Talk:Beverly Hills, California/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

Changed to 90% below poverty line. I've attended city meeting for bhhs students, city manager actually told us it was 90%...

We need a verifiable source for that, please. Thanks, -Will Beback 02:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What does it mean ...granted "a tract of land styled San Antonio." 'Styled' is a funny verb here, no?

Introduction

I have rarely read a Wikipedia entry that required more cleanup than this article about Beverly Hills. The introduction needs a complete overhaul -- the existing opening line referencing West Hollywood [?] and other communities and location information be moved to another section about bordering municipalities.

This leading section should be a summary of what the city is, located in west Los Angeles, and then summarizing it's world-renowned status in movies, television and finance (or whatever). Again, this is an article about the city itself, with the surrounding communities information being in a different section after it's history and community information.

"...Beverly Hills is home to fewer children under 5 years old (about half as many, on average) than live in the entire state of California, and the city is home to almost twice as many seniors over the age of 65." Am I just reading this wrong, or does this sentence make no sense? Shouldn't it read "...Beverly Hills is home to fewer children under 5 years old (about half as many, on average) AS ANY OTHER CITY IN the state of California, and the city is home to almost twice as many seniors over the age of 65"?

NPOV? (and inconsistency)

The article contains "The Golden Triangle, with Rodeo Drive at its center, was built and marketed to the rest of the world as the shopping destination of a lifetime, despite a decidedly unexciting ambiance. In fact, many stores cater to the over-60 crowd." I don't think this can be described as NPOV. It is actually pretty offensive to those over 60. Notinasnaid 18:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The next sentence also has a problem: The entire Trousdale Estates area (consisting of many streets) was created during the 1950s, according to the article, so Via Rodeo can't possibly be "the first new street in Beverly Hills in seventy-six years." 24.5.188.157 22:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Were you afraid to remove something so blatantly incorrect? I did it for you. Hrhadam (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Quiry

How are the Mayor and the Vice-Mayor the same person? If that is the case, then why is Vice-Mayor even listed? - JVG 12:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Political affinity

The remaining 23.8% either declined to state political affiliation or are registered with one of the many minor political parties.

I feel the statement is a bit undescriptive. 23.8% is quite a large percentage. I would assume most of these decline to comment but its possible quite a high percentage are registered with minor political parties. In any case, I feel this needs improvement. You don't have to state the percentages for each political party although if there are any with over 5% I would suggest it should also be stated expicilitly. But you should at least state the number who declined as a seperate figure. Nil Einne 15:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

questions on city history

I wonder how come Richard Burton (land owner, not actor) and C.W. Griffith aren't mentioned in cofoundation of Beverly Hills? I figured the man was Burton E. Green and I may got the name wrong. Not only Burton's name is recognized in the history of Los Angeles, but has a street named for him: Burton Way, the dividing line of the city in address designation (anywhere north of Burton addresses are 100, 200 and 300N, south of Burton is 100 S, 200S and 300S). Is Burton E. Green and Richard Burton the same man or came from the same family? I'm so confused on this matter, reply on that. + Mike D 26 12:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be an example of one of those mistakes that gets copied over to a few different places on the internet. Burton Way is named for Burton Green, not Richard Burton. I'll remove the incorrect reference from the article. Incidentally, Burton Green owned a 4 acre estate located on Cove Way, above Sunset Boulevard. Hrhadam (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Name of the city

How did the city come to be called Beverly Hills? I see no explanation for this anywhere in the article. Funnyhat 23:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It was named after the Beverly Hills Hotel which was named after the Beverly Canyon that the hotel sits in. Where Beverly Canyon got its name-I dont know? 75.43.194.113 06:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
That's just plain silly! When the name was devised, William Howard Taft was President of the United States and he maintained a “Summer White House” in Beverly, MA. THAT is where the name came from. Dick Kimball (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Beverly Hills is also called Bhairav Choti in the rest of the world. - I'd have to say that's probably not the rest of the English speaking world Photovoltage (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You're all incorrect. Additionally, Beverly Hills is the sister city of Cannes, as denoted by signs at certain entry points to the city. Maybe I'll add this fact and leave it unsourced, as is the rest of this pathetic article. Hrhadam (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ZIP codes

Infobox says ZIP codes are: 90210, 90211, 90212. Article says ZIP codes are: 90210, 90211, 90212, 90213. It seems contradictory. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

90213 = PO Boxes only. Hrhadam (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

"The racial makeup of the city was 85.1% White (Including Iranians) or African American" - I'm confused with this statement. Does this mean that African-Americans are included in the Beverly Hills census with whites, and if so why? Shouldn't there also be a statistic for the percentage of city population that is African-American? 72.39.210.23 (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo Caption

The photo caption "Beverly Hills Police being inspected by Sir Harry Lauder, late 1930s" is surely a malicious entry. Sir must have been 70 at the time and the man in the picture appears younger. Also see now reason why he should be in California wearing a police uniform and carrying a firearmMatthew10946 (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Income?

Why is there no information on the median income? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.71.178 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding unsourced material re Persian/Jewish population

These IPs from Czechoslavakis the Czech Republic (85.162.96.197, 85.162.172.143, 85.162.62.139, 85.162.50.187) are repeatedly inserting badly sourced information about the Persian/Jewish population of Beverly Hills and its high school. Based on this track record, watchers of this page should be alert to future misinformation stemming from similar IPs. Given the geopolitical tensions related to these groups, I believe it is in Wikipedia's interest to err on the side of caution, and of being well-sourced on this issue. For demographic purposes, article about a television program is hardly a reliable source. I will remove the latest badly sourced information, that User:Severino already flagged as dubious. Especially on a topic like this, let us have reliable sources before inserting material. Health Researcher (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I accept your reproach, but please notice, that Czechoslovakia no longer exists for more than 20 years. You must be an American.--85.162.22.3 (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Circular reference?

There appears to be a circular reference in footnote #11. The source article referenced attributes it's content, at least in part, to the Wikipedia entry on Beverly Hills! This needs to be sorted out and 're-cited', so to speak.

Ironically, the site cited in #11 contains a much more cogent and easy to read history of the area. Whether the facts are right -- who knows! (There are no citations or foot notes.)

BTW, This wikipedia article needs SO MUCH help! I can't believe some BH Realtor or other community VIP hasn't taken the initiative and edited it -- it could be quite the 'feather in the cap'. It's just a teeny-tiny bit disgraceful!

Good luck!

208.54.39.180 (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC) A Cuban-American Princess

Apex?

Near the bottom of the page is:

"The Golden Triangle, with Rodeo Drive at its center, was marketed as the apex of chic shopping and fashion."

I have removed some of the links so as not to confuse the search bots any more than necessary.

I note that "apex" is wikilinked, which takes it to a disambig page from which a plethora of different usages of apex are used, none of which are appropriate for this example of marketing psychobabble. My gut reaction would be simply to remove the link. Anyone object? Or should we set up a page for a general definition of "apex", or should we link to Wiktionary or something? --Matt Westwood 12:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Location & surrounding municipalities...?

I don't believe that the city of BH is surrounded by the CITY OF LA, I'm pretty sure it's bounded at least on the north by [unincorporated?] areas of LA county which is a VERY different thing. Does anyone else know or have an opinion strong enough to motivate some research & editing?

I've just completed an edit of what is now the first paragraph. Please see summary. I did some quick census research and looked up the word "dignitary" to make sure I was correct before I made any changes.

I don't have any more bandwidth for this right now.

I agree with the earlier comment that it's pretty messy but at least someone started it and now it's easier for us to pitch in here and there to refine it.

Thank you,

Robin (iamtheyorkiemom) 8:22 pm 3-8-12— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamtheyorkiemom (talk • contribs) 03:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

remove/overhaul local diverity section under demographics

the article cites nothing for many of the claims it makes. i attached at least 20 citation needed for all the empty claims made in that section. Can someone either get to citing any of those claims or remove that section completely? - Xenfreak (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Lots of work to do, Lots of edits to check for and verify, and Lots of entries with skeptical claims of a diverse international yet wealthy popular community. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beverly_Hills,_California&diff=prev&oldid=367345727#Local_diversity Mike D 26 (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move Aug 2012

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved in deference to WP:USPLACE, consensus is split. If editors believe USPLACE contradicts Commonsense and PrimaryTopic then fix the guidelines first. Mike Cline (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


Beverly Hills, California → Beverly Hills – In February, I redirected Beverly Hills to Beverly Hills (disambiguation). It was moved back the next day by R'n'B, who said it was the primary topic. If it is the primary topic, then, like Brooklyn, Las Vegas and Cleveland, it should not need the state and should be just Beverly Hills. Unreal7 (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

RE: USPLACE is just a guideline: What's the point of having guidelines, if we can flout them whenever we feel like it? By this logic there would be no reason for USPLACE to exist. Also, please note that the guidelines on that page are "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
"....though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This is a clear case where an exception would be acceptable - this is a city that is very prominent worldwide, so adding the statename qualifier just for the sake of following a guideline and keeping consistency with smaller US cities is simply unnecessary. Cheers, Rai•me 04:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Without commenting on the larger USPLACE issue, I think it's somewhat odd that WP naming conventions essentially require "Beverly Hills, California", but allow "Brooklyn", "La Jolla", and "Dinkytown". Well-known neighborhoods or districts do not have to use commas - unless they happen to be incorporated. Hmm. Dohn joe (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as per place names like Dallas, Miami, New Orleans. This is a place that is world renowned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The consensus appears to be that the unqualified name "Beverly Hills" refers to the topic of this article. In that case, making the name longer than necessary is not in keeping with the general Wikipedia principles of article titling. --Polaron | Talk 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Consistent application of consistent policy (i.e., that the state name is included for all U.S. city names except for the short Associated Press list of cities that don't need it) is preferable to a never-ending series of move discussions like this one. Long live stare decisis! --Orlady (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose—per Orlady. There are at least 6 other places in the US called "Beverly Hills." Some editors have a feeling that the one in California is the real one, but our readers may feel differently. Since we have an objective standard in the AP list, and we know AP is thinking of their readers, we should stick with it to avoid wasting time and energy on endless discussions like the one I'm currently typing this comment regarding.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose per WP:USPLACE, a longstanding agreement to follow the lead of Reliable Sources in naming U.S. cities. (This is in line with Wikipedia policy as stated at WP:Article titles: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.") Reliable Sources in the U.S. follow the AP stylebook and so do we. That stylebook states that U.S. cities are to be named as [[City, State]] except for 30 named exceptions. This is also in line with standard American usage, where if I tell someone I come from Missoula, they will invariably reply "Missoula, Montana?" even though there is only one Missoula. This agreement was hashed out a long time ago, and it has eliminated hundreds of time-wasting arguments at individual pages - or at least, it would eliminate arguments like this one if people would just respect it and stop trying to sneak through exceptions on individual city pages. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment- Actually more of a question. I'm a bit confused as to what exactly the problem would be with renaming the article. Some quote MOS:PLACE#UNITED STATES, which I agree with. There are some articles that only use the <city> name, while others need <City>, <State>. What I don't understand are the arguments claiming that there are "other" cities called Beverly Hills in the US. But do those articles really get that much article traffic? WP:USPLACE is not out of date, as one editor suggests, but on the other hand, should not stop us from making clear common sense decisions. And since Beverly Hills seems to already redirect to this article, there will little collateral damage.--JOJ Hutton 22:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
If you agree with WP:USPLACE then there is nothing further to say. According to USPLACE, city names are supposed to use [[City, State]] unless they are on the AP stylebook list of exceptions. That AP list includes just 30 cities: 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, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington.[1] Beverly Hills is not on that list. Therefore, it doesn't matter if there are other cities named Beverly Hills. It doesn't matter if Beverly Hills, California is the best known such city. It doesn't matter if the other articles get a lot less traffic. USPLACE would list this city as Beverly Hills, California because that is how Reliable Sources (relying on the AP stylebook) list it and that is the guideline we have accepted. If you agree with USPLACE as you say, then that is the end of the discussion. If you think this city should be an exception, then you are proposing to tear up USPLACE and replace it with some other standard, and that idea should be discussed in a more general forum. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Wonderful, another USPLACE battle! This is an even more solid case than Nashville, though. Beverly Hills is internationally known and a prime case for ignoring USPLACE and demonstrating WP:COMMONSENSE. Just say no to unnecessary disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Beverly Hills is more internationally recognized than Nashville? I'm from St. Louis and even I have a hard time naming a few things I know about it. I don't feel you have a good grasp of IAR. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah? I just think of Beverly Hills as synonymous with luxurious Hollywood culture (cf. the Weezer song, the TV shows) and Nashville as synonymous with country music. And of the two, the former seems a larger cultural presence in international terms. It's not about how much you know about the city, it's how ambiguous the name is. I was surprised to learn that there are other places called Beverly Hills; none of them have the sort of profile this one does. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I still don't get how this has a better case than Nashville, TN. You'll have to convince me. Look at page views for instance: Beverly Hills gets over 154, 000 [2] views the past 90 days vs Nashville's over 277,000 [3]. Heck even Portland, Ore has a better chance of being moved. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You're still comparing the relative size of the cities, which I think is the wrong approach. It's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue. Beverly Hills has fewer other topics compared to Nashville. I say this is a better case, but I really think they're both good cases. I think the great majority of users who type in an unqualified "Nasvhille" or "Beverly Hills" are looking for the cities in Tennessee and California. The former and extant redirects, respectively, acknowledge the primary topic argument. Given that, I question the value of qualifiers in such cases. How do you figure Portland has a better case? The cities in Maine and Oregon are both the largest in the state. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Beverly Hills is synonymous with Beverly Hills, CA. Notability of the city out weighs the WP:USPLACE guidelines. Sumanch (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Beverly Hills, California is a long ways from the only Beverly Hills in the US. Sets a dangerous precedent. Example: Lansing, Michigan is far better known than Lansing, Illinois. What if they want an exception to WP:USPLACE? Just because it is better known is no reason to deviate from WP:USPLACE. All of the AP exceptions are huge cities; most have a unique name. Someone above mentioned Nashville. It needs to be Nashville, TN to avoid confusion with the numerous other Nashville's. IMHO this is a nobrainer. It is nothing but homerism and as such violates WP:NPOV. My feeling is in agreement with the above: Debating this over an individual city is a huge waste of time. If you don't like WP:USPLACE, start a discussion to modify it. Until then...Live with it. We do not need to keep reinventing the wheel. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Premature close

I believe the previous RM discussion was closed prematurely: consensus had not been reached, discussion was still quite active the days prior to the close, and many important points were not yet raised, much less discussed. Also, the closing admin used the argument that the relevant guideline should be changed first, apparently unaware of the Catch-22 situation that creates since behavior at the article level must change (per IAR, if nothing else) before the guideline can be changed.

I was not aware of the proposal/discussion until a month after it was closed. When I requested that the closing admin revert his close and re-open the discussion, he replied that he felt too much time had gone by. I considered a move review, but decided a new RM proposal/discussion, that summarized the main points, would be less confrontational and more likely to help us achieve consensus. Accordingly, I'm starting a new proposal/discussion below.

Yes, it's very soon after the last one, but given these considerations, I think it's warranted. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Everyone who participated in the previous discussion has been notified on their talk pages. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Map

Shouldn't there be a map showing it's location ? -- Beardo 16:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There should be. Also, the intro states that Beverly Hills is entirely surrounded by the city of Los Angeles and that it borders the city of West Hollywood. Both statements cannot be true. --Nelson Ricardo 03:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Maps are good, but finding one that is not copyright can be difficult. Notinasnaid 13:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the statements could both be true if the city of West Hollywood is part of the city of Los Angeles. Notinasnaid 13:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
West Hollywood is a separate incorporated city within Los Angeles County. 24.5.188.157 22:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Both statements are true. Beverly Hills and West Hollywood are adjacent cities. The combo of the two of them is entirely surrounded by the city of Los Angeles. Each one can be said to be entirely surrounded, too. --doncram 13:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move, while making note of the well reasoned arguments in the proposal. While support for this and related changes is substantial, this discussion demonstrates that it has not (yet) been enough to establish consensus for wording changes at WP:USPLACE, nor to establish a clear local preference to move at this article. Things may change in the future, but we're obviously not at that point yet. Cúchullain t/c 17:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Beverly Hills, California → Beverly Hills – This article's topic is primary for "Beverly Hills", "Beverly Hills" is the actual and most commonly used name of this topic, and disambiguation is unnecessary. All these good reasons are already more than sufficient to ignore WP:USPLACE, but there are more:
  1. USPLACE is unnecessarily inconsistent with most other naming conventions, including those for non-US cities, most of which call for disambiguation only when necessary.
  2. It sets a bad precedent to redirect a short concise name to a longer disambiguated title when it's unnecessary.
  3. USPLACE never had community consensus support (the convention to disambiguate all US city titles with the state was imposed en masse by a bot, not organically adopted through change at one article at a time, the only process by which broad community consensus can truly be determined).
  4. USPLACE, a guideline, contradicts the main naming criteria outlined at WP:AT, a policy, which calls for using the more natural and concise title.
  5. The removal of the state from the articles about cities on the AP list was also strongly opposed, yet no harm has come to WP as a result of all of those moves, such as San Francisco, California → San Francisco.

Finally, merely invoking a guideline like USPLACE does not refute an IAR argument to ignore that guideline, especially one based on such very good reasons. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you fail to see that this topic was just decided above? Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually they did, and instead of living with the crappy result, decided to reopen a new discussion right away.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 22:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
"The result of the move request was: Not Moved in deference to WP:USPLACE, consensus is split. If editors believe USPLACE contradicts Commonsense and PrimaryTopic then fix the guidelines first. Mike Cline (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)" Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I addressed all that at #Premature close. I'm clearly and explicitly invoking IAR this time. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Survey

  • So by getting rid of the state name we follow the spirit of "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named [[City]] unless they are not the primary topic for that name. In other cases, this guideline recommends following the "comma convention" as described above." I don't think so. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Sumanch (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've never commented on a US place name RM before, but this seems a good a time as any. Presumably this isn't on USPLACE/ AP Stylebook's list of 30 super-disambigation cities for a reason, or reasons. Perhaps that the total population of the other Beverly Hills are (slightly) more together than the California one, or better that unlike most - if not all - of the 30 USPLACE AP cities are "world cities" as notable as Paris, Lisbon, Melbourne. This isn't, it's just some overgrown surburb of LA which has technical "city" status in local administrative terminology but isn't really truly a "city"... (so the rationale for this oppose isn't USPLACE, simply that having "California" in the title even though Beverly Hills redirects here is appropriate to one of a dozen Beverly Hills.) Also USPLACE seems like a reasonable sensible principle and tieing it to AP Stylebook's 30 cities prevents endless wasteful RMs. There's going to be a line drawn somewhere, the AP 30 names is as good or better than no line. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • This rationale, if applied to non-US municipalities "which [have] technical "city" status in local administrative terminology but [aren't] really truly a "city"...", would support the move of Altmelon, Eggern, Kalachinsk, Terrazas del Valle, Joondalup, Letterkenny, and countless other articles about municipalities. Do you support this rationale in general, and thus the moves of all these articles? Or do you feel it should apply only to the US for some reason? If the latter, what is that reason?

      Also, the line you seek is drawn quite clearly for all these municipalities in non-US countries - by disambiguating with the larger state or district only when disambiguation is necessary. Why should the line be drawn any differently for articles about US cities? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@Born2cycle, Hi. I gave several reasons for my oppose.
As regards your examples: Altmelon, Lower Austria, Eggern, Lower Austria, Kalachinsk, Omsk Oblast, Terrazas del Valle, Baja California, Joondalup, Western Australia, Letterkenny, County Donegal,... the fact they mainly turn into redlinks (and the 2 bluelinks aren't disambs) when applying the AP Stylebook/USPLACE format shows one important difference between US placenames and Austrian, Russian and - to a lesser extent - Mexican and Australian place names, namely the far greater incidence of need for disambiguation, and a clear friendly format AP Stylebook/USPLACE (and US Post Office?) by which to do so. If anything it demonstrates that WP:USPLACE is one of the more intelligent and useful guidelines in place, and yet this RM was presumably selected as being one of the best cases against it. Well it isn't.
Beverly Hills already directs here. As an RM to remove a redirect and remove the helpful clarification of which on the eight Beverly Hills the article is about the status quo looks like evidence that AP Stylebook/WP:USPLACE makes sense. And as I say I'm coming to this fresh never having commented on a USname RM before. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Quite a comprehensive nomination. The nominator's assessment of the previous RM is apt; "no consensus" would have been a much more reasonable ruling. --BDD (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose One of the things in the naming criteria cited above is concision, which obviously allowing Beverly Hills, California to be named simply Beverly Hills is not. I will not go into details ad nauseum as the other cities named Beverly Hills were all named in the prior discussion, but when there are other cities named Beverly Hills, how can you make a claim that simply Beverly Hills is somehow more concise than Beverly Hills, California? Further to repeat my comments at the previous discussion and to echo the above writer and the closing of the prior discussion, why argue this repeatedly on a city by city basis? If you don't like the guideline, change the guideline.Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose No benefit to the encyclopedia to have this re-examined. Big disadvantage to open up many hundreds or thousands more move requests. The US place guideline is fine. --doncram 02:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Sigh. Here we have yet another time-wasting argument from those who refuse to accept WP:USPLACE, so they try to sneak through exceptions. (This current debate had been settled once, but Born2cycle didn't like the result so he is reopening it.) This article should be called Beverly Hills, California, as per WP:USPLACE. This is the title mandated by the AP stylebook, and so it is the title used by virtually every reliable source in America. WP:USPLACE is a fair and longstanding convention, and it should be followed. It is a strong and clear guideline, firmly based on WP:TITLE, which states "This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." USPLACE fulfills those criteria because it is based on what cities are called in Reliable Sources. The AP stylebook guidelines are observed by virtually every Reliable Source in America. USPLACE is a time-saving convention, firmly based on the guidelines of WP:TITLE, and it should be respected and left alone. It would save hundreds of hours of argument if people would just respect it. Note that WP:TITLE also advises "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed" and "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the AP stylebook. AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I will add at this point that I see nothing constructive to be served by the originator of this RfM to argue every vote that opposes his. You had your say and you too only get one vote. Let the others speak, mon! Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
      • The problem with stating things like "per the AP Style book", is that by following the AP Style book we are not reflecting common usage, but "newspaper" grammar and style. The average newspaper is written at a grade 4 level of English, and terminology is "standardized" to this level in order to ensure comprehension by a larger audience. The AP style book doesn't list "Nashville" for example, but everyday users do not say "Nashville Tennessee", as it is unnecessary and the primary topic. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 05:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
        • "The average newspaper" is still considered a Reliable Source per Wikipedia guidelines. If you have a problem with using newspapers as a Reliable Source, you have a bigger argument than just USPLACE. --MelanieN (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Fix the guideline first. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So do we need another consensus to change USPLACE as well or do you just it yourself or what? Unreal7 (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Doncram is correct. Also, the last time there was a rash of renaming, along these lines of reasoning, they failed, so the claim of no consensus for the guideline is not warranted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:USPLACE. No actual benefit has been given for this move and consensus almost always goes with keeping the state name in the multitude of similar moves that are suggested. Time to stop beating the dead horse. Zarcadia (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The best way to "fix the guideline" is to demonstrate its incompetence with a bevy of well-reasoned cases which are not addressed efficiently. Such as this one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2012; 13:32 (UTC)
  • Support - common name in the world for this place. Word "California" is unnecessary. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If there is a primary topic for "Beverly Hills" (and there is already agreement that there is since the base name is not a disambiguation page), then the article for that topic should use that name with no additional extra words. U.S. place name article titles should be made consistent with the general Wikipedia article titling policy of using only the name that is necessary. --Polaron | Talk 18:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. In addition to what I said above, I just want to stress that the point of this and similar moves is to get US city naming in line with the naming of other articles, including those of most other cities worldwide. The good that would do is it would eliminate questions and confusion about why US city articles are given special treatment. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
At least you're honest about your motives. Namely, that there is nothing special about Beverly Hills to make it the sole exception to USPLACE; you are simply trying to quietly create a couple of exceptions to USPLACE, so that you can then use them to try to eliminate the guideline. IMO this is a sneaky, backdoor way to try to get rid of a guideline that you have never managed to get changed despite numerous efforts. And don't bother to point me to your FAQ; I've read them. --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are two main reasons to invoke IAR. The first is in a situation where something special about that situation makes it an exception, but no objection to the rule itself is in play. The second is when the propriety of the rule itself is being questioned, and consensus support of the rule itself is being questioned. The latter is the situation here.

Otherwise, even if consensus has changed about a rule, there would be no way to change a rule. I'm glad you have read my FAQ, but I still will provide a link to the full explanation of why it must work this way, in case others have not: User:Born2cycle/FAQ#Change_guideline_first. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course there would be a way to change a rule if consensus has changed. Namely, by discussing the rule itself, at an appropriate forum for discussing rules - rather than trying to get it "ignored" in a bunch of out-of-the-way talk pages. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Why do you say you read my FAQ and then respond without a hint of having read it? It's one thing to read it, understand it, disagree, and explain why. It's quite another to simply ignore the entire point, as if it wasn't made at all, or as if you didn't read it at all.

There is nothing to discuss at the guideline because it accurately reflects current practice. No 10, 20 or even 100 editors have the authority to change the guideline top-down contrary to current practice. The change must start at the bottom, at least at a few articles, through invocations of IAR of that rule, establishing that there is consensus favoring it's change, as reflected in practice.

By the way, I'm not saying these changes ignoring the rule would replace a discussion about changing the guideline. I'm saying they need to occur before there is basis to have a discussion about changing the guideline. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC) updated. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, your claim of a grass-roots, "start at the bottom" process is phony - because you make it clear in all these discussions that you are not interested in the individual city, you are simply using it as a stalking horse for a change in the guideline. Your arguments for dropping the state name are always the same; you don't even try to pretend there is anything unique about the city under discussion that would qualify it for an exception. You simply want to get a few exceptions on the books, by hook or by crook, so that you can point to them and say "see? see? there's a city that doesn't follow the rule, so we should dump the whole system!" (As if two or three exceptions, out of tens of thousands of cities, could be taken as evidence of "current practice"!) --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes it's hard to tell if you really don't get it, or you're just faking it to irk me. This is one of those times. There was a time when the only exception, in reality and in the guideline, was New York City. The way that was changed was not by changing the guideline first. Instead, RMs succeeded at articles like San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, etc., and only then were there proposals made to change the guideline to reflect the changes, which eventually lead to the AP list exception (which had been proposed at least a year, I think, before it was finally adopted, by consensus). My point is that when the only exception was New York City there was no grounds on which to change the guideline to say AP cities could also be exceptions. Only after it was shown that there was consensus support to move some of these in individual RM discussions could that argument be made effectively. And so it is the case here. Consensus has to be shown to exist to move a few articles, like Beverly Hills, before it makes sense to propose a change to the guideline. What doesn't make sense is opposing any such RM on the grounds that the guideline has to change first. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment and call for close I agree with MelanieN's diagnosis of this Beverly Hills discussion as being an attempt to sneak an exception, towards overturning a rule. This is not an honest attempt to identify one discrete set of additional exceptions besides the AP 40 cities. This isn't even Born2cycle's honest most urgent exception, I expect. An extension of the AP list should be proposed and discussed at the guideline page in a proper RFC. An honest proposal would state where to draw the line, somewhere different, where born2cycle and others would actually support the line being drawn and credibly commit to stop with further proposals. Though actually I would prefer not to see that for several years; give us all a rest! This discussion here is useless, IMHO, as this is not a full forum for overturning USPLACE. Call for close: the guideline is clear, so oppose the move is obvious admin-ready judgement. --doncram 17:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • See reply to Melanie just above for why the guideline cannot be changed first.

      As to where the line should be drawn... isn't that clear from my proposal statement, especially point 2? To clarify, the line could and should be drawn exactly as it is for almost all other article titles on WP, including most city titles: disambiguate with higher regional area (like state) only when necessary (i.e., this is neither the unique nor primary use) to disambiguate with other uses of that name on WP. Why should the line be drawn any differently for articles about US places? This appears to be just another example of US centrism in WP. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

      • This appears to be just another example of US centrism in WP. That's a ridiculous assertion. Nobody is trying to impose the US system on any other country. We just want US city names to use the system that is natural and normal for the US. The US is unique, in that city names are almost always given with the state name appended, both in common speech and in Reliable Source usage. Other countries don't do that? Fine, nobody is asking them to. But in the US, the state is so fundamental to our thinking (it's even in our name for heavens sake) that it is virtually always given as part of the city name. If I say I grew up in Oakland, the other person will virtually always reply "Oakland, California?" The state is standard for US cities, by both Common Usage and Reliable Sources (which gave us our exceptions). The page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) lists variations in usage for each country; why does it bug you so much for the US to have its own style as many other countries do? --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - having Beverly Hills as an exception to the "comma convention" seems acceptable given that this city is the clear primary topic. The addition of the "California" qualifier is unnecessary disambiguation. Also, for the record, not all reliable sources follow the AP stylebook guidelines - not even all newspapers follow this guideline. The New York Times, for instance, uses a separate stylebook that lists 28 additional cities, including Anchorage, Nashville, Hartford, Des Moines, and Omaha, as not needing to appear with their respective state names in articles. Beverly Hills isn't on that list either; I just think that the argument "the AP stylebook says this and all reliable sources follow the AP stylebook, so Wikipedia should too" is clearly incorrect. Cheers, Rai•me 19:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I would welcome an honest and open discussion, in the appropriate forum, about whether to expand our list of exceptions to follow the NYT stylebook instead of the AP stylebook. Something like that could lead to what we most need (and would have now, except for a few agitators): a settled rule that everyone would agree to follow. I would almost certainly agree to that change if the "drop the state" people would agree to accept it - and stop all these back-door attempts to subvert the system. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
This isn't a back-door attempt to subvert the system. It is the system. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I am the admin who closed the August 20 RM with the rationale that if WP:USPLACE is wrong, then get consensus to change it first. That is the primary reason to oppose as consensus is still split on this. The second reason to oppose this move is this statement: I'm clearly and explicitly invoking IAR this time. by B2C above. IAR may be good practice in some WP venues, but it is not good practice when there are judgements to be made based on a pile of policies, guidelines and evidence brought to a discussion by editors. I suspect B2C would explode if another admin came by, closed this discussion in a way contrary to WP:RMCI ingnoring consensus and policy and then defended that close as IAR. There is a time to play around with IAR and this isn't one of them. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We may not ignore naming conventions (which, as guidelines, do have broad community consensus), and your attempt to overrule guidelines will lead to innumerable requested moves instead of the calm situation that we have. You've failed to observe that ", California" is part of the name; it's not a method of disambiguation. If we added the state name for disambiguation purposes, we'd put it in parentheses, just like Wikipedias in other languages do for cities and just like we do for geographical things like rivers and hills. By the way, you may observe that I was uninvolved; I've never edited this talk page or this article before today, unless perhaps to add the county template to it, although even that was probably the work of Zzyzx. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
So why does Ignore all rules (which defines a rule as a policy or guideline) not apply to naming conventions? Or are you ignoring IAR (also a policy), per IAR? --BDD (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course IAR applies to naming conventions. Arguing it doesn't is a (probably innocent) stonewalling tactic. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is common to append state names to U.S. cities; that doing so also provides necessary disambiguation in some cases is secondary. Powers T 14:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Outside WP, yes. Outside WP it is also common to append state names to AP city names, as in "San Francisco, California", and to append country names to other cities, as in "Paris, France". But on WP we only do that when it's necessary for disambiguation. Why should Beverly Hills and many other US cities be treated differently on WP? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Good try, but no. "Paris, France" is pretty rare in English-language sources. "San Francisco, California" is perhaps less so, but the AP list was excepted from USPLACE as a compromise; subsequently using it as a wedge example is an abuse of the compromise process. Powers T 02:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for all the excellent reasons already stated, especially by user User:MelanieN. The only way I would reverse my position on this is if User:Born2Cycle would be willing to develop consensus in favor of changing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and Wikipedia:Article titles to give U.S. places priority over all others as needing no disambiguation. For example, I have always thought Georgia should be about the U.S. state and San Jose should be about the tenth-largest U.S. city, rather than, respectively, a very unimportant Third World country and the capital of another unimportant Third World country. (San Jose, Costa Rica is so terribly impoverished that it just began installing street signs for the first time in its history yesterday.) Otherwise, if we are going to stick with current consensus on article names, then the current article name for this article is fine.--Coolcaesar (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't understand. The names of cities like Beverly Hills are either unique, or the city is the established primary topic for that name (the plain unadorned-with-state city name redirects to the article). This has nothing to with ambiguous cases like Georgia. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
      • The point I am getting at is that if we were to go with the most notable topic as the one without disambiguation in the article title (i.e., Beverly Hills, California over the dozens of other places with the same name), then we need to be consistent about it. Georgia the state is far more notable than Georgia the country, whose primary claim to fame is Joseph Stalin. Similarly, San Jose, the capital of Silicon Valley, is far more notable than San Jose, the capital of Costa Rica. This is part of a pattern in which most U.S. topics are simply more notable than others. Most people alive today on this planet can't even locate the countries of Georgia or Costa Rica on a map, but they have at least a rough idea of the general locations of Atlanta and San Jose, because of songs like Ludacris' "Welcome to Atlanta" and Web sites like eBay. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Agree or disagree, the community consensus is that there is no primary topic for Georgia or San Jose, but there is for Beverly Hills. Those are separate discussions. If you could convince the community that Georgia and San Jose should redirect to the U.S. state and city respectively, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then I would agree that the articles about those topics should be at the unadorned titles.

          The fundamental argument behind this proposal is that, in general, we should not redirect X to X, Y (just as we don't, in general, redirect X to X (Y)); that argument inherently has no application to cases where X is not a redirect, but a dab page, such as Georgia and San Jose. So, your argument doesn't even address the proposal here, much less does it refute the argument supporting this proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose – it is yet another time-wasting argument to undermine WP:USPLACE. Born2cycle is notorious for this tactic - worrying endlessly at some topic until everyone else wilts. (Was there not some arbcom injunction restricting Born2quibble to 1 or 2 one-line quibbles per week, or is this wishful thinking?) Oculi (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • When all else fails, it's time to roll out the ad hominem attacks, apparently. As long as it counts as another !vote to add up in opposition, why not? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Usage in Google

About your "Beverly Hills" search: Did you happen to notice that most of the first page of results were about the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire - which took place in Kentucky? And that most of the others in your search category "Beverly Hills" actually DO specify "Beverly Hills, California"[[4] or "Beverly Hills, CA"?[5] The same is true of most of the articles found by your "subtraction" search.[6][7] Thanks for disproving your point. --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
"Beverly Hills" minus "supper" produces more hits than "Beverly Hills" alone? (350,000 vs. 337,000) Thanks for demonstrating the futility of this approach. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
In this last bullet are references to "Beverly Hills" that do not mention the supper club, nor do they qualify Beverly Hills with the state in full or abbreviated, yet there are 139k such results, as compared to 16k for "Beverly Hills, California". --Born2cycle (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Please LOOK at the 139,000 hits your attempted counts are producing. Many of them DO include "CA" or "Calif"; others are about the Beverly Hills Diet or the TV program Beverly Hills 90210. Many of the listings (unclickable) append "Beverly Hills" to the title without any apparent reason; for example, I searched in vain for any connection between the book Culture's Consequences and the community of Beverly Hills. (Turns out many of the books with this mysterious addition to the title are published by Sage Publications, but it is located in Thousand Oaks, not Beverly Hills, so the connection remains a mystery.) This is a futile exercise and proves nothing, except that you can't find many Reliable Sources which call this community "Beverly Hills" without adding some variant of "California". --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You forgot about "Beverly Hills, Calif.", but removing it still leaves over 100K results. That aside, all this searching got me thinking—if, when searching reliable sources, "Placename, CA" gets more hits than "Placename, California", should we, per Melanie's logic, move the article to "Placename, CA"? :)))—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2012; 17:24 (UTC)
I think we all know that search counts do not provide valid information for Wikipedia's purposes. (See WP:GHITS.) My argument is not based on search counts, but on the standard usage by Reliable Sources, i.e., newspapers. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, we all know that using GHITs alone is a terrible idea (and portraying your opponents as if they don't know that doesn't score you points as a debater). "More counts" was not exactly where I was going; it was more of a side comment. Where I was going is that you are passing a prosaic style issue for "standard usage by reliable sources". Yes, many sources add state information to US city names, but it in no way, shape, or form proves that the "placename, state" combo should be treated as the title of any article about US cities in Wikipedia; no more than frequent "Occupation LastName" forms should be used to title articles about people. Also, one can find thousands of "reliable sources" referring to Paris as "Paris, France"—how's that different from the "City, State" convention?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2012; 20:38 (UTC)

Usage in newspapers

Newspapers? Like the NY Times?
Or the LA Times?
Or the SF Chronicle?
The London Evening Standard?
The evidence indicates that the claim that reliable sources like newspapers more commonly use "Beverly Hills, California" than "Beverly Hills" is exactly wrong. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
They put Beverly Hills in the headline, sure. They always shorten things for the headline. But if you look at the article itself, it contains localizing information like "Los Angeles"[8][9] or even "Simi Valley, Calif."[10]. They don't just assume that people know where it is. And as for your four examples from the past couple of months, which you claim show usage is "more common" without the state - well, let's just use your technique and search recent Google News for "Beverly Hills, Calif."[11] You find that usage half a dozen times in just the past 6 hours, in papers like the Sacramento Bee, PBS, the Kansas City Star, the Lexington Herald-Leader, and the Wall Street Journal. In comparison, searching recent news without the "California"[12]; you find local Southern California papers, or items about the TV show "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills". Sorry, but adding "Calif." is and remains the standard in Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
There are countless topics in WP for which newspapers provide additional context at the beginning of articles, like mentioning the occupation of a person, which we don't do in WP titles (including those of most cities, worldwide), unless it's needed for disambiguation. So what's your point?
My point is that I found more examples using the state name in just the last few hours, than you found without the state name in the last three months. --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You have not found recent or otherwise usage in newspapers supporting the argument that the current title, Beverly Hills, California, is a commonly used, much less is the most common name. That's because it's clearly Beverly Hills. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
"Sorry, but adding "Calif." is and remains the standard in Reliable Sources. ". That might be relevant in a discussion about whether the title should be Beverly Hills, Calif." --Born2cycle (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I've mentioned it before, but it seems worth mentioning it again—those who oppose this and other similar RMs seem to equate the others' choice of style with what the name is. The name of this city is undoubtedly "Beverly Hills". And yes, of course it is quite true that multiple sources choose to style that name as "Beverly Hills, California". There are often good reasons to do so in print, but one is yet to demonstrate how or why this approach is beneficial in an online encyclopedia. Wikipedia seems to almost always prefer less redundant names to more redundant names, and why US cities (those with unambiguous names or with a strong claim to being a primary topic) should be exempt remains a mystery. Place the article at Beverly Hills and install a redirect at Beverly Hills, California, and then give me one single reason why someone is going to be confused by that setup to the point of not being able to find information being sought! Another unclear point is why the opposers even treat "California" as a part of the city name—by that same logic, we could move Bill Clinton to President Clinton because there are literally thousands of sources using the latter version (and this variant might even turn out to be more common for some presidents!).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2012; 19:27 (UTC)
Again, look at what reliable sources do. Newspapers follow the AP Stylebook. That means they always give the president's full name the first time it is used in the article. After that they use "Clinton" (except the NYT, which uses "Mr. Clinton"). And Wikipedia does the same: article title under the full name; first usage in the article is the full name; after that last name only. Thanks for a fine example of how Wikipedia follows the usage of Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a few paragraphs above, you said that newspapers "always" shorten things for the headline. Here you are saying that newspapers give full names the first time they are used in articles (emphasis mine), and after that short forms are used. But this is exactly what Wikipedia is doing: as per WP:AT, we always shorten things for the article title (Wikipedia's equivalent of a newspaper headline), except when there are ambiguity/primary usage concerns; we always give full name in the lede (or at least we address the location issue using descriptive means), and we normally use short forms throughout the article. If anything, it follows from your own logic that both USPLACE and the title of the "Beverly Hills, California" article are at odds with the practices used by both the newspapers and by Wikipedia. As one intelligent person said, thank you for disproving your point :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 25, 2012; 15:06 (UTC)
If Wikipedia titles were "shortened" in a manner analogous to newspaper headlines, our articles about presidents and other prominent people would be titled "Obama," "Romney", "Bush," "Biden," etc. But they aren't. Wikipedia articles about people are titled with the full name. Just as newspapers do in the body of the article (but rarely in the headline), as prescribed by the AP Stylebook. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
That's a pretty weak argument. You can't use the headline analogy to simultaneously support and disprove the same statement. At any rate, thank you again for illustrating that Wikipedia is not supposed to, and in fact does not, work the same way newspapers do. We have our own set of community-approved guidelines dealing with just how "short" the title are supposed to be (and no, the articles about people in Wikipedia are not always titled using the "full name"—it's "Bill Clinton", not "William Jefferson Clinton"). Those guidelines are outlined in WP:AT, and while they borrow bits and pieces from a wide variety of real-world practices and stylebooks, they by no means copy them verbatim and are instead designed with the goals important to an encyclopedia (not a newspaper, or a book, or a journal, or what-else-have-you) in mind. AP Stylebook is not the guideline Wikipedia follows; WP:AT is. And on its face, WP:USPLACE blatantly contradicts WP:AT for no good reason, no matter how many times subtle mentions of it are smuggled through the WP:AT's back door. As long as we agree that "Beverly Hills" primarily refers to the city in California, the title of "Beverly Hills" is precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article and is no more precise than that. The same claim is not true for "Beverly Hills, California". Case closed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 26, 2012; 14:14 (UTC)

To quote Melanie above: They put Beverly Hills in the headline, sure. They always shorten things for the headline. And how is that different from "We [Wikipedians] put Beverly Hills in the article title, sure. We always shorten things for the article title"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2012; 20:42 (UTC)

Usage in government

Closing the above discussion

The above discussion was closed on 9/25/12 by uninvolved administrator User:Nyttend. Their reasoning was "WP:CONLIMITED explicitly prohibits a limited group of editors, at one place and time, from overriding community consensus on a wider scale. Please seek deprecation of the current WP:USPLACE standards before attempting to have this article moved." Eight minutes later, the closure was REVERSED by User:Polaron, an involved discussant here and a non-administrator, saying "this is clearly premature". Was that a proper action on Polaron's part? --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was proper action. There has never been "community consensus on a wider scale" regarding USPLACE, and stifling discussion does not help us find such consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
In other words, you think it was proper because you agree with the outcome. My question was one of process: is it acceptable for one of the discussants to overrule the closing administrator? --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
As an admin (albeit an involved one) I'd have to agree with Melanie on that it wasn't a proper action—a proper course of action would have been to bring the closure to the attention of another uninvolved administrator. I do, however, agree that the closure itself wasn't well-thought either—CONLIMITED normally refers to a group of editors creating a rule which goes against an established policy or guideline with a wider scope (a definition under which, ironically, USPLACE itself falls). A group of editors discussing a possible exception for one article is a perfectly normal occurrence, especially when reasons for such an exception are given. It is true that to fix a problem at its root will require a discussion of USPLACE, but that does not preclude editors from discussing in the meanwhile other articles in that guideline's scope. Here, primary usage concerns are no less important than the USPLACE provisions, so this RM can by no means be treated as "a group of editors trying to override a wider consensus".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 25, 2012; 15:19 (UTC)
Per our naming conventions, this page may not be moved to get rid of the state name, and per WP:CONLIMITED, a small group of editors may not decide to forget about community consensus. There is no point to having a discussion that so clearly can end only one way without deviating from our standards. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Your interpretation of policy would result in a Wikipedia where change is not possible because the rules that accurately reflect practice could not be changed, and practice that does not follow the rules would be disallowed, creating a Catch-22 situation that preserves the status quo for eternity. Thankfully your interpretation is incorrect, and WP can evolve, because consensus trumps rules, and consensus can change. Wikipedia works bottom-up, not top-down. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Instead of changing the naming convention, you are taking on one article at a time, thus avoiding opposition from people who watch "WP:USPLACE". • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. This is clearly trying to do an end around. I fail to understand why it is a problem for this article to be named Beverly Hills, California. That certainly doesn't make it harder to find. This feels like change for the sake of change, which seldom turns out well. Why is it a problem to have a rule and follow it? If you disagree with the rule, work to change that, and quit trying to fight these WP:IDONTLIKEIT battles. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The claims of an end-around motivation here are absurd, and are blatant AGF violations. There are numerous RM requests related to US places every year. Just this year we've moved at least Las Vegas, St. Louis and Nashville, and I don't even know how many USPLACE proposals there have been that did not result in moves. Not all are always listed on the USPLACE talk page. And when they're not, that doesn't mean anyone is trying to do an end-around. This one certainly isn't that, as I (the proposer) mentioned it there myself, and it was listed in a separate section too. If watchers of USPLACE are not aware of this, they can only blame themselves.

And why is this so hard to understand? WP is not a military-like top-down authoritarian organization. Our rules are not authoritarian but authoritative because they reflect behavior rather than dictate behavior. We generally don't change the rules in order to allow different behavior; when behavior changes, then we update the rules accordingly. This should not be news to anyone. It's a crucial part of how the encyclopedia evolves and improves. Insisting blind following of the guidelines would be stifling that aspect of it, especially when the claim of consensus support for the guideline in question is, and has always been, as dubious as it is in this case. Arguing a guideline needs to change first when opposing a proposal that is based on ignoring that guideline per IAR is a common status quo stonewalling tactic, and arguably disruptive. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Come on, B2C. You know perfectly well that Las Vegas and St. Louis are SUPPOSED to omit the state name, and moving them was actually bringing them into line with USPLACE. Nashville, Tennessee was boldly moved to Nashville by one individual, but was moved back after discussion; the mover had been unfamiliar with USPLACE and agreed with moving it back.
I find it amusing that you scoff at "blind following of the guidelines" and say we should Ignore All Rules, and yet you are the one who is constantly insisting that we must obey your interpretation of WP:TITLE as if it was Holy Writ. Actually, the USPLACE guideline itself can be regarded as an example of "ignoring all rules" - namely, it ignores the conciseness rule that you are so insistent on. Why is it OK for you to want to IAR when the "rule" is USPLACE, but it's not OK for the advocates of USPLACE to IAR when the "rule" is conciseness?
You said Our rules are not authoritarian but authoritative because they reflect behavior rather than dictate behavior. The current behavior is USPLACE, applied to tens of thousands of titles of US cities. But you keep demanding that widespread behavior must be overruled, and tens of thousands of stable titles must be changed, based on your interpretation of WP:TITLE. Is that not authoritarian? --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
My point was that not all USPLACE related discussions are publicized at USPLACE, and that failure to advertise there is not evidence of an end-around, especially when the discussion was mentioned there.

I'm not advocating literally ignoring ALL rules; I'm advocating invoking IAR to ignore USPLACE for good reason (and that good reason is to bring US place articles better in line with how most of our other articles are titled, including most other articles about cities). I hope that answers your question. I notice questions that others have asked of you above remain unanswered by you. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

True, I don't always reply to everyone. I have never been one of those people who has to have the last word in every debate; if I have made my points and the other person has not raised any new issues worth answering, I am perfectly willing to let them have the last word and let the reader decide whose point has carried the day. In this case, you have NOT answered my question, which was: why must we invoke IAR to ignore USPLACE? Why not invoke IAR to ignore "how most of our other articles are titled" and let USPLACE stand? After all, letting USPLACE stand is not disruptive to the wiki, whereas retitling tens of thousands of articles would be very disruptive. Avoiding disruption and letting the status quo stand seems like a much better reason to IAR than simple consistency for the sake of consistency. It is also respectful of "behavior" and avoids "authoritarian" top-down rule-making. In fact, by invoking IAR here you have provided the best reason yet to allow USPLACE to stand. It becomes just a question of which rule to ignore. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Posting just to have the last word is one thing. Posting to answer pointed questions is quite another. I did answer your question. We have good reason to ignore USPLACE. We don't have good reason to ignore WP:CRITERIA. The process to change the titles of the cities on the AP list took four years. It was not disruptive. There is no reason to believe the process to change the titles of articles like this, in which the concise name already redirects to the disambiguated name, would be disruptive at all. It could take a few years, or it could take a few hours with a bot. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
It took four years to change the titles of 30 cities, and you don't think it would be disruptive to change tens of thousands? And worse yet, to argue about "primary meaning" and "necessary disambiguation" on thousands of talk pages? The "good reason" that is needed is a clear, non-arguable guideline, and that is what we have now. To make thousands of cities into individual judgment calls - what an enormous waste of Wikipedia time! Avoiding THAT situation is a "good reason". Consistency for the sake of consistency is not a "good reason". And BTW "what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by" is also part of WP:CRITERIA. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Australia and Canada have both been hodgepodges of disambiguated and concise titles for years. No disruption there, why would it be for US titles? The claim or suggestion that without a uniform naming convention you have "disruption" is baseless. If you really want consistency for the sake of consistency, then support the creation of a bot that will move all articles at ConciseCityName, State titles and where ConciseCityName is a redirect to that article, to ConciseCityName. Then you'll have consistency in USPLACE naming with the naming convention that is predominant for all WP articles - consistency for the sake consistency... voila! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Did you misread my comment above? "Consistency for the sake of consistency" is exactly what I DON'T want. As I said in my previous reply, that is not a "good reason" to impose a top-down change in thousands of titles that have been stable for years. You are the one who wants consistency for the sake of consistency; getting every city in every country in the world to be named in exactly the same way has been your obsessive quest for years. That's not my quest at all; IMO a quest for perfect consistency is counterproductive. My goal is simply to keep (or modify and keep - did nobody notice the proposed compromise in the section above?) a straightforward guideline that follows WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME and is clearcut to avoid arguments. That happens to be what we have now, in USPLACE. If that guideline results in names that are not consistent with the way other countries do name their cities - well, America just does it differently, that's all. WP:IAR! --MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's my two cents, for what it's worth. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's trying to be an encyclopedia. The AP stylebook is a guideline for Newspapers on grammar, punctuation, standard spelling, etc., anything that it covers should not be used as an indication of what is commonly everyday language. Newspapers are written for a wide audience, at a fourth grade level, (the lowest common denominator). Most news articles are taken directly from the AP news wire, and therefore are only one source, just repeated under different banners. Basing the guideline (USPLACE) on the AP Stylebook is basing "usage" on a single source, and does not reflect actual usage. Beverly Hills, Nashville are two prominent examples of how following the current guideline does not make sense. Yes, they are not unique in their names, but they are recognized over all other cities of the same name, and do not need to be disambiguated with the state "comma convention".--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 00:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beverly_Hills,_California/Archive_1&oldid=1136561230"