Talk:Mobile metropolitan area

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mobile metropolitan area article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Population and coverage area[edit]

According to the United States Census Bureau, the Mobile metropolitan area consists of Mobile County only ^[1] and has a population of 400,526.^[2] —RJN 23:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1[edit]

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 consensus. The consolidation of multiple discussions into this one thread was an inappropriate refactoring of comments, and as such, it is not possible to determine an appropriate consensus for this consolidated discussion. This close indicates no prejudice towards the creation of a new move discussion taking all of the listed articles into account (indeed, I'd recommend that such a discussion takes place), but participants should be aware that they are commenting on multiple page moves from the outset. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Add state to form standard title. Buaidh 14:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The preferred article title for metropolitan areas is the article title of the principal city with the lower-case words " metropolitan area" appended. Please see the List of metropolitan areas of the United States. Yours aye, Buaidh 17:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Mobile is a disambiguation page. Buaidh 21:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as per my comments at related RMs for Tallahassee, Pensacola, Clarksville, Sioux City, Dayton and others. There are no other articles about metropolitan areas for cities named Wichita Falls, so "Texas" is unnecessary for disambiguation. The extra verbiage is especially unnecessary as "Wichita Falls metropolitan area" would still redirect to this article. There are no policies or guidelines demanding the change, and plenty of articles (such as the above) use the current format. Google Books returns 435 hits for the current title but only 3 for the proposed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminating the state name makes this article title unintelligible to many users outside the U.S. This isn’t the U.S. Wikipedia. The general reader should not need to read the article in order to understand the title. Buaidh 20:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that the title is "unintelligible" to people outside the U.S. At any rate adding the state doesn't make it any clearer than it is, just longer and less in line with what the sources actually use for the subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the state name does let users know that the area is in the United States. Buaidh 21:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish we weren't having this same conversation over 12 or 15 different articles. As I said at Pensacola, that's not a priority of the article titles policy. What it does say is that titles must be recognizable, concise, no more precise than necessary, and follow the WP:COMMONNAME for a subject in the reliable sources, which the current title does nicely.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consolodated. Above was moved from Talk:Wichita Falls metropolitan area. Apteva (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - Can you explain what you mean by "to form standard article title" and provide any applicable links or diffs that support it? Why do you believe the word "state" should be added to the title? Is it because you think Dayton by itself is too ambiguous and so readers won't know it's for Dayton, Ohio? I saw your current move request to "Tulsa metropolitan area", which obviously does not include the state in the title. Here is the list of all articles for U.S. metropolitan areas. Thanks. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I did not post this here. I posted it at Dayton metropolitan area talk page. My !vote for this proposal is below. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Dayton" is already a redirect to the city so the city has been deemed to be the primary topic for that term. There is no ambiguity being addressed by the longer name. The shorter name is sufficient. --Polaron | Talk 01:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Nicely stated, Polaron. I'm not sure if you also saw Buaidh's similar move requests for Portland and Savannah. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)~~ I did not post this here. I posted it at Dayton metropolitan area talk page. My !vote for this proposal is below. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Tallahassee, Pensacola, Clarksville, Sioux City and several others.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Polaron and my reasoning at the other articles. Essentially, there are no other similar articles for other Daytons so "Ohio" is unnecessary for disambiguation. No style reasoning demands the extra verbiage, and the current title appears to be more common in sources than the proposed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from Talk:Dayton metropolitan area) Apteva (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: all the proposed titles miss the closing comma after the state – like "Mobile, Alabama, metropolitan area" – per WP:Basic copyediting, section Punctuation. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following applies to Glasgow micropolitan area

Support There's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Glasgow, and this isn't it. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have caused some confusion by omitting the state in article prose before. Seems most people think of Glasgow, Scotland before Glasgow, Kentucky. Who knew? LOL Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the proposed title misses the closing comma after the state – like "Glasgow, Kentucky, metropolitan area" – per WP:Basic copyediting, section Punctuation. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from Talk:Glasgow micropolitan area) Apteva (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following applies to Ontario micropolitan area

Support There's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Ontario, and this isn't it. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the proposed title misses the closing comma after the state – like "Ontario, Oregon, metropolitan area" – per WP:Basic copyediting, section Punctuation. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from Talk:Ontario micropolitan area) Apteva (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following applies to Vicksburg Micropolitan area

Support. Numerous places with name Vicksburg. Zarcadia (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the proposed title misses the closing comma after the state – like "Vicksburg, Mississippi, micropolitan area" – per WP:Basic copyediting, section Punctuation. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from Talk:Vicksburg Micropolitan area) Apteva (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - What is going on here? All the comments from the individual articles were moved here? That would mean that all the !votes are completely out of context because they're not referring to this mass proposal, but to the individual articles where they originated. In any case, I think it's illogical to lump all these move requests together. Each one needs to be judged on its own. Some clearly should be moved and others clearly should not. For example, Tallahassee is fine as-is because there's no ambiguity, while Elizabethtown must be moved because there's obvious ambiguity. So there's no way I can support a mass proposal like this because it would be a perfect example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. ;) I'm sorry, but I feel it is wrong to make this an all or none choice. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose to combining all the move requests together. It might be better to close all the ongoing move requests and just open an RFC for metropolitan area article titles instead. --Polaron | Talk 02:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose. This was a poor move. A mass discussion is fine, but not when individual discussions have already started. Apteva, I wonder what got into you: bad idea. Close this mass thing and--well, I think Polaron has it right. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose - per Drmies. polarscribe (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per 76.189.111.2 and Drmies. This probably shouldn't be a single proposal, and definitely should not have been combined after !votes on the separate proposals had been made. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 04:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. All !votes from other talk pages that were transferred here are invalid. I assume none of those editors gave permission nor are even aware that their comments were relocated to here. When they voted, they were voting for an individual article, not this group of 19 articles. And randomly and unilaterally choosing this one city's article as the home base of this discussion makes no sense. If there were 19 separate votes in one discussion, that would be fine. Edtiors need to be able to vote for each article individually because each has to be determined on its own merits. If there's to be a discussion about a huge group of articles like this, the discussion would need to be in a proper, central location that's applicable to the overall topic. Please close this. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These are all very similar and are best discussed in one place instead of repeating the same comments a dozen times. So far there is opposition to moving these other than the last three, which are supported, Glasgow, Ontario, and Vicksburg. Apteva (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This entire thread is invalid. So please just close it, per the above comments. I'm not sure why you're completely disregarding all the obvious reasons why this is highly inappropriate. And what made you think that violating WP:REFACTOR by moving all the votes/comments of other editors from other talk page discussions to this one was a good idea? --76.189.111.2 (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Names[edit]

The above was procedurally closed. If anyone recommends reopening, I recommend opening as a group the first 16 above. The 19th, Vicksburg can be discussed separately or added to the currently open RM for Glasgow and Ontario, provided it is clear that any comments there apply only to Glasgow and Ontario.Apteva (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]