Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)

Tariq's Proposal

Part I

The canonical form for cities in the United States is City, State (the "comma convention"). However, if a major city has a unique name or is unquestionably the most significant subject sharing its name, such as Chicago and Philadelphia, it can reside at a disambiguated location, without the state. Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county, borough or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina). Smaller locations, those which are not well-known outside their immediate vicinity, such as Walla Walla, Washington and Garrett Park, Maryland, should not be moved from "City, State"; they should remain disambiguated with their respective state names, regardless of the uniqueness of the names of the cities.

An U.S. city's article, however, should never be titled simply "city, United States" (e.g "Houston, United States"), although it is permissible to create a title of this type as a redirect to the properly titled article. Similarly, a title that uses the state's two-letter postal abbreviation should never be the primary article title, although creating a redirect is permitted.

Part II

Additionally, can we agree to move the twenty-seven cities mentioned by john k in his AP-related proposal, as they would abide by the requirements needed for disambiguation.

Atlanta Baltimore Boston Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Dallas Denver Detroit

Honolulu Houston Indianapolis Las Vegas Los Angeles Miami Milwaukee Minneapolis New Orleans

New York City Oklahoma City Philadelphia Pittsburgh Salt Lake City San Antonio San Diego San Francisco Seattle

I can easily see agreeing with Part I and disputing some of Part II; it is possible to agree with Part II for other reasons, and oppose Part I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs)

Survey -3

This is for later use; but if anyone has decided, fine. If you want fine-tuning, please comment below.

Support Votes -3

1. Support. I support any proposal that moves U.S. cities in the direction of disambiguate only when necessary. --Serge 06:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Support I'm okay with this as-is. This would a) create a brief statement for the guideline, b) leave the Canadian guideline alone, c) provide a starting point for moves according to the guideline, d) still leave the possibility of future moves open, and e) make sure very small cities like Garrett Park, Maryland retain the state disambiguation. -- tariqabjotu 16:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. I've also implemented the wording change Septentrionalis proposes below. But I agree that discussion needs to continue. john k 12:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Support the current phrasing. older ≠ wiser 13:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Anything to end the ridiculous convention we have now. --DaveOinSF 01:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC) (I suppose I have to change my UID to DaveOinSF,CA)
6. Support, It's about time we had some common sense on this. G-Man * 16:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support for now. I think this is strong enough to make clear that we only disambiguate cases like Chicago. Septentrionalis 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Support for now. Sounds as a sensible attempt to achive peace. Duja^► 11:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per a nice balance of common sense moves and put-the-brakes guidelines. I worry this straw poll will be invalidated due to the numerous earlier polls, but it's worth a try.. -- nae'blis 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Georgia guy 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Makes sense to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Support: per previous my points in archived talk or Seattle talk page. —Asatruer— 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Support --josh (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Support with reservations about definition of "well-known." At this point, I'd prefer to move forward and hope for a Part III, but these discussions (including this one) need to take a break. This is a "good enough for now" compromise. --ishu 04:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Support: I've supported this before. If it's a compromise, so be it. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Support: per above. -- Ned Scott 03:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Support --Polaron | Talk 23:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Support: My preference is to simplify bureaucracy by referring only to WP:NC for disputes, but since everybody loves to make new rules, this is better than the "city, state" requirement. --Dystopos 18:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
19. Support: It's worked quite well for every other country (including countries with states and provinces), so why not the US? Wikipedia doesn't pre-disambiguate articles beforehand unless absolutely necessary; why should this be any different? Canadian articles are moving away from the CITY, PROVINCE convention, and it hasn't caused many problems at all (in fact, problems seem to be reduced in ways). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
20. Support: Per nom. I forget, what's the WP guideline that says that for articles should be under the commonly known name where possible? E.g. Edson Arantes do Nascimento -- same principle applies to places, I would think. Regarding Tarzana and the California discussion below, if those names are not commonly understood to the preponderance of English speakers (as Tarzana is not) then they should include the state. - PhilipR 00:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Support SEATTLE SEATTLE SEATTLE. SchmuckyTheCat 10:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Yet Votes (please specify change, if any, required for you to support)

1. Not Yet Previously I was opposed because I believe in uniformity, but now I'm thinking if I can get other Californian Wikipedians to join me, we can create a new California voter block that can demand that all California place names be considered Unique or the most well known and therefore all California cities will no longer need a (City, State) disambiguation. Gohiking 17:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC) A list of cities (incomplete) that meet the Unique criteria are:

• Banning See Banning for other notable uses.
• Barstow Verified
• Berkeley See Berkeley for other notable uses.
• Big Bear City Verified
• Blythe See Blythe for other notable use.
• Calistoga Currently a dab page, but is arguably the primary topic.
• Carmel-by-the-Sea. Verified
• Chinese Camp Verified
• Coalinga Verified
• Compton See Compton for other notable uses.
• Cudahy See Cudahy for other notable uses.
• Desert Hot Springs Verified
• Eureka See Eureka for other notable uses.
• Frazier Park Verified
• Fresno See Fresno for other notable uses.
• Gilroy Currently a dab page, but is arguably the primary topic (other use is place in Montana without even an article).
• Indio See Indio for other notable uses.
• Lompoc Verified
• Los Banos See Los Banos for other notable use.
• Ludlow (See Ludlow for other notable uses.)
• Modesto Verified
• Mojave (See Mojave for other notable uses.)
• Monterey (See Monterey for other uses)
• Napa Verified
• Needles Verified
• Solvang Verified
• Ojai Verified
• Oxnard Verified
• Palm Springs (See Palm Springs for other uses)
• Ripon (corrected) (See Ripon for other notable uses.)
• Sacramento Verified
• Sausalito Verified
• Simi Valley Verified
• South Lake Tahoe Verified
• Tarzana Verified (a community of L.A.)
• Thousand Oaks Currently a dab page, but is arguably the primary topic (other use is place in Missouri without an article).
• Vallejo (See Vallejo for other uses)
• Weed See Weed.
• Yuba City Verified

---

Excellent idea! I wikified them, added Carmel-by-the-Sea, and fixed the spelling of Coalinga and Sacramento. Also, striked out those that are not the primary meanings of their respective names, need to be disambiguated, and so don't belong on this list. But I would certainly support moving those that are verified to be unique above to be at the names by which they are most commonly referenced per WP:NAME. --Serge 19:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is the likely consequence, change to strongly oppose, unless some criteria can be incorporated to strike a number of those which clearly are not the most prominent article that should have that name. If Serge can find so many ambiguities that Gohiking didn't (and although I know that Tarzana is a place, it's unlikely that someone even from Northern California would. I would not be at all surprised if there were other communities named Tarzana as a back-formation from Tarzan, even if we don't have them listed in Wikipedia.) However, Tarzana shouldn't have even been on the table, as it's a region within Los Angeles. Similarly, we need (even in the present Wikipedia) disambiguation (or, at least, {{otheruses}}) pages between Desert Hot Springs, California and hot springs which are in a desert. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For the life of me I do not understand the relevance of the fact that hardly anyone, even someone from Northern California, would know that Tarzana is a place to the issue of whether Tarzana should be at Tarzana or Tarzana, California. The broader and much more important general issue is: is there any precedence within Wikipedia of adding more information to a title of a subject, not because of an ambiguity issue, but just to make it more clear what a relatively obscure subject is? I'm sorry, but I'm simply unaware of any such precedent or convention, much less a guideline. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But I'm pretty sure that we don't put additional information in the title of an article about a relatively obscure book just to make it more obvious that the article is about a book. I don't think we put any kind of additional identifying information in the title of articles about relatively obscure actors, authors, politicians, CEOs, etc., beyond just their names, unless their names are not unique. I just don't understand where this compulsion to do so for city names comes form. There is a small minority of TV episode editors that wants to do this for articles about TV episodes with unique names, but that effort is being soundly rejected (and rightly so). Can someone (Arthur?) explain this to me, please? --Serge 20:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I lean toward adding pre-disambiguation for TV episodes, as well, although I don't care enough about it to comment in those polls. In most cases, a person's name is clearly a person's name, although one cannot tell what kind of a person it is, so the situations are not at all similar. Similarly, a title is usually clearly a title, although whether of a book, film, TV show, TV episode, play, music album, song, or poem, is often unclear. I feel that a place should also be clearly a place, and possibly even a human-defined place should be easily separated from a geographic feature by the name alone.

Furthermore, people tend to name places after other places, so that a non-particularly-notable place may very well collect namesakes, and unless an automated system generates the articles for named settlements, the potential ambiguities may never be caught. Over the past few decades, new cities have formed in Southern California at a rate of about 2 or 3 a decade, and someone trying to reference the new city of Lake Forest, California might very well have accidently linked to Lake Forest, Illinois, without realizing there was a problem. Settlements really are different than people, in that people generally assume that the names are fixed and unique, while, in fact, they are not. In the case of people, no one would be surprised if there was another Arthur Rubin (in fact, there is a fairly notable actor in the 1940s through at least the 1970s with that name), but people would be (falsely) surprised if there was another Tarzana or Lake Forest. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge asked is there any precedence within Wikipedia of adding more information to a title of a subject, not because of an ambiguity issue, but just to make it more clear what a relatively obscure subject is? and has been answered a number of times previously, but conveniently neglects to remember them. I know of at least three: 1) royalty, 2) Ship names, and 3) State highways in the US. There are articles within each of these types where a simpler unique name is possible, but where additional information is encoded as a matter of style. older ≠ wiser 22:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly Provincial highways in Canada, as well; at least officially, the "Kings Highways", secondary, and tertiary roads in Ontario are distinguished, even if Ontario Route nn would be unique. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I do remember, and each time I have to remind you: in all of those cases while a "simpler unique name is [theoretically] possible", in almost all of the articles in all of those categories that "common name" is not nearly as clear and obvious as it is for city names. When a category exists for which for most articles the "common name" is unclear, I don't have a problem with using a consistent naming convention that produces a plausible common name for each member of the category. But in a category where the most common name is obvious (place name, people's names, book and movie titles, etc., etc.), no "work-a-round" for the common names policy is needed, because the common name is known, and, so, it alone should be used as the title of the article, unless there is an ambiguity issue, in which case an appropriate disambiguator should be added to the title. --Serge 23:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for wikifying my city list Serge - but I noticed that most ambiguity where noted still shows that the California city name is the primary reference (in the English language, anyway) and that the other uses are less common.

• Fresno shouldn't be an issue, as the Fresno, TX only has 6,000 residents and Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a word translator, because Fresno has an entry for it's spanish meaning of "Ash Tree".
• only 2 Los Banos in the world, in California and the Philipines (next to a volcano no less, so it might not be around too much longer)
• only 2 Cudahy's in the world also, both cities (CA and WI) founded by the same man. --Interesting
• Indio is the only city with this name, althrough it's used both as someone's name (as are many cities!) and a brand of beer. Gohiking 22:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

... major city has a unique name or is unquestionably the most significant subject sharing its name... (emphasis added) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur. I only marked "verified" those for whom the name redirected already - all the others had a dab page and were not unquestionably the most significant usage of that name. --Serge 23:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, we have a few outstanding issues to discuss.

• Desert Hot Springs. Whether Desert hot springs should be a dab page with links to the city and to Hot springs is a good question. Currently, it just redirects to the city. If it's appropriate to redirect to the city (and I'm not saying it is), then the city should just be at the name. If it's appropriate to have it go to the dab page, then, of course, the article about the city needs disambiguation. The point is, the way you decide whether an article title in Wikipedia needs disambiguation depends on the use of that name by other subjects. I don't see why cities should be any different.
• Tarzana. Let's say we didn't know Tarzana was a community of L.A. It could be the title of a book or a movie, a toy name, a wrestler's name, a model of a car, bicycle or motorcycle, a hotel, a city, town or community in almost any country besides the U.S., a TV episode, etc., etc. If Tarzana was the name any of those, and unique, per Wikipedia general naming guidelines it would be at Tarzana. Why, simply because it happens to be the name of a city or community in the U.S., should the applicable naming rules be any different? The supposed requirement to be able to identify the "kind" of thing a Wikipedia article subject is from the title alone has no basis in convention, guideline or policy. Trying to meet this non-existent requirement only leads to conflict with actual Wikipedia conventions, guidelines and policies. Why? Don't get me wrong, I can see the benefit of having "type-identifying titles", if you will. And if it were a Wikipedia value, goal, convention, guideline and/or policy to have "type-identifying titles", I'd be with you 100%. But having "type-identifying titles" is not a Wikipedia goal, convention, guideline and/or policy, so far as I know, and, so, I don't see the point of trying to have them for U.S. cities.
• I feel that a place should also be clearly a place, and possibly even a human-defined place should be easily separated from a geographic feature by the name alone. Thanks for sharing your feelings with us. That's great. But, again, so far as I know, satisfying your feelings is not a Wikipedia value, goal, convention, guideline and/or policy. Nor is having "type-identifying titles".
• New cities. The potential new conflicts caused by the tiny number of new cities each year can easily be handled by conventional disambiguation guidelines. Whenever any new article is added to Wikipedia, the editor must check for any existing uses of the name, and deal with the disambiguation issues accordingly. This is no big deal.
• Accidental links. There is a "Show preview" button for a reason. Editors are responsible to make sure their links work, including making sure their links go to the pages they're supposed to go too. The last thing we want to do is encourage editors to develop bad habits like not following their links from a preview because they "know" they go to the right page. Reducing the possibility of making links accidently to the wrong page is a very weak point in favor of predisambiguating anything. --Serge 00:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Desert Hot Springs. I disagree that a redirect from [[City]] to [[Citi, State]] necessary means the article should be at [[City]]. That's what this convention is supposed to address, even though it differs from the general guideline on naming things. (The question of whether it should be a redirect is not relevant to this page, except to note that if it were at Desert Hot Springs, and then changed to a disambiguation page, the disambiguator might not know to move the article to Desert Hot Springs, California. I'll mention it at Talk:Desert Hot Springs, California....)
• Tarzana. The details of the name of Tarzana is covered by multiple contradictory guidelines. You say the name should be Tarzana, under the general guidelines at WP:NC(CN). Most of the guidelines we're discussing here would put it at Tarzana, California, but, under yet another (working) guideline, it's at Tarzana, Los Angeles, California. Which of the latter two it should be at is out-of-scope for this guideline. (And it clearly dosn't go there under tariq's proposed guideline; it's not major, nor a city.)
• A place should be a place; that's just an additional justification for my reasoning — IMHO, it doesn't conflict with general Wikipedia policy, and provides reasons why the existing policy, including tariq's proposal, and the Australian proposal, are better than the qualify with "your" qualify with the state only if necessary proposal. When discussing proposals, the question should be "is it good for Wikipedia", not "does it conflict with other Wikipedia guidelines" (even though it doesn't).
• New cities. The potential new conflicts caused by new cities, although small in number, do not have a project or team watching them, so are likely to persist. The proposals with predisambiguation or qualification make the conflicts less likely.
• Accidental links. I see your point. I just don't agree with it. However, there's little difference to new editors if the [[City, State]] redirects to [[City]] are always created and the guidelines encourage creating links in the form [[City, State|]]. It causes a little effort on the part of part of the software, but that's better than confusing new editors.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Votes -3

To facilitate moving towards consensus, please consider a "Not Yet" vote in the section above, including suggesting a change to the proposal that would allow you to support it, rather than an all-out "oppose" vote.

1. Oppose Once again, don't see the point. Another attempt at changing the policy, since all the previous attempts have failed. Hey, keep trying! Eventually, the opposition will forget to vote! Phiwum 04:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose let's get out the laundry list...

   -Introduces a needless inconsistency into the US naming convention. There is no practical benefit to having some cities at CITYNAME and other at City, State. On the flip side, there is no harm to having every US city consistently at City, State.

   -As an "objective criteria" the AP guideline is flawed in the fundamental difference between a newspaper dateline and an Encyclopedia article entry. The sole purpose of a dateline is to state where the store was filed and may have little or no relevance to the subject matter of the article itself. An encyclopedia entry article title, however, DOES have mark relevance to what the article is about. Additionally, even AP reports don't rely on the single CITY dateline alone to convey the full context of the location as evident by these article titles. The fundamental difference is that we are writing encyclopedia articles about a location, not filing the report from that location.

   Georgia Early Voting Numbers Up - AP ATLANTA

   Dinosaur City planned for Texas in 2008 - AP HOUSTON

   VFW Passes Over Veteran in Illinois - AP CHICAGO

   Pennsylvania business news in brief - AP Philadelphia

   Doyle adds Aaron's big bat to Wisconsin campaign lineup - AP Milwaukee

   -Furthermore, the AP style guidelines is not even used consistently on AP news reports with several instances City, State datelines even for the 27 cities listed above. Like Philadelphia, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Boston.

   -Does nothing to curb the endless debate and page move request because of its reliance on subjective criteria which editors are obviously bound to disagree over- namely the potentially unstable criteria for determining what "is unquestionably the most significant subject sharing its name." To whom? For the Irish and others the city of Cork is unquestionably the most significant subject and they were quite passionate and vocal about that with attempts to move it to what other editors felt was "unquestionably the most significant subject" of the material Cork. Considering the absence of a practical benefit to have these "exception inconsistencies" the continued opening for constant debate and endless debate on Page Moves is high price to pay for little or no gain.

   -Similarly, this subject criteria goes over to the "smaller locations" as editors are just as open to argue that Walla Walla IS well known for its onions (or its propensity in the alphabet drinking game which adds to its fame for my German friends) or that Tallahassee should considered "well known" because it's a state capital or Kingsburg, California should be at just Kingsburg and worthy of world reknown because it home not only to the World's largest raisin box but also the World's largest teapot to boot. Of course my little sister and her "worldwide friends" on Myspace would be aghast at the lack of recognition for the world renown of Kentwood, Louisiana birthplace of Britney Spears. The subjective nature of this criteria does nothing to stop the continued onslaught of page moves. As Serge himself wondered outloud during the previous proposal as to why even unincorporated areas like Assawoman, Virginia should be City, State so to can other editors do the same wondering and do the same page move request.

   There is more to be said but now I'm tired though I'm sure I'll have another opportunity once the rebuttals come. Agne 09:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

   The point of the AP list is that those are the cities they consider to be significant enough to not require the state name. Usage is datelines is not different from usage in text. In fact, I believe the AP guideline applies to text (I don't have a stylebook with me so maybe someone can check). You can propose a different set of criteria if you think the AP list is still too subjective. The onslaught of page moves you are saying is unlikely to occur in practice. It is a self-limiting mechanism. The lesser known a city is, the more people will oppose moving it. In the end, I think you'll find that whatever reasonable criteria one chooses for what a major city is, we'll end up with something more or less the same as the AP list. --Polaron | Talk 15:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

   If there is reason to fear an onslaught of page moves after this wording, my amendment wasn't strong enough. How can it be strengthened? Septentrionalis 22:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

   As I reminded folks elsewhere, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". "Consistency" within a given category (say, U.S. cities) is less important than consistency with the general Wikipedia guidelines on article naming and disambiguation. The city of Los Angeles, California is undeniably the most common meaning for Los Angeles — and indeed, Los Angeles redirects there. Why shouldn't the article be at the simplest name for such a clear-cut case? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

   The practical benefit of having all American cities consistently titled the same way is completely eviscerated by the practical deficit of having the American convention be so radically different from the conventions in use for any other country on the planet. Bearcat 03:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose as usual. See my arguments posted on other proposals. AJD 23:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. This vote would apparently override the votes held recently, such as talk:Los Angeles, California and Talk:Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I also strongly disapprove of "legislating" an inconsistent convention. -Will Beback 22:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I see no value in creating unnecessary exceptions to a straightforward, sensible convention. New York City is the only case with some justification. —wwoods 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

   Yet you see a reason for a U.S. city specific convention that is itself an unnecessary exception to the straightforward and sensible conventions used throughout Wikipedia? --Serge 01:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose. "Major" city is far too subjective a description and depends on your point of view. Even with this change, we'd still see debates on talk pages about whether or not a particular city is "Major". I don't think this particular proposal would accomplish much other change the focus of the current debates. -- The Bethling^(Talk) 20:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

   Would you prefer a specific list? The AP list is one concept of what a major city is. If you have other thoughts, please do share them. Also, naming debates in Canada died down when they allowed some cities to be exempted. --Polaron | Talk 20:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

   I don't like the idea of a list (for example the AP one), since it strikes me as arbitrary. A defintion of what makes a city "major" would be something that I'd consider. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 20:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose. For completeness in case somebody just counts edits here, I oppose the idea of exceptions to the US city article naming convention. If the supporters win the case for exceptions, then the AP List with non-city ambiguity removed (part II above) is by far the best list I have seen discussed here so far. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Will B and others. Jonathunder 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Having two conventions (with no clear purpose or method) would be confusing to the reader - one convention or the other for clarity. THEPROMENADER 12:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

   There are already two different conventions, with no clear purpose or method for the difference: one for the United States, one for the entire rest of the world. Bearcat 17:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose Among other things, it would make two conventions for city names in the U.S., and the decision on which cities don't need the state to be specified would be arbitrary and the source of much contention. -- Donald Albury 23:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Leave them all at City, State. FairHair 20:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose - It is important to have clear standards that are consistent. Ludahai 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose - For all the great reasons stated above. --Coolcaesar 07:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose - see opinion below. CrazyC83 00:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose - There would be an endless debate on what cities are important/unique enough, what criteria to use, etc. The current city, state format keeps it clean, and also automatically informs visitors what state a city is in, should they have gone there by redirect. There is no negative impact of city, state. -newkai t-c 06:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose, as suggested this will just create useless debate on what cities fall under the criteria for not having their state. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose - I agree with JohnnyBGood. FairHair 20:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose - for the excellent reasons already well expressed by so many. Whyaduck 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose - per Agne, Will B, and others above and per Coolcaesar below.--Andrew c 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion -3

comments here, please.

We would need to resolve any possible issues about the redirect target for LA and LV. I think those are the only two that might still be an issue. Vegaswikian 06:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain how this proposal differs or is similar to previous proposals? Can we have a summary of some kind? -Will Beback 08:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It is different from Serge's proposal in that it explicitly states that very small cities should not be included in the change. It also proposes immediate moves for the 27 largely non-ambiguous cities from the AP list. john k 15:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any serious problem for LA. When Los Angeles County is meant, one says "Los Angeles County," e.g. "Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department." The issue of metro area vs. city proper is not unique to Los Angeles, or to American cities. Las Vegas is more problematic, but I don't see how Las Vegas, Nevada any more clearly indicates the city proper than Las Vegas would. I think it's a very bad idea to say that it does on the basis of postal usage, because wikipedia articles on American localities are based not on postal usage, but on formal municipality boundaries and census designations, which are often very different from postal usage. City of Las Vegas would be the only completely clear way to indicate the city proper, I think.

It's probably worth mentioning that another vaguely possible confusion might relate to Honolulu. There are no municipalities in Hawaii. The formal name of Honlulu County, which includes the entire island of Oahu, is the "City and County of Honolulu," or something similar. Our Honolulu, Hawaii refers to the Census-designated place, which apparently corresponds fairly closely to common usage of "Honolulu" in Hawaii itself. I don't think this is a serious issue, but I think it's more liable to cause confusion than Los Angeles.

That being said, I don't think any of the moves will lead to the creation of any greater confusion than already exists. Not only do Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Honolulu currently redirect to the articles on the cities (or, in the latter case, CDP), but attempts in the pass to make the simple title in similar cases redirect to the disambiguation page have always been miserable failures. The Las Vegas issue is certain to cause some confusion unless the article is called "City of Las Vegas," which is an awkward title. But Las Vegas is no worse than Las Vegas, Nevada. The important thing is that the article clarify the situation. I might change my opinion if Vegaswikian can explain how Los Angeles, California and Las Vegas, Nevada indicate more clearly that the city proper is meant than simple Los Angeles and Las Vegas do without resorting to the post office. I think this proposal is sensible, makes fair allowances for the reluctance expressed by many users towards a wholesale change in the convention, and would lead to a reasonable solution that I, at least, can live with. john k 15:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be best to keep things simple and understandable to all (no matter what country) in designating "cityname" as an article on the census definition of cityname - or the "city proper" - as anything outside of this is a grey-area "concept" with many many different possible meanings and interpretations. It is of course that the "cityname" article speak of an area greater than "cityname" within the article, but only through the context of "cityname" core. In other words, a "cityname" article should cover the area spoken of in a textbook definition of "cityname". Naming practices may differ from country to country, but at least this method will conform with each's existing practices, methods and - surtout - references. THEPROMENADER 12:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Reluctant support, provided that we go "on record" that any extension of this policy to undisambiguate minor cities would be strongly discouraged. (This means you, Serge.) As for Las Vegas, perhaps we should move Las Vegas metropolitan area to Las Vegas, and move the article presently at Las Vegas, Nevada to City of Las Vegas, Nevada or Las Vegas, Nevada (city), with Las Vegas, Nevada changed to a sub-disambiguation page of Las Vegas (disambiguation). (I feel that, in common usage, Las Vegas, Nevada does indicate the city, while Las Vegas indicates the area or gambling in general — just as the most common usage of Hollywood is to refer to the Los Angeles County-based) entertainment industry, rather than the community within the city of Los Angeles.) Although the most common usage of Los Angeles is to refer to the metropolitan area, I don't think it's as confusing, as the city is also an important referent. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Change to "smaller locations, those which are not well-known to the majority of the world's population, such as Walla Walla, Washington and Garrett Park, Maryland, should not be moved from "City, State"; they should remain disambiguated..."? Septentrionalis 17:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Metonymy should not be considered for primary topic status. The White House is both the building the president of the United States lives in, and a metonymy for "the current administration." Both usages are very common, but White House is still about the building. john k 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, am I correct that this proposal states, on the one hand, places that "are not known to the majority of the world's population" shall be disambiguated; and on the other hand that (based on the AP guidelines) 27 cities shall use city only, whether or not these places are known to the majority of the world's population. I was in Europe once, and a group of German tourists asked me what state I was from. When I said I was from Maryland, one replied, "no, no, what state are you from?" I question whether these folks would have recognized Baltimore. (One could argue that they are in the minority of the world's population, but that's a thought exercise.) I'm inclined to support this proposal, but I just want to be clear on how it works. --ishu 05:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that is partly because of the US-centric nature of the AP guidelines and also the fundamental difference between a guideline for a newspaper dateline and an encyclopedia article entry. A dateline is not as directly relevant to the newspaper article as the title of an encyclopedia entry is to its subject matter. Agne 07:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the majority of the world's population knows about Hildburghausen and Caserta? The idea that this is "US-centric" is absurd. This proposal would allow for far fewer American cities to be moved to just "City" than cities in other countries. john k 13:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• One is a proposal for the guideline; the other a proposed implementation of the guideline. If you dispute that the AP list is "known to the majority of world's population", support Part I and Oppose Part II; or vice versa. Septentrionalis 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  I would suggest that "well-known to the majority of the world's population" is perhaps an infelicitous way of phrasing it. How many American cities are known to 3 billion people? There's obviously a lot of people who are ignorant, especially about geography. I'd suggest that what is meant is "well-known to the majority of people who are reasonably well-educated about geography," or something similar. Perhaps some modification of the phrasing could be made. john k 13:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  Do tweak at will; I don't think it will make much difference to the declared !votes. Certainly "English-speaking" would be justified by general policy. Septentrionalis 19:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  There's obviously a lot of people who are ignorant, especially about geography. I'd suggest that what is meant is "well-known to the majority of people who are reasonably well-educated about geography," or something similar. I agree that many people are ignorant about geography, but that's not a verifiable population. WP:NC states that article names should be governed by "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." It's not U.S. English speakers, but English speakers. Since 1.7 billion live in the British Commonwealth, any way you count English speakers, a majority of live outside the U.S. I really want to support this proposal, so as to reduce these discussions, but the guidelines should be coherent, and I'm just not convinced that they are. --ishu 20:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  Pretty much every self-described non-American who has participated in this debate over the years has generally expressed the opinion that they are only vaguely aware, at best, of what states most American cities are in, and that places like Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, and so forth are much better known to them than the states in which they are located. You yourself mentioned your German acquaintances who had never heard of Maryland. In terms of who are "English-speakers", I think traditionally this has been interpreted to mean "native-speakers". Once you include the entire population of India, the whole exercise becomes somewhat pointless. "Would an Indian peasant recognize Baltimore?" This gets to the point of silliness. Americans are probably a slight majority, or nearly so, of native English-speakers, and adding in Canadians, who are reasonably familiar with American geography, you have a fairly solid margin. At any rate, your own comment suggests that your German friends would have been just as baffled by Baltimore, Maryland as by Baltimore, if not more so. What argument exactly are you looking for here? john k 01:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  When I wrote "any way you count," I meant that literally--including using conservative criteria. Canada (30M) + UK (60M) + Australia (20M) = 110M; toss in a mere 10% of the commonwealth, and you're already at 280M, and I suspect the English speaking pop'n in the commonwealth is significantly higher than 10%, given 300M "middle class" Indians (although many of these are marginally English speaking). There's nothing silly about looking about it this way.

  I'm not looking for an argument, just a coherent guideline. The AP test conflicts with WP:NC and Part I of the proposal as I described. The point is not whether the German tourists would be baffled by Baltimore, Maryland but whether Baltimore would be recognized by "the majority of English speakers." --ishu 01:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  What is silly is the comment I added in my edit summary (2 billion English speakers). My apologies. Shouldn't have done it that way. Sorry, John. --ishu 07:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a contestant on Jeopardy! once proffered "What is Calgary?" for the answer "Ottawa, the capital of Canada, is located in this province." I don't personally think other people's lack of geographical knowledge needs to circumscribe our naming conventions. But YMMV. Bearcat 11:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also prefer a different way of phrasing it. Why don't we say something along the lines of small cities that are not well known to people from outside their immediate area, or something similar? Baltimore may not be well known to the majority of the world, or even the majority of English-speakers, but it well known to people not from it. Garrett Park, on the other hand, is not even known by most people who live in the Washington, DC area, much less to outsiders. Would this be an acceptable substitute? john k 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This goes back to my original concern, that any such phrasing is difficult to verify, and would conflict with WP:NC. I'd agree that most English-speaking people know Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington, DC. On the basis of their roles in popular culture, I'd toss in Chicago, Miami, and maybe even Boston. But the other 21 AP cities are a stretch, since most English-speaking people don't know anything about them... yet this is also true of most topics in Wikipedia, for what that's worth. --ishu 07:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where verifiability comes into it. Verifiability is a requirement for article content, not for conventions. The name "Baltimore" is verifiable, and is commonly used for the place. That's all that WP:V would require, as far as I can gather. I'm not sure why it would conflict with WP:NC. I also notice that you're still arguing about most English-speaking people, which is not what I proposed at all. I said that we should change the wording to refer to whether the city was well known outside its immediate vicinity. Obviously, this judgment is subjective. But any basis would have to be either a) subjective; or b) completely arbitrary. I'd prefer a subjective judgment that more or less conforms to most of our instincts on this to an arbitrary one. The response to my AP proposal suggests that an arbitrary basis does not have a great deal of support. Any judgment of a primary topic has to be ultimately subjective, so I don't see why this is any more problematic. john k 13:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest a slightly different take on which US cities are known outside the US -- Cities that are international ports of entry. This was mentioned earlier (by Tinlinkin I think) but never formally proposed. Hopefully, this removes some of the subjectiveness in choosing which cities to include. --Polaron | Talk 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean exactly? What about "cities that appear on maps of the world published by major map-making companies like Rand McNally"? There's any number of possible ways of judging this. I think something vague and subjective is the best way to go, which would allow any individuals to apply whatever specific criteria they want to. I think that "widely known outside their immediate vicinity" is the closest to what we've generally meant. If people want to apply clearer, more stricter standards in applying such a rule, that is, of course, perfectly appropriate. john k 14:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There is actually such a specific list by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyway, it was just a suggestion since some people seemed to think the AP list does not necessarily mean well-known outside the US. As I said before, the list we would end up will be more or less the same no matter what criteria for being well-known we use. --Polaron | Talk 15:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you post a link to this list? I would support that proposal, since it would overlap onto significant portions of the AP list, while also being grounded in some meaningful international relationships. People may enter the country via Baltimore or Seattle without ever setting foot there or learning any more about the place beyond its role as a port of entry. Of course, they would never enter through Garrett Park, or Kansas City, Kansas. --ishu 16:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Do most Indian peasants speak English? If so, please document. Mumbai is not, I think, supportable as majority English usage; it's supportable because Indian English is a national variety of English, like Australian, American or British English, and IE usage is clear. Septentrionalis 15:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether a majority of Indian "peasants" speak English. The issue is: Who is included in "the majority of English-speaking" people, as per WP:NC. Secondarily, of these people, how many would recognize which cities by cityname only? Most likely, a significant majority of the 1.1B Indians do not speak conversational English (say, an arbitrary 50% or more of the conversation). However, I am claiming that a significant minority of them can be included as "English-speaking people," which weighs against Americans (or even Americans+Canadians) as being a majority by themselves. Much of this discussion is threaded with the American assumption, and that's not what WP:NC states. (It also does not specify native English speakers, but second-language people would be difficult to quantify.) --ishu 16:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ishu, I think you're confusing two separate issues. WP:NC merely says that articles should be at names that are recognizable to "a majority of English speakers." Since many things that have articles on wikipedia are things that most English-speakers have never heard of, this can't mean what you are arguing it means. What it means is recognizable to a majority of English speakers who have heard of the place. This is a rule designed so as to mean that articles can't be at foreign language names that English-speakers are unfamiliar with - Cologne rather than [Köln]], Florence rather than Firenze. It has no role here. The other issue is what the proposal here says. We can make it say whatever we want. There is no requirement that cities that get moved be ones that the "majority of English-speakers have heard of. john k 20:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe John's interpretation about the intent of the WP:NC requirement to choose names that are recognizable to "a majority of English speakers" is correct. It cannot possibly mean that any Wikipedia article title must be recognizable to "a majority of English speakers" because so many subjects are unrecognizable to "a majority of English speakers", not matter what you call it. It has to do with preferring English to foreign spellings. --Serge 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Having said that, I would fully support the proposal if we add the following:

Part III: Further exceptions will be made if both of the following conditions are met:

1. The city has an airport on the list of international ports-of-entry published by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
2. A consensus can be reached per the existing request-for-move policy.

The benefit is that the DHS list (150+ cities) is much longer than the AP list, and provides an outer boundary to the number of possible moves. Many of the cities on that list (e.g., Ontario, California) are simply inappropriate on dab grounds, while others (e.g., Teterboro, New Jersey) are clearly not well-known internationally. Again, Garrett Park and Kansas City, KS would not be eligible for move because they fail test #1. --ishu 21:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I could accept the AP list, but not the DHS list as a claim of "well-known" outside the USA. I consider myself reasonably geographically aware. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The DHS list is an objective "floor", meaning that a city must be on the DHS list even to be considered for a move. Subjective criteria of "well-known" would be used only for cities on that list. Any other city would be ineligible for a non-disambiguated article name. This would limit the potential candidates (and discussions) to just over 100 cities. --ishu 04:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

How do we decide which cities are "well-known"? -Will Beback 06:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may: This is exactly where I find this discussion to be narrow-minded - it does not treat the issue on a global scale. Few of the world's people outside the US know where a state is, let alone the city spoken of, or even the fact that that city is in that state... and this separating cities into "having this or not, this big or not" status will make things even more complicated. Although having the state name in the title would have some informative value, the administrative heirarchy perhaps would be more practical elsewhere, say in the article introduction and as the article categories.

This naming discussion really should not be about convention - it should be about finding a correct form of disambiguation. THEPROMENADER 11:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ishu, I think the DHS list is problematic. I've made a (not quite complete) list of the cities it would cover at User:John Kenney/Airports. It is heavily biased towards airports near the Canadian and Mexican borders. I would think that Baton Rouge, Louisiana, or Des Moines, Iowa, are much better candidates for a move than International Falls, Minnesota, or Del Rio, Texas. The basis on which the airports are chosen is also odd. Teeterboro Airport in New Jersey but not La Guardia? I'm not really sure I quite understand what is going on with that list. If we are going to have a floor of places to consider, I would prefer if there were a number of different potential qualifiers. If we must have a series of objective criteria, the airport business would be okay as one criteria, but I'd suggest having other potential "minimum" criteria which would allow a city to be considered even if it didn't have an airport on the last. I'd notably suggest that status as a state capital, and probably that a certain agreed upon minimum size of either the city or the metropolitan area of which it is the center, or both, should qualify a place to be considered, if we're going to go that route. But I'm not sure that's necessary. There is no need for this convention to be tied to what "the majority of English-speakers" or "the majority of people in the world" would recognize. I still think that the simplest way to do this would be to use the criterion of whether a city is well-known outside its own vicinity. I've suggested this a number of times, and nobody has really responded. john k 11:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remember that the DHS list is not the sole determinant of whether a city may be moved. The border airports like Teeterboro (as I mentioned), Del Rio and International Falls aren't eligible because they are not well-known. La Guardia isn't a concern because New York City would be eligible for unqualified article name thanks to JFK airport. I think most of us agree that we wouldn't want more than 150 move requests. This list accomplishes that goal while also referring to a list of "less well-known" cities that people abroad might actually have reason to know since they could have traveled to/through/from them. Other people in the U.S. might know them for the same reasons. We don't have to guess (or worse, argue over) whether Garrett Park is "well-known" because it isn't a port of entry. Of course, we would have to discuss whether International Falls, Minnesota is "well-known," but that's a pretty simple discussion in my opinion. Even if legions of International Fallsians disagree with me, the Garrett Parkians would automatically be disqualified. In other words, while we may have disagreements over what "well-known" means, one couldn't apply "well-known" to any random city, only those on the DHS list. And the not-at-all-well-known cities on the DHS list aren't frequently used as ports of entry/exit by most people. I think this is a reasonable compromise. --ishu 12:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ishu, my point was that I don't see why we should a priori exclude relatively unique and well known places like Baton Rouge and Des Moines, while starting from a list that includes many much less well known and less important places. I don't see why there is this obsession with cities that people from abroad might be familiar with. There is absolutely nothing requiring that this should be our criterion. The AP list, at least, represents the efforts of a well known organization which is trying to do something that is at least comparable to what we are trying to do. Ths DHS list is completely arbitrary. It excludes many worthy, fairly obvious candidates while including a fairly substantial number of places that don't qualify under any reasonable definition of "well known." john k 13:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that the DHS list is not particularly useful to sorting out what is "well known" or "world class". Any article which currently redirects from City Name to City Name, State would be eligible in my view per the "common name" convention, but I understand that's probably a minority view on this page. Failing that, the AP list isn't bad, or the Global city list. -- nae'blis 18:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the AP list is a good starting point, as indicated in my original proposal, which stated "I would fully support the proposal if we add" the DHS list as a "Part III" to Part I (the comma convention) and Part II (the AP list). The intent of the DHS list is not to determine whether a city is "well-known." The separate "well-known" test would also be required for a move. The DHS list is intended to limit the list of candidates for "well-known" cities. My "obsession" strong preference is to find an objective list of features that would assure a city is indeed "well-known." A place that is familiar to people abroad is likely to be "well-known outside its immediate vicinity" and can be identified with the two-part test I have suggested. To this point in this discussion, no one has even claimed to be able to define "well-known." The best suggestion is to limit the definition to "not well-known outside their immediate vicinity," but that is still pretty squishy. Can we use this discussion to set guidelines around what defines "well-known?" For example, we have discussed two criteria, (1) being a state capital, and (2) being an international port of entry. If we can build some additional example criteria into the guideline as to what characterizes "well-known" I'd support the proposal. --ishu 22:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

At least twice on this page, I have suggested the objective criteria of being

1. The capital of a state and
2. The largest city in that state.

I recognise this rules out a number of the cities other participants would like included, and may introduce some odd choices, but it is objective and has been suggested, so the claim that no-one has attempted to define objective criteria is unfair. So far, the AP list is by far the best suggestion I have noticed. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be unfair if we were talking about the same thing. But on both occasions, you appear to be referring to the criteria for allowing unqualified cityname. I did a search on this page for well-known and found no instances where someone defined "well-known," which is the term that has been suggested repeatedly as a criterion for unqualified cityname. --ishu 05:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Scott, true, although I think that's very problematic unless there are additional criteria. A criterion by which Columbia, South Carolina is eligible to be moved, but Los Angeles, California and Chicago, Illinois are not, is very problematic. Effectively, your proposal would allow Boston, Massachusetts, Atlanta, Georgia and Honolulu, Hawaii to be moved. Possibly also Des Moines, Iowa and Nashville, Tennessee (I'm not sure if they're the largest cities). I can't think of any other - Charleston, WV; Columbia, SC; Providence, RI; etc. john k 12:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Scott is presenting these as exhaustive criteria, but John has a good point. I'm going to continue this discussion under the "Objective Criteria" section below in hopes of attracting a few more participants. --ishu 12:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• If I'm reading the oppose votes correctly, I sense a problem with the definition of what the exceptions would be for the reasons to oppose. Either major is not well defined or there are problems with the proposed list. If that's the case, then maybe we are close to consensus. There is support for the concept of the current proposal but the method for selecting the exceptions still needs additional refinement. Vegaswikian 20:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's also possible that those who are attached to the comma convention for irrational/emotional reasons will rationalize all kinds of reasons to oppose it (because they have no identifiable consistent rational reasoned argument to present). So if you try to satisfy one such objection they'll just conjure another and another... Not that I'm cynical or anything, but I've just seen it too much... --Serge 20:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Serge, I really wish you'd calm down and scale back your cynicism. Your ownership issues over this process appear to be driving some supporters away through voting fatigue, and hardening the positions of some opponents. Can you consider allowing other people to take the lead on this for a while? -- nae'blis 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Vegaswikian, I agree that this seems to be the sticking point, although even ironing out will certainly not lead to unanimity, so far as I can tell.

Could someone explain what will happen to the city articles where recent surveys decided to keep their current names if this proposal passes? Does this proposal override those votes? Could a small survey here override a larger survey in a city article? Does the override work both ways in the case of a city that is not on the AP list? -Will Beback 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Will, those surveys generally did not "decide to keep" the current name. They had no consensus either way, and thus the current name was kept by default. I think this is worth noting. john k 12:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that many of the oppose votes on the individual city votes cited the guideline as the reason for opposing, I would say a change to the guidelines changes everything. --Serge 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems unfair that we could use a survey that gets perhaps 16 responses to override a recent survey that got 35 responses, a survey that got 27 responses, one that got 24 responses, and another that got 30 responses. That precedent could mean that sometime in the future a handful of people could respond to a survey that would move cities like Chicago back to Chicago, Illinois. -Will Beback 00:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The logical and fair thing to do is to call all those participating in all former concerned motions to participate in this one. THEPROMENADER 01:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe notifications about these surveys have been made at most if not all of the relevant city talk pages. Have any been missed? --Serge 01:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that many editors are suffering from survey-fatigue. The notifications that were sent out were for the previous survey, which did not find a consensus. There were no notifications made for this new survey, at least that I am aware of. -Will Beback 01:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If they're not sufficiently interested in keeping up with what's going on here, then they're voting... abstain. You can lead a horse to water, but... --Serge 06:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, putting the priority on bringing a discussion to a logical conclusion instead of calling a vote when things swing one way or another would help too. Making "compromises" based on other participants (stubborn) points of view doesn't help either - it's an objective view on what the reader sees and understands that should be the nexus of discussion here.
I think it would be best to call everyone possible into one organised discussion on "fresh ground" - this one's been going on so long and in so many circles that more than a few - including myself - have become tired of it too. THEPROMENADER 09:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm back to this debate! Thanks, Polaron, for acknowledging my suggestion on international airports. The DHS list is a nice start, but that's not what I originally had in mind.

My inspiration comes from when I recently flew from New York to Manila via Northwest Airlines. When I traveled back to the US, in Tokyo, I remembered how Detroit and Minneapolis/St. Paul were stylized: without states. I also watch The Amazing Race, in which destinations are frequently said without mentioning the state. In an airport, there likely doesn't need to be a state in listing international destinations because that would not conform with listings of other destinations. But that also means that in international destinations, the U.S. cities are known without mentioning their states. (That doesn't mean they disregard the existence of the states, ever.)

The idea I was thinking of was: current or previous non-chartered passenger international service to United States airports in determining which U.S. cities don't need disambiguation. I would also add that passenger service should be outside of Canada and Mexico. This subset will probably parallel the AP list, I don't know. But I think it is a justifiable suggestion, since it shows how countries outside the U.S. consider which U.S. gateway cities they should serve.

I also support adding state capitals with my suggestion. Tinlinkin 15:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Just to get it in writing, I have supported the above proposal on the basis that it will bring numerous articles closer to the ideal of "disambiguate when necessary" enshrined in WP:NC. Ultimately I think any specific guideline for US cities should merely explicate that policy rather than create additional guidelines. Also, it occurs to me that the editors of the articles being considered for moves should be explicitly invited to participate in this discussion (if that is not already the case). --Dystopos 18:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

New page to construct/evolve a new comprehensive survey by consensus

I started this page to begin the process of constructing/evolving a new comprehensive survey through consensus. The first draft "strawman proposal" is posted. --Serge 23:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not just have it here on this page, where the other surveys have occured? Is the survey at the top of the page still active? -Will Beback · † · 00:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I put the new draft of the survey on a subpage because it is "a work in progress" (not an active survey), and I didn't want to confuse things on this page, particularly with Tariq's proposal at the top which is still active. The intent is to move it to this page when it's done, assuming the rest of this current page, assuming Tariq's proposal, is closed and archived. Someone, if not me, should incorporate Tariq's proposal into the new draft, by the way. It's currently not one of the proposals. In fact, I would like to see John's proposal in there, and perhaps several other "hybrid" proposals where we attempt to define which cities are "well known" and do not require predisambiguation. --Serge 00:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of a multi choice survey is a bad idea. It always leads to a wide spread of opinion and no option getting clear consencus. The only way the everyone is going to aggree to a change is by 66% being achieved and this will never happen with your proposal. I don't hold out to much hope of the "convention" ever being changed. The one by one article moving seems to be the most effective. As more cities get changed over to the international convention it should lead to more people saying "if X gets to name it that way why not our city". josh (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Copying this to, and responding at, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (November 2006) --Serge 01:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So just to clarify, it's not a survey and has no bearing on anything? -Will Beback · † · 05:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For now, it's not a survey open for voting. It's a first draft of a survey-to-be. It's a starting point that needs to be expanded and edited by consensus. The intent is for the final version to be copied to this page, opened as a survey, for at least a month, and well publicized. For your sake, we should probably have an option for a "no exceptions" guideline that would put New York City at New York, New York. --Serge 05:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any "no exceptions" naming conventions. They're just guidelines. -Will Beback · † · 06:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

One week after wide advertising should be long enough for any poll/survey. Anybody who doesn't find it in a full week is either not a regular editor, or it wasn't properly advised. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Given that there have been (by my count) seven votes/polls/surveys on the subject already, and none of them had any consensus, what makes you think that this one will? (Radiant) 10:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking me or Serge? My answer (in case you are responding to my "one week" comment): Several (most/all?) of those have not been widely advertised outside of the regulars who follow this page. If we can come up with the ultimate poll (which requires the regulars to at least agree on the question!), and advertise it suitably widely, then I don't believe that three more weeks would increase the chances of consensus beyond what one week would achieve. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I was talking about holding a poll period, not about how long to run it for. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that even if we make an ultimate poll and run it for three weeks, we still wouldn't have an increase chances of consensus. In that case, let's not bother with a poll at all. (Radiant) 13:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I'm saying that if we create the ultimate poll and get a wide audience to participate, the result won't change significantly between the end of week 1 and the end of week 4, so we might as well keep it short enough people can remember having voted when the results are announced. I'd still rather reach consensus by discussion, not voting, if that were possible. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, there's two ways to go about it. One would be the page-by-page discussion/move to "single-name" status (and hope it sticks long enough to become generalised); another would be to a massive "call to discussion" (more an upturned hat than a poll) around a proposition to make disambiguation consistent across the board. And I don't mean a call to only "nameplaces" boards, I mean all of Wiki. The Village Pump no less. Serge, wait: let's formulate the question here before asking it there please.

How I see it from here, those in favour of a "single name drive" and a homogeneous Wiki-wide disambiguation technique will be shooting themselves in the foot, as the "comfortable majority" will opt for the "comfortable practice" that is the "city, state" disambiguation. I'm one of those, so I hope I'm wrong. THEPROMENADER 16:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand and share your concern. That's why I want to take time to really think this through. If we're not happy with whatever we have a few weeks from now, we can scrap the project. It has been suggested to include mini-arguments for each option. I'm thinking maybe we need a preamble that explains - in a manner that we agree by consensus is fair - the key issues, and relates to the various options. Again, all this is a work in progress, nothing is definite, and, if this survey ever sees the light of day (i.e., posted on this page), it won't be for weeks from now. In the mean time, let's keep sharing our concerns and seeing if we can come up with solutions to address them. --Serge 17:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I want to keep the "revising period" open for a few weeks. Let's get everybody involved with making sure the survey has all reasonable options available. Get real consensus on format and content of survey before we open it here on this page. We've never done that before, and I anticipate that alone may take a few weeks. Second, once that is done and the survey is open, I want to keep it open for a few weeks. Why not? What harm can come from keeping it open a few weeks. Tariq's proposal is still getting votes well over a week three weeks after it was opened. --Serge 16:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been watching this debate for a while now, so I just thought that I'd add my thoughts on the matter. Regarding the arguments against the proposal:

1. The fact that we already have New York City, Chicago and Philidelphia at the Cityname format already makes a nonsense of the 'consistency' argument, we already have (sensible) inconsistancies. It makes no logical sense for these to be at Cityname whilst major cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco et al are still at the City, State arrangement.
2. As for the 'it would lead to endless arguments about which cities are major' argument. True, but the present 'convention' is proving to be a major source of argument already, how exactly could it be any worse then it is at the moment? Surely it can't be beyond the common sense of wikipedians to work out which cities should enjoy primary name status.
3. Practically every other country has articles about it's major cities at the Cityname format. Therefore Ammerica is inconsistant with everywhere else. Seem as there is a snowball in hell chance of anyone agreeing to move Paris to Paris, France or Berlin to Berlin, Germany for example. I think it far more sensible for America to adopt the international standard, rather than the very slim chance of the rest of the world adopting the U.S standard.

G-Man * 19:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, "...practically every other country..." is wrong. Practically every English-speaking country has a significant modification of the city name policy; Canada's allows major cities to be at [[City]], but Australia has a specific list of cities which may be at [[City]]. (Almost all cities in England require disambiguation of some sort, so the situation is completely different.) There may be justification for changing to the Canada policy, but the default being [[City]] is completely unsupported (IMHO). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that the 'default' position, was to use Cityname. What I meant was that most countries have adopted a more flexible and pragmatic system whereby cities or towns which require disambiguation are, and those which have a unique name, or are clearly the primary topic get to have the Citnyname to themselves. Which IMO is far more sensible than rigidly sticking to some scheme even when it is clearly not sensible and counter intuitive. With regards to the UK, some towns and cities are disambiguated and others are not Bristol, Coventry, Leicester, Glasgow are examples which spring to mind. G-Man * 17:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No one here advocates "sticking to some scheme" which is "clearly not sensible and counter intuitive". The question is whether CITYNAME, STATENAME is clearly not sensible and whether it is counterintuitive. Certainly, it is not counterintuitive to me. I often see cities referred to as, say, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Topeka, Kansas. This is pretty darn common in my experience. And I don't see that it doesn't make sense either. If anything would confuse me as a Wikipedia user, it would be the exceptions to this simple rule. Of course, some folks here just want to increase the list of exceptions since their attempts to change policy have failed. Once they have enough exceptions, I imagine they'll justify changing the rule in order to bring consistency to Wikipedia (which consistency they're currently working to break at Talk:Anaheim, California). Phiwum 19:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as the majority of English-speaking Wikipedians come from English-speaking countries, it is only logic that the majority of English Wiki's articles will be on English-speaking places with English-speaking habits, and the most of these, I repeat yet again, are most likely from the US. I would argue that the "City, State" form is quite common for a speaker speaking of a city in a state other than the state he is speaking from, but this, true, is a practice common to other English-speaking locales, especially Canada.

Yet even this is besides the point, as such practices - not suited to any encyclopaedia, and rarely - if not never- used outside of disambiguation purposes for the same - are open not only to people speaking from one state (province) to another, but for one country to another - this makes this form of cross-board pre-disambiguation moot, especially to those unfamiliar with US geography who will have to read to the text anyway to find the city's complete locale. This "carving out a local-practice method comfortable for locals" is "thinking small" in my books, and paying almost no thought at all to the rest of Wikipedia.

Much of my work lately has been revolving around GIS data, and most all data libraries indicate their map locales with a "city, state, country" disambiguation. This solution, although fine for a direct list of data (or whatever), is cumbersome for the inter-linked media that is Wiki.

I really see the "city, state" disambiguation as an ass between the above two chairs. You either go "all the way" with a fully indicative disambiguation, or you go with a "only when needed" disambiguation that is used only for the sake of disambiguation itself. Think Big. THEPROMENADER 19:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll: Do we need more polls?

Do we really need another poll?

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

Yes; let's have another poll.

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

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

discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please reread my question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Promenader: Please reread my question:

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

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

We are asking too much of the article titles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concrete proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current guideline - mark as disputed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   If we cannot obtain a moratorium, then my vote remains no. Such a moratorium would have to be reached here by consensus, then propagated by editors aware of this ongoing discussion. For example, you are actively involved in efforts to assist these "people who have never been to this page." When you find such a discussion, instead of saying "Excellent idea!" you could refer any proposed move discussions to this page, noting the moratorium due to the disputed nature of the policy. A consensus for a moratorium would provide guidance in lieu of a formal, consensus policy, namely to oppose moves.

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

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

   A moratorium would be consistent with the ArbCom ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways, specifically at Section 7.3.3: Controversial moves. --Ishu 17:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   Ishu, I am giving your moratorium idea serious consideration and will not participate in any efforts to move U.S. city pages while I am giving it consideration. I can't say right now when I will give you a definitive response one way or the other (hopefully days not weeks), but I will promise to continue not to participate in such moves until I do inform you of my decision. Fair enough? --Serge 17:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   More than fair enough. Maybe even progress... --Ishu 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

7. No. An ongoing discussion is not an edit-warring dispute, and labelling any discussion as such when it is not will hardly help any discussion. I see this as a ploy to draw attention to the matter - but this is the wrong way of going about it, trust me. I suggest first formulating a coherent, objective and logical argument for a definite proposition, with clearly presented motives, before calling anyone's attention to it. THEPROMENADER 09:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   This is about labelling the guideline to be in dispute, not labelling the discussion. You guys are acting like this is something new and/or it's about me. This policy has been in dispute since at least 2004, long before I ever became involved, and will continue to be in dispute long after I leave it, unless it is changed to something that is supported by consensus. There are many conherent, objective and logical arguments for changing the guideline. Some are more compelling than others, depending on who you are. But the most compelling argument for change is that, regardless of the specific reasons and arguments, the current guideline is in dispute and has been for years. --Serge 17:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

8. No: Serge is pushing everyones patience until he/she receives an answer the user likes or can accepts. As such, polling is a poor way of initiating a discussion, and as prior discussions and polls have suggested, there is no consensus to changing the accepted conventions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   For the record, that is not at all what is going on. If I did not see that many, if not a majority, of those involved are interested in seeing the city, state guidelines "loosened up", then I would not be wasting my time here. --Serge 17:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

9. No: in the United States, the state or territory is traditionally part of the city name. FairHair 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Serge has started enough polls.

1. Enough. This is a continuing campaign by one or two users. Any poll begun by Serge before March should be summarily closed. Septentrionalis 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
   • Exactly how many polls do you think I've started, and where are they? And how many is "too many"? --Serge 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Yet another strawpoll....The sad thing is that users feel force to participate because if you ignore it, someone may take a token consensus to mean they can go around slapping disputed tags on things. Agne 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
3. I agree with Septentrionalis, but I think it needs an article or user WP:RfC to put that into effect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Too many strawpolls. -Will Beback · † · 20:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Too many polls. Frankly, Serge is not acting in good faith and refuses to engage the issue on the merits. Arbitration may be necessary if he keeps up this nonsense for the umpteenth time. --Coolcaesar 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   A recent poll (that was archived while it was still open/active by the way) indicates that a majority supports a change to the guidelines. What have I done that makes you think I refuse to engage the issue on the merits? How many KB of engaging the issue on the merits do I have to produce to satisfy you? --Serge 17:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   This is an abuse of my !vote; as Serge knows, I support Tariq's proposal as a clarification of present practice, not a change to it. I would appreciate a retraction; if Serge makes this argument again, I will take it as disproof of good faith, which I still accept for now. We are required to assume good faith, not believe it against the evidence. Septentrionalis 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   Septentrionalis, a change to the guidelines is, well, a change to the guidelines. While you see Tariq's proposal as a clarification of present practice, which I respect, many others, including probably most if not all of those who oppose it, see it as a substantial change (who see the current exceptions as aberrations that need to be undone). The fact is, the guideline in current form has been used repeatedly as an argument to not move cities from City, State to City that are on Tariq's list. See Talk:Seattle, Washington, Talk:Los Angeles, California, Talk:Houston, Texas and Talk:San Francisco, California for just a few examples. It is your right to believe that Tariq's proposal is just a clarification, but please respect the rights of others, including me, to see it, in good faith, as a substantial change to current practice. Thanks. --Serge 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

   Most, if not all, of the opponents of Tariq's proposal oppose substantial change; so do some of its supporters. Serge has also agreed to my suggestion, in general terms, that he back off, and let things cool down. I welcome this, whole-heartedly. Septentrionalis 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

6. This whole page is nothing but useless polls with little to no discussion on relevant topics. It's been made clear that no change to the US naming convention should be made, so stop introducing this crap again and again. I would nominate that every poll be closed by user:Serge. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
   1. It's clear that no change should be made? Even though a majority supported Tariq's proposal to, er, change the policy above? What's clear is that there is no consensus either in favor of the current policy or against it. That means we are stuck with the status quo, for the moment, but it certainly doesn't mean that it's "clear" that "no change...should be made." john k 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we need mediation or an RfC?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was only tangentially involved in the debate; I'm not an American and not an native English speaker, and my interests were mostly related with my opinion that I hold the current convention contradictory with the global policy and illogical to most people outside of US. To put it simply, I find those article titles ugly. Thus, I happen to share (a part of) Serge's opinion. However, I completely endorse your analysis: Serge's zeal and methods of throwing (sometimes valid, sometimes not) arguments everywhere and scheduling polls every while were for by and large counterproductive. I think that John K's "AP list" and subsequent Tariq's proposal, which triggered this entire debate, had a good chance to succeed, and made many people happy (myself included—I don't really care whether Foobar Creek is at Foobar Creek, South Dakota, but Los Angeles, California hurts my eyes and my pedantry regarding WP:NC) but were largely spoiled by Serge's actions, as the opponents came piling in just out of spite and being annoyed. Maybe this is turning into an informal RfC of a kind, but then, maybe we should fill a RfC on Serge and limit the audience only to those who oppose the City, State convention . Being right doesn't entitle you to be dick dense. And I'm really trying to say that out of good faith (and assuming Serge's good faith). Duja► 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A weighing of advantages and disadvantages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is anything broken?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<-- Undenting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Armistice

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

Does any country specific naming convention violate policy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matawan, New Jersey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I strongly support using

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

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

Matawan, New Jersey has the following advantages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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