknames, and some editors fight very strenuously to keep citations out of the infoboxes. See Talk:Jacksonville, Florida#Nicknames. -- Donald Albury 00:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Albany, GA, the name "The Artesian City" is not just on the linked Wikipedia entry for the city, under "Nickname", it's on the city seal itself. I'm not exactly sure what else needs to be done to "cite" that it's called that. 208.50.89.189 19:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Page too long

This page is currently at 204 kB. It really needs to be broken up. Of course, cleaning out the nicknames that cannot be cited from reliable sources would help some, but the list would still be very long. -- Donald Albury 16:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone split the page in 2 or 3 sections? -- Magioladitis 06:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely way too long, needs to be split -- 71.72.131.171 01:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cadillac, Michigan

As a native and former resident (who still has family there), I can assure you: NOBODY who lived there ever called it "Caddy", and I've never heard that term used for the town in my LIFE. The local slang name is "Cattletracks", and you will hear that from T.C. to Detroit. The editor who removed this add was wrong in doing so, as the very explanation he cited bears out. I will admit the slang terms are not easy to establish in print; the best I would have offhand is a letter from an old classmate mentioning "getting back to good ol' Cattletracks" (with a great deal of irony). But that is the nature of slang... and of life. It's Cattletracks, folks. Believe it. Zephyrad 07:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, "Jacktown" is similar; If you mention that name to a MI resident, they will not think you are speaking of the city of Jackson, but rather of the former state prison outside it. Zephyrad 07:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Any nickname that is not supported by a citation of a reliable published source needs to come out. The same rules apply to slang as apply to anything else in Wikipedia. If it's not notable enough to have been covered in reliable published sources, it doesn't belong. -- Donald Albury 20:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Raleigh, NC

I have added a couple to the Raleigh list. The "Big 50" is not a popular nick name, but is used more by City of Raleigh employees because population estimates prepared by the City of Raleigh Planning Department’s Growth Management Division (Raleigh has surpassed Wichita, Kan., to become the 50th largest city in the country). See : http://www.raleigh-nc.org/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_411_208_0_43/http%3B/pt03/DIG_Web_Content/news/public/News-PubAff-Raleigh_Projected_To_Be_-20070727-15301111.html The "Raleighweird" nickname is used locally (college and bar scene) in response/reference to "Hollyweird." Thank you. Master Redyva 03:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC) A local paper often refers to Raleigh as "Raleighweird." See : www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A33028

www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/PrintFriendly?oid=oid%3A25031 Thank You.Master Redyva 13:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Hollyweird"

Tracy Morgan uses this nickname in the Kevin Smith movie Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back for Hollywood. Is this something that could be used as a reference? Master Redyva 04:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Also see : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15624439/ for use of the nickname. Thank You. Master Redyva 13:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

^I've heard Hollywood called "Hollyweird" at least half a dozen different times. I've also seen the phrase used on the Howard Stern Show, its one of their gameshows: Hollyweird Squares. --Ragemanchoo 10:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The requirement for verifiability is a published reliable source. -- Donald Albury 11:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Durham, NC nicknames

I have never heard, much less read of Durham being called the "hilly city" or "Dirty D town" (and I have hung-out around Central College). In regards to "County with Merit," this is used in marketing campaigns and can be referenced through the town's website. See : http://www.durham-nc.com/media/evergreens-backgrounders/durham/slogans.php Thank you. Master Redyva 21:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to revert/remove any uncited additions to the (ghastly in need of improvement) article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Chicago nicknames

I have tagged all of the nicknames listed for Chicago as needing citations per the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. None of those nicknames are sourced in either Chicago or List of nicknames for Chicago, either. It does not matter how well-known one may think a nickname is, "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."^{(Wikipedia:Verifiability)} -- Donald Albury 10:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up

I'm removing all uncited nicknames (because of potential vandalism/insults/misinformation). I'm also going to remove all trivial nicknames, such as "The [area code]", "x-town", and "The x", where x is an initial of the city. Slogans, which are not nicknames, should also be removed.-Wafulz 02:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed for the most part. I'd also add x-vegas (unless explicitly sources). Slogans with sources should be retained. Alansohn 02:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree. The list looks terrible right now. -- Magioladitis 21:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Needlessly detailed entry

List of city nicknames in the United States is listed as number two on Cracked.com's The 8 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries. Please try to address the concerns listed in Cracked.com's article. -- Jreferee t/c 14:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Split proposal

This is a proposal to split this article into two articles:

1. List of official city nicknames in the United States and
2. List of unofficial city nicknames in the United States.

If you agree with this proposal, use Split, and if you do not agree, use Do not split. This proposal may be closed after five days (after 14:50, 8 October) using top and bottom templates. -- Jreferee t/c 14:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Split. It is doesn't work out we can split in

1. List of city nicknames in the United States (A-K)
2. List of city nicknames in the United States (L-Z)

-- Magioladitis 21:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Split - then delete article 2. I don't see why we should be listing unofficial nicknames, unless they're spectacularly notable/well-known (The Big Apple, perhaps?). Terraxos 02:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced content

I am going to be going over this article over the next couple days and be removing unsourced content. Please provide a source for any unsourced content you wish to remain. 1 != 2 16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I may be able to help. I see a lot 'fact' tags that have been sitting for months. -- Donald Albury 22:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am clearing out the unsourced content now, perhaps I can get this page under 250kb. After I am done removing the unsourced content I will be examining the existing sources for reliability. 1 != 2 16:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Took care of that for you. Be bold. This "tag it" fever has gotten way out of hand. I also don't like the idea of adding a citation to every one of these either. It's silly. Content needs to be verifiable, that doesn't mean that every sentence in an article needs a citation, if it's something that can be quickly verified, and isn't controversial then no citation is needed. Gigs (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't go through the sources, it would still be good for you to do that. It would be good to prune that list down to only the necessary and valid ones. As someone above mentioned, if the name is in the main article for that city, it probably does not need a citation here. (Use your good judgment of course.) Gigs (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Great job removing that unsourced content. I have to disagree on the idea that a wikilink to an article that has a citation for the nickname is enough to meet WP:V. The problem is that when list articles rely on the citations in other articles(instead of having their own) they tend to drift away from this verified content. It becomes difficult to tell what is cited and what is not. I am not worried about the references getting longer than article, as the reference section can be place in a show/hide box like other articles with long references.

The requirement for verification occurs when something is controversial or challenged. I have challenged this whole article to be verified. I don't think it is enough for a nickname to be uncontroversial as a nickname can be very well known to an editor and uncontroversial, but not have been previously published in a reliable source(such content is original research and does not belong in an encyclopedia). The reason we have half cited articles is not because this is our desired goal, or that it is an acceptable state, but because we tolerate it while waiting for it to be fixed. I think we can reach complete verification for this article, I have done so with other list articles before. 1 != 2 15:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"The requirement for verification occurs when something is controversial or challenged." This is the key point I wanted to emphasize. I don't necessarily agree that you can just say "well, I challenge this entire article".. There is a such thing as too many citations. If a quick google and a check on the city's page check out, then I don't feel the need to add a full out citation here. I'm not saying either of those things would meet WP:V, but in the absence of a *specific* challenge, I think that's good enough. Gigs (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't add a citation when there is a reliable published source, then every reader who comes along and wonders about whether a nickname is legitimate has to do their own search. It is simple; to prevent repeated challenges to a nickname, provide a citation. -- Donald Albury 11:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of any encyclopedia that has a citation for every sentence in it? There's a reason for that. Gigs (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything that goes into print encyclopedias is produced and/or fact-checked by trusted staff. Wikipedia doesn't work that way, so we have to be sure that everything is verifiable from reliable sources. -- Donald Albury 03:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We are not paper, other encyclopedias are. You better believe those encyclopedias do have references for their work back at the office. In a perfect Wikipedia article, where everything that can be done has been, then every claim will have a citation. 1 != 2 17:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"In a perfect Wikipedia article ... every claim will have a citation." You present this as if it is consensus policy. It isn't. It would make horrible, messy, unreadable articles (like this one is getting to be). The policy is even named "Verifiability". The ability to verify. If a fact can be easily verified, it's fine. If it's a contentious fact, then it should have a citation. If it's not contentious (and not a direct quote), then there is absolutely no need to find a citation. Gigs (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a typical article. Every nickname in this list is a separate fact, and must be verifiable from reliable sources. Most of the 'nicknames' that are added to this list on a regular basis are in fact not verifiable from reliable sources, and have to removed. As most nicknames are not widely enough known to be familiar to most readers, it is quite reasonable to require citations for them. Please also note that the policy is that "editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." The policy does not say "contentious", it says "challenged or likely to be challenged". -- Donald Albury 20:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

de-indent

Well, arguing "contentious" vs "challenged or likely to be challenged" is just silly semantics. We don't need to go there. I do agree with you about this article, in that I personally removed about 1/2 of it, on verifiability grounds. It is a problematic article, that attracts a lot of crap. I guess we need to look at the bigger picture here. What will we wind up with if we get a citation for every entry on this list? 1000 entries with 1000 citations? Wikipedia is not a link farm. Won't we, in effect, have just created a link farm for "Articles about city nicknames"? I guess deep down I have a fundamental problem with this article in the first place. I don't know how to fix it, but I don't feel like it would be improved by a citation on every entry either. Gigs (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has been up for AfD twice (I nominated it the first time), so it's not going away. The only way I know of to keep the crap out is to aggressively push for citations to reliable sources. And yeah, if someone wanted to list the nicknames of every city, town and village in several states, this article could end up taking an hour to load. One possibility is to break out the list by states, but maintenance would a real problem. -- Donald Albury 16:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What if we restricted it to only larger cities? Say over 100,000 in population. One of the list guidelines is "Is the list's criteria so open-ended as to welcome infinite results or abuse?" I think that's what we have here. Maybe it might be more productive to narrow the criteria of this list, rather than going on an endless citation hunt/cull. I don't know about you but I'm sure there's better articles we could be spending our time on. Gigs (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That would reduce the length of the list, but many of the problem nicknames are for the biggest cities. That would also almost certainly result in the nicknames for smaller cities being moved to state lists, which would likely suffer from being watched by fewer eyes, but, on the other hand, might be less tempting for some of the editors who have been adding the problem nicknames. We need to find a consensus for such a change, as well as for whether to move the smaller cities to state lists. -- Donald Albury 12:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be easier to challenge smaller city nicknames on notability grounds. Is it really notable that podunkville, population 2000, is often called po-vegas by residents? Gigs (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I delete "-vegas" nicknames on sight; I have yet to see one supported by a reliable source. I have my doubts about finding a consensus to remove smaller places on 'notability' grounds. Start a new section, make a proposal, and see what the response is. -- Donald Albury 12:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oregon

(new comment moved to bottom of page per talk page custom) Stop deleting listings for Oregon. Don't be an asshole.--Ragemanchoo (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- Donald Albury 01:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok you know what? I'm going to do this again. I have all of the Oregon section's text saved to a notepad file (AND YES, WITH CITATIONS). If this shit doesn't work its because of the way somebody initially laid this page out, because all my HTML checks out. This page needs to be divided into individual states, anyway. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

One again, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Blogs, forums, the Urban Dictionary and Google hit lists are not reliable sources. Any editor may removed any material that is not verifiable from reliable sources. Your repeated re-insertion of material that is not verifiable from reliable sources, and your attacks on other editors in your hidden comments in your edits, are disruptive. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked. -- Donald Albury 12:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, "just doing it again" is a good way to find your editing privileges removed. Please follow consensus and policy. 1 != 2 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, stop splitting off Oregon city nicknames into their own articles. Its needless, incessant BS clutter. --24.21.149.124 (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Snellville, GA

I don't know how to add something, so I thought I would post it here and hope someone more skilled than I would add it. I have lived near or in Snellville, GA for about 25 years. It has a sign just at the city line on Scenic Highway/US 78 that reads "Everybody's Somebody in Snellville". The residents there have generally appreciated the slogan, but other than having witnessed the sign's presence, I don't know how to better document the slogan. I'm actually kind of surprised other residents haven't posted yet. Here's the Wikipedia link to Snellville, which is pretty darn accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snellville,_Georgia 152.3.224.146 (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Donna Perry

There are some mentions of the slogan on the Internet, but I don't see any that qualify as a reliable source (blogs, forums and wikis certainly don't). -- Donald Albury 22:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Supporting Cites

I stumbled across this article today and saw the godawful mess some of the citations are in. I started doing some fixups, but quickly saw:

• many of the nicknames asserted in this article are unsupported.
• some (many?) are purportedly supported by cited sources which do not support the purported nickname and seem to be nothing more than spam links.

I propose that this list be culled of entries which cannot be verified against cited reliable sources. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. Some of us have been working on it for a while. We can use all the help we can get. Another common problem is citations to blogs, forums, etc., which are not reliable sources. -- Donald Albury 18:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Subdividing article

To help start to reduce the unwieldy size of this article, I created a separate article for Wisconsin city nicknames and moved the Wisconsin part of the article there. --Orlady (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I also created separate articles for California, New York, New Jersey, and Texas. --Orlady (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Each state needs its own article. NOW. It would make the list easier to load. And stop pissing about nicknames you don't agree with you. You don't live in all fifty states, and you don't know what locals call the towns, so STOP trying to say you do. When I give you 15+ valid citations, CHECK IT OUT. Stop being an ass. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: The states with separate articles now are Alabama, California, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Wisconsin. These states accounted for some of the largest chunks of the US article, as measured in kilobytes of code. --Orlady (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Add Michigan to the list of states with separate articles. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Another source of nicknames and references

See http://www.stepintoplaces.com/Nicknames/Nickname%20%20ndx.htm - It has links to city websites that document nicknames and slogans. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Orlady - that site only lists clean, official nicknames, mostly ones city councils decided on officially. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean, official nicknames are part of the scope of this article. --Orlady (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Derisive nicknames that aren't actually dirty qualify, too, right? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If reliable sources can be cited. -- Donald Albury 12:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bob the Bridge

I removed the Avon, Colorado entry that said the community is called "The Home of Bob the Bridge". Bob the Bridge is real (see [3]), but I found no hint that the town actually adopted this suggestion that it use the nickname. --Orlady (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Spokompton

I've removed this entry, as apparently the only source actually defining the term was the Urban Dictionary, and urbandictionary.com is not a remotely reliable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've heard people say "Spokangeles" numerous different times, enough that it'd warrant a listing (as citations would almost certainly be available). "Spokompton" might be more accurate, but eh *shrug* --24.21.149.124 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Restrict List to Only Larger Cities

One of the Wikipedia list guidelines asks the question: "Is the list's criteria so open-ended as to welcome infinite results or abuse?" I think this article qualifies as that right now. Leaving it open-ended and requiring citations on every entry is the current tack, but this is also problematic in terms of effort required, and general readability of the eventual result, especially as the list grows.

In the end, this proposal boils down to "bang for the buck". A reader would probably be interested in common nicknames for large cities, but they are not very likely to be interested in a nickname for a town of 3000 people that happens to have a reliable citation because the local paper wrote about the nickname.

I know the temptation is to ensure that your local town and surrounding areas (and what your friends happen to call them) are represented in this list, but as editors we need to put that aside for the higher goal of writing a useful encyclopedia. Please do not reject this proposal out of hand only because it would eliminate your home town from the list.

Selecting an arbitrary cutoff is always difficult, but I propose a population of 100,000 as a starting point. We would have to decide what exactly this means, in terms of city/county/urban area/whatever. At this point I would rather not propose details, but get a consensus that limiting this list based on population is what we want to do. Please vote below. Gigs (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The list is not open-ended. Its title restricts it to cities, and there is a finite number of them in the US. Towns and villages and unincorporated areas do not belong in this list ... when we find them they should be speedily and boldly deleted. This is not a "List of location nicknames ..." and I do not suggest one be created. Having said all this, I would like to suggest that his topic might be better handled by a Category:Nicknames of US cities. If a city has an interesting nickname, just add that category to the article and, voila, it automatically appears in the list. Truthanado (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your category proposal is a non-starter. If you put the article about a city in that category, it's still an article about the city, not an article about a city nickname. --Orlady (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"There are approximately 30,000 incorporated cities in the United States, with varying degrees of self-rule." From another article. That may not be infinite, but it's damn close. Gigs (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

NO. If you subdivide the list so each state has its own article, excluding all but the largest cities won't be necessary. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Backfire

Great. I try and help and the HTML backfires. (BTW, try and ban me and I'll just come back under another name.) --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive

We need to archive closed discussion...anyone opposed to setting up automatic {{Werdnabot|inc_cur=90}}

It's not that active, just do a manual archive. Gigs (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone set up the automated archive by Werdnabot. The bot started an archive, but I rolled back the change because the bot made some weird choices -- for example, it kept a few short messages from 2007. Manual archiving makes more sense, if the bot is going to do that sort of thing. --Orlady (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the bot only archives time-stamped content, and this page gets a lot of drive-by comments that aren't time-stamped. --Orlady (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Derisive nicknames are still nicknames

Whether a nickname is derogatory or not is irrelevant -- if you can cite it, its valid. Somebody seems to have gone through the article and removed most of the derogatory nicknames. --24.20.236.62 (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames need to be supported by reliable sources. Many of the derisive nicknames that get added here lack any evidence of reliable sourcing. Additionally, while there is generally some willingness to wait for contributors to provide sources for innocuous nicknames, because Wikipedia is not interested in becoming a platform for defamation, there is little tolerance for defamatory nicknames. --Orlady (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Subdivided & Conquered

I've moved all the ridiculously low-populated cities to its state's "List of city nicknames in ______" article. I'd suggest that the introduction be shortened a bit (it's a mouthful to read) and removing any unsourced nicknames including names that are rarely used (if at all) I brought it from about 119,112 bytes to 51,462 bytes =DNcboy2010 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a few of us who try to keep the unsourced stuff out, but it still slips in. Go ahead and remove any unsourced nicknames. -- Donald Albury 23:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• The well-intentioned subdivision of this article, coupled with the retention of cities that someone has deemed not to be "ridiculously low-populated" may be creating a new kind of monster. That is, the individual state lists are no longer coordinated with the U.S. list -- nicknames or refs can be added to this list without also being added to the state list. I believe this could be resolved by the use of transclusion -- that is, each individual state list would be transcluded to the U.S. list. Unfortunately, this creates challenges in showing users of this page how to edit the lists. I'm going to ask at the village pump for advice on whether that approach has ever been used to build articles. --Orlady (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Transclude sections from individual articles to build a long list? for my proposal and question. --Orlady (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've started the conversion process that I described. An edit notice on the page should tell users how to edit the state-specific lists that are transcluded to this page. --Orlady (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement in lead section

Over at List of city nicknames in Ohio, a contributor has objected to the statement in the lead section that reads:

Some unofficial nicknames are positive, while others are derisive. The unofficial nicknames listed here have been in use for a long time or have gained wide currency.

The complaint is that the statement sounds like original research and/or POV, and that "I'm originally from Ohio and half the names listed for Cleveland and its suburbs I've never heard. Who exactly is verifying that these have gained wide currency?". The contributor is looking for a reference citation to support this statement's presence in the lead sentence.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Since these statements now appear in roughly 50 "city nicknames" articles, not just the one for Ohio, and has existed in some form since as early as this edit in June 2006, I have asked the editor to discuss the matter here. As I see it, this statement is a declaration regarding the intended scope of this list. Specifically:

1. The lead has already stated that the list includes unofficial nicknames as well as official ones. (All entries are, however, supposed to be supported by reliably sources identifying the entries as nicknames or slogans.) The first sentence in this statement makes the somewhat obvious point that some unofficial nicknames are derisive. (Surely, that point does not need a citation to an authoritative source for support!) That is an indirect way of saying that this list is WP:NOTCENSORED; it does not exclude derisive nicknames merely because they are derisive.
2. To me, the statement "The unofficial nicknames listed here have been in use for a long time or have gained wide currency" helps to justify the exclusion of the trivial cr*p that gets added to these lists on a continuing basis: "A-town", "LexVegas", etc. While the exclusion of trivial cr*p is enforced primarily by the requirement for a reliable source, this statement presents that same idea in a different form -- if it's not documented by a reliable source to be a nickname, it probably hasn't gained much currency (except perhaps in a subculture, such as the local 7th grade or local gangs), so it doesn't belong in our list. The individual source citations should document that the individual nicknames fit the scope, so the statement in the lead section does not need citation support.

However, the contributor's concern may relate to the fact that the list includes a lot of historical nicknames that no longer have "wide currency." It may be appropriate to change the second sentence to state: "The unofficial nicknames listed here have a long history of use or have gained wide currency, now or in the past." --Orlady (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

My issue with that sentence is threefold:

• How are we defining 'wide currency'? Wide is a variable term, and if it's unverifiable (meaning through means other than a website reference). In the scope of Wikipedia, anything with wide currency should be akin to something that the average person who watches TV or reads the newspaper should know. An example of a large scope for using 'widely known': it is widely known that one of New York City's nicknames is 'The Big Apple'. An example of a more regional usage for 'wide currency': in the Washington DC-Baltimore metropolitan area, DC is widely known as 'The District'. More localized, but in this case, 'wide currency' applies to the inhabitants of a large metro area, while it may not be so wide as to be a well known reference in (for example) Houston. At the very least, 'wide' should be applicable in regional sense. Otherwise, applying the term 'wide currency' is inaccurate.

• Official vs. unofficial: How can we have a lead that states it contains both 'official' and 'unofficial' nicknames, and then require a citation? Who is determining what is official and unofficial? I can flip on a Too Short CD and here a reference to Oakland that may not be an official name for the city, and it could qualify -- but where do we draw the line? How obscure can we allow this to get if it can be sourced -- but we cannot possibly verify anywhere else as to how widely used the nickname is. The 'wide currency' argument in asks the question how can we verify it? It would be a reasonable assumption that both the nicknaming source and the 'wide currency' label need to be in concordance. In other words, the definition between unofficial and official become blurred. But whatever the case, verifiability is essential -- this is, after all, Wikipedia, not the Urban Dictionary.

• This is a troublesome statement: Some unofficial nicknames are positive, while others are derisive. Given that everything else in Wikipedia seems to be guided by a policy of civility, how can we tally the derisive nicknames alongside the positive -- and in this case, a tighter reign on official vs. unofficial could remedy the problem. There are some names that, while positive, are dated and now irrelevant and the same could be said for the negatives. There are also some that are mis-attributed. Sandusky, Ohio isn't actually the Roller Coaster Capital of the World -- but rather, Cedar Point (which is in Sandusky) is called that. What is a tagline for the city bestowed upon it by the local chamber of commerce and what is the city's actual nickname (i.e. what is it really called by more than a few of the residents of that city and/or those familiar with it). Cleveland being called 'The New American City' is an example of the former. 'B-More' (for Baltimore) is an example of the latter.

What we ultimately need to do is re-assess what exactly is hope to be accomplished by compiling such a list. And whatever that goal may be, it needs to be tested by a certain set of criteria. Otherwise, it's nothing more than an arbitrary list that anyone and everyone can add on to. Because otherwise, what is there to prevent them from doing so? Ryecatcher773 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wide currency. Your definition of "wide currency" seems to be colored by WP:Recentism. As I noted earlier, however, being seen on TV and being personally known by users are not the real standards for inclusion. verifiability is the actual standard for inclusion. That's not necessarily the same as "wide currency", but if a nickname has gotten the attention needed to be documented as a nickname in a reliable source, that's a pretty good surrogate for "wide currency." Plenty of stuff gets added to these lists from sources like personal blogs, urbandictionary.com, online forums, etc., and most of it gets deleted pretty quickly because it isn't reliably sourced.

Official vs. unofficial. Official nicknames are the ones that have been formally adopted by a city government, chamber of commerce, tourism promotion board, or similar entity. If they are documented as official nicknames, we list them, even though you or I might never have heard of them (or think they are stupid). If a nickname appears on the city letterhead or official PR brochures, we can be pretty sure it's official. It's often not clear if a particular nickname is official or unofficial, but since these lists seldom indicate whether a nickname has (or once had) official status, it doesn't really matter. The true standard for inclusion is reliable sourcing.

Positive vs. derisive. Civility at Wikipedia applies to interactions between editors, not to content. The relevant policies for content include verifiability, neutral point of view, and Wikipedia is not censored. The historical nicknames, like "Buggy Whip Capital of the World" are often particularly interesting because of their connection with local heritage; this is an encyclopedia and not a public relations service for the Chamber of Commerce, so it includes a lot of information that might be considered out of date by a city's professional marketers. Also, negative nicknames (such as "Crack Pipe City" or "Mistake on the Lake" or "Murder Capital of America" or "Boresville") get included if there are reliable sources identifying them as nicknames. Sometimes what's negative isn't obvious (who knew that the boastful nickname "Queen City" would come to be thought of as a negative label?), but that doesn't matter because these lists simple list them; they don't classify the individual nicknames as "positive," "negative," or "neutral."

Arbitrary inclusion. Having worked on maintaining these lists for several years, I will testify that it's not real hard to decide what to include. The standard of verifiability is remarkably effective at keeping out the junk that some "anyone"s like to try to add.

Errors. It is true that some items that get documented as city nicknames by reliable sources might not truly deserve to be on this list. Please, however, don't remove a reliably sourced nickname from a list on the basis of your personal knowledge that it was never actually a nickname for the city. Search for other sources (it may turn out that the nickname is widely used for the city, even though you thought it applied only to a particular sports venue, college, ferry terminal, or etc.) and discuss it on article talk pages with other contributors from the area. EXAMPLE: In one instance involving a city near me, the New York Times had an article that listed a phrase as the city's current nickname, but after the story appeared, discussions here and on local online forums confirmed that NO ONE in the local area had ever heard of the supposed nickname or had any clue what it supposedly means or refers to. (Apparently somebody pulled a fast one on the Times reporter by making something up, and the reporter believed them.) After discussion here, it was agreed that the supposed nickname would not be included in any Wikipedia articles. --Orlady (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: Your definition of "wide currency" seems to be colored by WP:Recentism: Actually, I'm not defining anything. I'm telling you that the possible interpretation by a reader of the terms 'wide currency' is not limited in this case. It becomes hyperbolic and lessens the credibility -- especially given that we're not citing who exactly is declaring it to be 'wide currency'. itbecause there are no implied limits when one says 'wide' in such a scope -- I'm contesting the use of the term 'wide currency' in general. And FYI, what's coloring my 'definition' (as you put it) is my degree in English and coursework in graduate school in the field of rhetoric. 'Wide currency' without a qualifying citation (particularly as it is so broadly applied in these articles) would draw plenty of red ink from just about any professor of letters (or copy editor of any reputable publication).

RE: If they are documented as official nicknames, we list them, even though you or I might never have heard of them (or think they are stupid). I never said anything about 'official nicknames' being disputable -- even if they sound stupid (your words, not mine). Official is exactly that -- appears on the letterhead, city website, th esign that the city puts up where it says 'Welcome to Hometown USA, home of the Aardvark' yadda, yadda, yadda... But unofficial is subject to a whole lot of skepticism so far as 'wide currency' goes.

RE:Positive vs. Derisive -- then lets not be bashful. Why isn't 'Hymie Town' listed as a nickname for NYC? Jesse Jackson famously gave it that nickname in the late 80's when he was running for president as a native Chicagoan. Was it dated? If you consider that 'hymie' is a derogatory term for Jews, and New York has the largest population of Jews by far in the US, then no, it's still current albeit an offensive thing to say. Did I find it offensive? Yeah, as a Jew, I certainly did. Was it the first time anyone referred to NYC's Jewry in a derisive manner? Not in the least. So what gives Hymie Town a free pass, even though we can trace the nickname's origin to an exact source and reasoning (i.e. we can qualify it), while Cleveland being called 'Mistake on the Lake', which is both dated and ambiguous (being that the Stadium was the origin for the nickname, not the city. Whatever 'wide currency' you want to attribute to it it was erroneously appropriated by some schmuck or another writing the news in some other town).

We can argue this until we're blue in the face, but ultimately, the words 'wide currency' need some qualifying. Given that it's not my verbiage, and inasmuch I'm unclear as to what exactly your meaning is, I'll leave modifying it up to you. Meanwhile, I'm adding Hymie Town to the list for NYC with a citation. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

MedCity

Rochester, MN (pop. 106,769) is well known as Med City. Evidence: Medcity marathon is town http://www.medcitymarathon.com/, youth swim team http://www.medcityaquatics.org/, taxi service http://www.medcitytaxi.com/, etc. I can't find a website that gives the history of the nickname though--The Mayo Clinic is in town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.252.53.153 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is WAY, WAY too big

It takes forever to access on my system. It's a massive duplication of no less than 49 other lists (Hawaii is apparently missing). These are all now collected in Category:Lists of city nicknames by U.S. state. This article ought to contain links to those 49 other articles, but should NOT, NOT, NOT repeat all the information they contain. Or even any of it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is not a duplication of the other articles -- it is those other articles. This page calls all of those articles as templates and compiles them together on this page. (If you try to edit this article, you will see that.) A user who is interested in only one state's nicknames can look at the state page and need not bother with this page. On the other hand, a user who is interested in topics such as "what U.S. cities call themselves Queen City" or "which U.S. cities are nicknamed Catfish Capital" will appreciate this page. Hawaii doesn't have a separate list because there are only two "cities" on the state's "list" (also, the state actually has only one official "city"), which is hardly enough content for a stand-alone list article. Also, there's no separate article for the District of Columbia yet, but I guess I should go create "List of nicknames for Washington, D.C.". --Orlady (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of how the information is accessed, the end result is massive duplication and a huge list that has over a thousand sources. This is unarguable. I'm all for anticipating our users' needs, but surely they have other tools available to them to discover things like which U.S. cities are nicknamed "Catfish Capital". A simple Google search would be the starting point that most people would resort to; any place that's well known for such a nickname (or not particularly well known) will turn up in that search, problem solved.

What we have here is the very definition of overkill. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears that you are suggesting that the list is unnecessary because people can use search engines to get this kind of information. By extension, that would suggest that Wikipedia serves no useful purpose because search engines exist.

Speaking as someone who has run numerous internet searches to verify (or, in many cases, verify the nonexistence of) nicknames that are added to these articles, I take issue with your assertion that a simple Google search would be a fine substitute for this page. It is often very difficult to verify a nickname using a web search. On several occasions, I have found news media articles about nicknames that I was pretty sure were based on this Wikipedia list, although few of the news stories identify Wikipedia as their source. --Orlady (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The individual state articles serve their purpose. Maybe we should have a a single list of all the notable people who have ever lived, because someone might need it. Seriously, in over 8 years on WP I have hardly ever even visited AfD, let alone actually nominated any article for deletion, but this article is so blatantly and wastefully unnecessary that I feel such a nomination coming on. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And are we to understand that you, as a resident of Australia, have a more well-informed opinion about U.S. city nicknames than any of the hundreds of users (mostly in the United States) who have contributed content to the article? (Not to mention the ~400 who visit this page on an average day). --Orlady (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I was afraid that sort of ownership-related attitude might be lurking somewhere. I'm an Aussie and therefore have no entitlement to any opinions about non-Australian subjects. Is that your position? Well, compare that with the 997 articles and other stuff I've written here, only a small proportion of which have been about Australian subjects. Maybe we should instantly delete all the non-Australian ones on the grounds that I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. Yeah, right. That is the nonnest non-argument I've ever come across.

Nowhere have I made any comment on the quality or the accuracy of the data in the article. Of course a lot of work has gone into it. And very well-intentioned and serious-minded work, too. I acknowledge all that without question. All I'm saying is that this article is unnecessary in itself. All that work by the hundreds of users you mention has primarily been on the individual state-based articles, not on this master article. You acknowledged up above that "This article is not a duplication of the other articles -- it is those other articles" - that encapsulates the problem better than I ever could. It is effectively a duplication of 49 other articles, there's no way of arguing out of that. Against that fact, the quality or accuracy of the data is irrelevant, which is why I did not make an issue of it, or mention it at all until you did. I don't know why you brought that topic into the discussion to begin with. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree: you have not commented on the quality or accuracy of the data. You have, however, indicated that the needs of users are effectively served by the combination of Google Search and 52 individual state-level articles (50 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico), in place of this one national article. In saying that, you are claiming insight into the interests and needs of the people who access this article, who can be presumed to be mostly U.S. users. I submit that you are very unlikely to be qualified to judge the interests and needs of the U.S. users who access this article. --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dumas, Ar/ Dumas, Tx

Dumas, Tx is the home of the Ding Dong Daddy's not Dumas, Arkansas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.54.116 (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Slogans?

Why does this article, considering its title, include the slogans of cities? Every city (every town, for that matter) with a chamber of commerce or a local paper will have a town slogan. Personally I came to this page to see the nicknames of major American cities. Not to read slogans. The suggestion above about limiting scope to major cities should be followed, but slogans should be removed as well. If it's a list of nicknames, maybe it should actually be a list of nicknames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.54.214 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, it should be limited to widely used nicknames. New Orleans has over 20 nicknames listed, but only a handful are commonly used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.54.214 (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a very good point. The potential value of this article is to list the actual nicknames of cities (of any size) that are called typically by other than their real name, especially by locals. Letting it be a list of city slogans is not useful. Tom Haws (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

For such an article, it might be helpful to develop a "This article is NOT" list to allow the existence of a useful nicknames list and prevent scope creep:

• NOT a list of mottos, slogans, and marketing tags; nearly every city has one or more such "nickname". Examples: The Big Apple, Garlic Capital
• NOT a list of humorous names; nicknames listed here, if once humorous, are common enough to have lost their humorous effect
• NOT a comprehensive list of variants; the one or two nicknames listed here for a given city are recognized city-wide as the standard written or spoken shortcuts for the full city name. Most cities have none.

-Tom Haws (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oxford Connecticut

Often referred to as O-Town, The City That Sleeps, Oxhood, or The Miami of the Naugatuck Valley Jeeichenbaum (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

please add additional nicknames for Greensboro, North Carolina

Cityviewgso (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)"Tournament Town" for the city's reputation for hosting major regional and national sports tournaments and championships

sources-

http://opportunitygreensboro.com/living/tournament-town-usa/

http://www.visitgreensboronc.com/greensboro-history-sports#.V2tcErgrLIU

"The Boro"

source - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=The%20Boro

"Harford of the South" due to the concentration of insurance companies in the city. The insurance division of Lincoln Financial is headquartered in Greensboro.

source - http://www.carolana.com/NC/Towns/Greensboro_NC.html Cityviewgso (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Cut it short!

This article is way too long and need to be cut short; if for thing, for the sake of smooth navigation. All entries listed in the article state-wise are already included in the respective states' articles (see, Category:Lists of city nicknames by U.S. state). I propose to remove all individual entries and make it a list of lists. If no one appears to participate in this discussion (for a week or two), I will go ahead and make a bold edit. Anup [Talk] 19:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017

Camden, New Jersey - City Invincible 2601:83:8000:28A:1C5B:3990:5E18:5EDA (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 21:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017

City Invincible - Camden, New Jersey Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden,_New_Jersey 2601:83:8000:28A:1C5B:3990:5E18:5EDA (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. per WP:CIRC. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 21:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Salinas link

please change ((Salinas)) to ((Salinas, Puerto Rico|Salinas)) two times

 Already done At least I think so. I'm currently not seeing any links to the Salinas disambig. page, so I'm guessing someone already changed it and didn't bring it up on the talk page. ToThAc (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is in List of city nicknames in Puerto Rico, which has almost 200 entries (including two for Salinas), only six of which are disambiguated. - Donald Albury 18:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed the entries for Salinas, Puerto Rico (as well as Aguada and Florida, Puerto Rico). Only 175 others to check and, if necessary, fix. - Donald Albury 18:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Duplication

Why is this article just a duplication of a bunch of other articles? Wouldn't it be better to list only prominent nicknames or nicknames of prominent cities in each state, with links to the other articles for more expanded lists? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Back more than ten years ago the list was getting way too long, and and the larger states were split out to keep this list manageable. The idea was that all city nicknames for such states would appear only in the state list and not here. Editors kept adding nicknames for those states in here, however, and I guess the editors who were trying to maintain some order in here drifted away (I took more than one Wikibreak along the way). If you look in the archive for this page, you will see several discussions on how to split up the list. - Donald Albury 21:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at the archive. The discussions didn't seem to go anywhere though, so I figured it was worth bringing up again. My preference, personally, would be to restructure this article as a list of lists as some others suggested. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll support that idea, but I'm not sure whether I will find much time to help implement it. I suggest we wait a few days to see if anyone else wishes to comment. I'm not sure if a request for comment would be appropriate. It appears that all of the states already have their own lists, so implementation will be a matter of fairly simple editing. - Donald Albury 11:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Links

The external link for the list of us cities is broken. Shir Peled (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It was still up in May (per the Wayback Machine), but it was nowhere near a comprehensive list, nor a reliable source, so I'm removing the now dead link. It was not essential to the article. - Donald Albury 21:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)