Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

New survey to clarify "use common names" guideline/convention

There is a new survey to clarify the meaning/applicability of the "use common names" guideline/convention. See WT:NC#Proposal: clarify meaning of "use most common name" guideline. --Serge 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Convention for Brazil

Hi, I'm the co-founder of the project "Subdivisões do Brasil" (Brazilian subdivisions) at Portuguese Wikipedia and the author of more than 5.000 Brazilian location maps (almost all used here).

I propose that we use the same rules for Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo without exception. The Brazilian states aticles must have a higher priority than their respective capitals. Sorry but my capacity to write in English is very limited. What I'm trying to say is: Rio de Janeiro should concerns the State of Rio de Janeiro and Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro (or Rio de Janeiro City) the city.

I really don't understand why this is an exception. I belive that is because this rule was simply based in current practice (check this) without any discussion (I don't find anyone). This convention should not be different from the other countries.

I'm saying this only now because this convention is generating a lot of trouble in Commons.

I hope we will be able to change this as quickly as possible.

Raphael.lorenzeto 14:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was me simply writing down the current practice. I believe both exceptions are a wart; since when you say "Rio de Janeiro" or "São Paulo" it's ambiguous which one you are refering to (and it is usually disambiguated by the context), I believe it would be much more natural for both to be disambiguation pages, and the actual articles to be at (city) and (state). Answering to Talk:Rio de Janeiro (state)#Rename to "Rio de Janeiro", the principle of least surprise would not be violated (in fact, using a disambiguation page is much less surprising when you want information about the other page). --cesarb 00:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd leave these two as they are -- it seems to me that if we are going to bother with a separate rule for primary meanings, then it should apply here. In English, these terms apply to the cities absolutely overwhelmingly. The principle of least surprise certainly applies, in the same way as for any primary usage -- if I enter a term which overwhelmingly has a single meaning, and Wikipedia's not sure what I'm talking about, then I'm pretty likely to be surprised by that. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The naming conventions on the English-language Wikipedia specify that an article is to be named according to the most common form used in English, or, lacking that, in the original language. Cities in English-speaking countries, and noticeably the examples given in the original message, usually already have it figured out, by having, for instance, "New York City" to distinguish from the state of New York, already incorporated into their names, or at least into the common usage — that is, this is not something we created ourselves, but rather it is reflecting the correct naming of those places. In the case of a Brazilian city such as Rio de Janeiro, and the state of Rio de Janeiro, there's no such usage in English, since they refer to the city as "Rio de Janeiro", and the same goes for the state. "Rio de Janeiro City" is not in use in any current form of the English language, so we would be making this up ourselves, which we cannot do. In cases like this, the regular form of disambiguation is to assign the main name ("Rio de Janeiro") to whichever subject is more commonly associated with it: in this case, the city; and use a disambiguated title for the other: hence "Rio de Janeiro (state)" for the article on the state of Rio de Janeiro. Furthermore, I don't see a need to create a disambiguation page for just two articles each ("Rio de Janeiro" and "São Paulo") . Redux 12:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Style used in local paper

I noticed today that my local paper uses an interesting style for locations. They use city, state and for a few places, probably the AP list, just city. So cities are always listed in a larger font at the beginning of an article. This also has the effect of showing what they intended when they only use city. No confusion between city and state. Vegaswikian 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but again this is a local paper using a local habit, and one not necessarily understood by the international community. THEPROMENADER 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your disagreement is not with this page, but with WP:MOS:If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect. If you can get consensus to change that, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the original point, but I understand this even less. This isn't a dialect issue. Gene Nygaard 16:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Vegaswikian is citing his local paper's datelines, which follow AP style, as a confirmation of usage for Tariq's proposal, Part II. Promenader then objects that this is not worldwide usage. If Vegaswikian is getting a paper written in American English, this is a dialect issue; Vegaswikian is citing an AE source, and Promenader objects because it is AE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the "dialect" analogy flies either vis-à-vis the comma'd state disambiguataion - "habit" would describe it better. I don't object to it per se, but I do find that porting local habits to a media accessible the world over a bit narrow-minded : local habits are for locals, and understood best (voir "decoded best") by the same.

After a bit of thought, I think much of the problem would be solved if Wiki would adopt one form of disambiguation: this would eliminate all possiblility for confusion, as a reader would "get" the difference between article subject and disambiguation tool at most after looking at an article or two. Comma or parentheses, I don't care - but it has to be cross-board to be clear to all. THEPROMENADER 18:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding a person's middle initial, for example, might also be a form of disambiguation. Or the presence or absense of diacritics on letters. Or the addition of a word neither with a comma nor with parentheses. Or the inclusion of a surname, for all those wanna-be soccer stars who think that if they can convince people that they can get by with one name, that means they have made it big. Or lots of other possibilities. But city, state is more than disambiguation. That's why you run into opposition to these continual requested moves and other "votes" and the like. Gene Nygaard 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And all those are preferred to parentheses; because they can be linked to without the pipe trick. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because the person's middle initial - or second surname - or title for that matter - is still his name. The name of a state is nothing of the kind to a city - "State" is disambiguation and must be presented clearly as such.

The "pipe trick" argument is also a secondary justification/argument, and is on a technical detail that can be dealt with technically. Reader comprehension cannot be "fixed" the same way.

Excuses, but I have never requested any move of anything even remotely "City, State" - but I do see the method's shortcomings, and I have since a couple of months been trying to reason some sort of Wiki-wide solution - but it seems that the question has been in debate since so long, with the same players, that there are firmly-entrenched "sides" to this story now. The most opposition will be from contributors enjoying the "comfortable majority" of those comfortable with contributing in using their comfortably familiar local practices - this is Engish Wiki, after all. THEPROMENADER 20:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You still seem to be a little confused. A name, as any good dictionary will tell you, is a term used to refer to something. For example , from Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/name (accessed: December 15, 2006): the first definition is a word or a combination of words by which a person, place, or thing, a body or class, or any object of thought is designated, called, or known. "Cit, State" certainly qualifies as a name for these places, and even as a common name (although perhaps not exactly the most common name). The crucial difference between using an alternate common name for an article as opposed to disambiguating with a parenthetical term is that with the parenthetical form, it is nearly certain that very, very few people who are not familiar with Wikipedia practices would try to find Springfield, Illinois by typing in Springfield (Illinois) -- but the converse is in fact a very common way to refer to that place. older ≠ wiser 21:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hardly confused, so save that one, thank you : ) Stating the definition of "name" does not change the fact that "State" is in no way "City's" name - no matter the reason the name of the state is added to it. If anything, it is you who is confus'ing the issue in your reply - "common practice" ≠ "name".

Of course people would not write anything with parentheses - but this is an encyclopaedia, not a local newspaper or newscast. The form of disambiguation doesn't matter as long as it can be identified as disambiguation - local practices do not matter - and are not always understood - by those foreign to them.

With all due respect, I don't see finding any (mix of) argument(s) possible to justify the presence of an everyday local "common practice" as an international encyclopaedia convention to be in the interests of Wiki or its readers - as I've said before, it seems to have the contributor's own habits at heart. THEPROMENADER 10:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but common practice is precisely one of the defining characteristics of a name in the context of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not give preference to formal or official names. You continue to refuse to recognize that "City, State" IS a name for these places and is commonly used as such. Although you clearly disagree, I do not see any policy or guideline in Wikipedia that deprecates local usage in the way that you seem to be advocating. In fact, I think imposing such a top-down policy would be in many ways exactly contrary to how Wikipedia works. So long as the names are common English language usage and are easily recognizable by any person with a moderate fluency in the language, I don't see that there is any basis to object merely because it falls under your idiosyncratic conception of local usage. 14:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we're talking about your own interpretation of what a name is - and I don't understand how you can deny that the name of a State is not that of a City. What is "New York"? Well, to make a precision you're either going to have to locate it or add an adjective or some other description - but that doesn't mean that this addition becomes the locale's name - I don't see how the idea can even be considered as fact.

Wiki works the way it wants to - it some see a problem, they propose to fix it, and should consensus turn in favour of the solution, it becomes the "new Wiki way". Let's not discourage change on a suggestion of Wiki's inflexibility - it doesn't exist. On the other hand, if a majority of Wiki contributors originate from one country, chances are that whatever practice they choose will be consensus should they have to vote for it - so for English Wiki, there's no need to worry about change as long as everyone only worries about their own little corner - which seems to be the case here. THEPROMENADER 14:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It is hardly my own interpretation of what a name is, it is both the dictionary definition of a name as well as established practice on Wikipedia. I don't see how you can deny that city, state is a common name for these places. If someone asks me where I am from, I usually say "Cleveland, Ohio". In context, THAT is the name of the place I am referring to. I don't understand what your point about inflexibility is. I'm not the one advocating for a single wiki-wide standard to be applied uniformly regardless of local practices. If there turns out to be a demonstrable need to change the naming conventions, then they will change. But you've not demonstrated any such necessity. older ≠ wiser 15:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect - of course it is your interpretation. Of "word or group of words", you chose "group of words", and in a second degree of interpretation took this to justify "city, state" - and I severely doubt that the dictionary definition was written with this purpose in mind. "Niagara Falls" is a "group of words" that is a place name, and "Niagara Falls, New York" and "Niagara Falls, Ontario" are place names with added description/disambiguation. This couldn't be simpler.

You seem to be quite comfortable with the convention the way it is, as you seem to be willing to go to lengths beyond reason to justify it: this is fine, and no doubt you're in the majority, so again, no worries. On my end, I'm not looking for "inflexibility" : I'm looking for an unbiased method all can understand. THEPROMENADER 16:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, it is your own interpretation to consider that a form commonly used to refer to these places are unacceptable for the purposes of naming articles. I fail to see any logic in that. If you can unequivocally demonstrate that the current naming convention is in fact biased and poses actual problems for understanding, then you might have more traction with your arguments. The problem is that there is little demonstrable evidence supporting you position. older ≠ wiser 16:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

My answer to you was my stating the fact that Ohio is not the name of the city of Findlay - The name of the city is Findlay. It's hard to find a more basic and solid argument than that - and I stated this simple fact only an answer to your earlier propos; it is not in promotion of any idea of my own.

All the same, I wouldn't bother with the suggestion that I "don't have a case" with my critiquees - I think I made it quite clear that those promoting local habits as convention here are more concerned with comfort than function - but as I said earlier, I could be completely right and it still wouldn't matter. So no worries. All I ask is that we reason here, not justify.

As for the "understanding" angle, please see to the bottom of this subject. THEPROMENADER 16:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You are interpreting "name" narrowly. A name is the term or phrases that people use to refer to something. "Findlay, Ohio" is a very common name that people use to refer to that place. I never claimed that "Ohio" is the name of the city of "Findlay". My claim is that "Findlay, Ohio" is a commonly used alternate name for the place. Sorry, but the only thing that you've made "clear" is that you don't like the practice. You say I think I made it quite clear that those promoting local habits as convention here are more concerned with comfort than function but I don't see that you've made that point at all. In fact, I find it just a little offensive that you make such an assumption. Yes, you've reiterated your opinions in this matter many times over, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. older ≠ wiser 16:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm interpreting "name" objectively. There's no reason to be offended, but your designation of "people" - meaning "those using the practice" - itself meaning "those in the U.S. - only proves my "comfort case"; no, I don't like the idea that a "local to local" habit should give itself more importance than a large Wiki readership that is not familiar with neither the locale nor local naming practice. Naming should be objective and precise without the addition of any practice that risks being lost on the reader. Is there anything wrong with wanting that? THEPROMENADER 18:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

< -- outdenting

Your claim of interpreting name "objectively" would almost be laughable, if it weren't so irritating. Your restriction of "people" who use such a convention as "those in the U.S." is demonstrably incorrect, thus making nonsense of your so-called "comfort case". Unfortunately naming is never an objective matter, especially when addressing cross-cultural concerns. I think the best that we can hope for is to name accurately without giving cause for offense or causing undue confusion. You seem to believe that city, state causes confusion, but so far this is little more than hypothetical confusion. Without genuine evidence that something is causing confusion, I don't see any good reason for overhauling a well-established and familiar convention. (tweaks, perhaps, but the core of the convention is sound, IMO). older ≠ wiser 00:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In order for me not to be looking at this objectively, I would have to already have a fixed objective in mind - I do not. What I do observe, and this I have stated many times, is that local practices are best understood by those who use them, and that this does not bear the rest of Wiki in mind. Apply whatever adjectives you will to the result - confusion, misunderstanding - but the only thing that counts is that to foreigners, the formeost value anything "non-name" added to a name is disambiguation, and the "city, state" convention is not easily recognisable as even this.

My using the US is only an example - Canada and other countries do the same as I have mentioned many times before in even mentioning my hometown, the nec plus ultra of any city needing disambiguation. I still don't think that practices there are suitable for Wiki. But we won't really know for sure until we get the opinion of some non-US/Canada/whatever contributors, will we? I hope I have just taken care of that. THEPROMENADER 00:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In order for you not to be looking at this objectively, all that is needs is that you allow your pre-existing biases to color your interpretation. Lack of objectivity is not solely outcome oriented. You are entitled to your opinion that to foreigners, the formeost value anything "non-name" added to a name is disambiguation, and the "city, state" convention is not easily recognisable as even this, but don't represent this as if it were demonstrated fact. older ≠ wiser 00:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What pre-existing biases? Would you know that I supported before for a move to "city, state" (and even "community, city, state") before having second thoughts? What is Gauteng in Boipatong, Gauteng to you, foreigner? A country? A county? A province? A state? No, to the ignorant is just a container for Boipatong until they learn better. Until they do, the only role Gauteng has for them is to tell which city of Boipatong" we are talking about - or disambiguation. Is this not clear? Is this not objective reasoning? THEPROMENADER 01:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what it is exactly, but objective reasoning is not what comes to mind. As I've indicated elsewhere, what difference does it make whether a reader knows what either Boipatong or Gauteng is. It does not only tell us which Boipatong is being referred to, for as you probably know, there is no other Boipatong. What Boipatong, Gauteng tells the reader is that there is some relationship between the two terms. Without any familiarity with the terms, the relationship between them is a meaningless as the terms themselves. But if it is common convention for that area to describe the place as Boipatong, Gauteng, then I don't see any reason why there should be any objection to a naming convention to specify it as such. older ≠ wiser 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And I still don't get Vegaswikian's point. Is it just that he didn't know what a dateline is? It would hardly seem notable that some local paper follows what had already benn claimed ot be an AP guideline in that regard, and I'm totally baffled by his sentence "This also has the effect of showing what they intended when they only use city." Gene Nygaard 19:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I didn't really get it either; that may have shown in my answer. I tried all the same to look beyond the details to the gist of the argument : its purpose of justifying a local practice. THEPROMENADER 20:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is hardly surprising that a paper gets a story from the AP, including the dateline, and prints the story with that dateline. Most newspapers do just that. And therefore the "local habit" stuff is just baffling. Gene Nygaard 22:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And, as far as international standards go, most newspapers around the world follow similar practices, no matter which wire service or whatever they get the story from, don't they? Gene Nygaard 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I must still not get the gist of it. I thought the argument was an (albeit indirect) justification for "city, state" disambiguation. Just a thought - all newspapers are read locally, by the way - only extremely "big-city" papers are printed nationally, but even that is "local=same country". But okay, if I've missed the point, no point in pursuing it... THEPROMENADER 23:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Decidedly. There is the Herald Tribune - but even they use the local practices of their "local" audience - Americans abroad. Okay, okay... THEPROMENADER 23:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My point was that the city is always in a larger type size then the state. Like city, state. So in these cases you know what the city is since it is in the same form if included with or without the state. If this is part of the AP sytle, then it has not been mentioned before. I brought this up since it shows that their sytle is such that it is always clear what the city name is by looking at it. If I used New York, here what would I be talking about? From the above in my paper that would be the state, the city would have been New York. I guess you could say that the style always dabs the city. Vegaswikian 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong here. They are only using CAPS for the city so it looks larger. Sorry for the misinformation. Vegaswikian 03:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In either case, wouldn't you make it a whole lot easier on yourself if you just figured out that the city is the one that comes before the comma, so you didn't have to rely on the apparently bigger ALL-CAPS to figure out which is the city and which is the state? Gene Nygaard 08:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, AP guidelines for the use in datelines are not particularly relevant. For that usage, readers already know, just from the placement at the top of the article, that this is a city (in rare cases, it might be some other geographical area like "Sahara Desert", especially if not a permanently populated place). However,

That is not something we necessarily know when we look at the entries in a Wikipedia category.
That is not something we necessarily know when we look at a Wikilink.
That is not something we necessarily know when we look at "What links here"
That is not something we necessarily know when we look at "Recent changes"
That is not something we necessarily know when we look at "Related changes"
That is not something we necessarily know when we look at "Special:allpages"

The standardized "city, state" format is one thing that will give us that additional information in many of these cases. Plus, it also narrows down the geographical location when the city is one which is not familiar to the reader. Both of those and others are reasons distinct from "disambiguation" in the common Wikipedia jargon usage. Gene Nygaard 15:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

But you see, this is where my doubt lies - the "informative value" of "State" in "City, State" (or any similar form of "higher administration" disambiguation), especially in the question: who is it informative to? Answer: Those who know where "State" is. Thus this "more in formative" wisdom also has a dependance on those who "already know". I mentioned the example "Boipatong, Gauteng" on the disambiguation discussion page - what and where is "Gauteng"? But if the added administrative entity is treated as pure disambiguation, it doesn't matter. But it must be clear that the addition is disambiguation - and it is for this that I am for a single disambiguation method for all of Wiki, places and names alike. THEPROMENADER 16:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What difference does it make whether one knows where "Gauteng" is? People who know, know, those who don't don't (and if they're at all curious, they can easily find out). Boipatong, Gauteng is as equally uninformative as Boipatong for anyone unfamiliar with either. The question in that situation would be whether it is common practice to refer to places in Gauteng with the comma method. If it is in fact common practice, then I don't see much problem with a naming convention that specifies that form. If that form is not in common use for such places, then the naming convention shouldn't specify that usage. But I don't know anything about the specifics of South Africa, so my perspective on that is entirely theoretical. older ≠ wiser 16:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What difference does it make if they know or not? None - this is my whole point. Thus we should drop all "better informed" justification for the higher administrative term and retain only its usefulness as disambiguation.

What use to Wiki is a "local naming habit", especially to those who aren't familiar with it? I thought we agreed that it would be rather pointless to try to "inform" a reader through a title. All we want to know is which subject we're talking about - any "added extras" is just cruft as far as the uninformed are concerned. Yes, of course, once they are sure they have the right subject, they can find the rest in the text; wouldn't the proper and properly informative place for "how the locals say it" info be there? THEPROMENADER 17:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Any scheme of disambiguation--in the title--will always leave some doubt as to whether or not disambiguation is used--in the title. The article title has two main purposes:

To give each article a name that is different from other articles.
To help readers decide whether they have found the article they wish to read.

When readers ask questions like these (and those posed by Promenader), they can and should find the answers in the lead section of the article. That is the best way to let readers know whether to read the rest of the article--and to know for certain what is the name of the subject. --Ishu 17:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ishu. I'd like to add that imposing local traditions is not a clear way of informing the reader that "they've got the right one" - it is more an impediment than anything, especially if it breaks the trend set by the rest of Wiki's articles. The overwhelming majority of Wiki is using parantheses for disambiguation, and you can put anything (and as much as) you want between these, even commas, and the reader will still a) "get" that what he's reading is disambiguation and b) be clearly informed about "which one" he's reading about. If one wants the commas to become Wiki's "obvious disambiguation", then he's got the rest of Wiki to change.

In short, to hell with local naming traditions if they are cumbersome, conflicting and uninformative - clear subject designation should hold sway over all other preferences and practices. THEPROMENADER 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, grow up and get over the notion that the only purpose served by this convention is disambiguation. It is not.

Furthermore, get rid of this silly figment of your imagination, that the "overwhelming majority of Wiki is using parantheses for disambiguation". Much of our disambiguation is done by other methods, and it is best when it is done by other methods.

We often disambiguate people by including a middle name or initial.

We often disambiguate by including diacritics on letters.

We often disambiguate many wanna-be soccer players, whose fans figure it would be a sign of their having it made big by trying to name their articles with one name, by including their surnames.

We often disambiguate by adding "Malaysian" in front of "Malaysian passport" or "United States" in front of United States Department of Justice.

We routinely disambugate lanugages such as "French" by including "language" after it as in French language.

And that is just scratching the surface as far as different methods of disambiguation go. Gene Nygaard 21:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We disambiguate Department of Defense by spelling, and redirect Department of Defence to Defence minister. Gene Nygaard 21:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, thanks for maintaining a civil tone.

Second off, it is obvious that I agree that only one part of the "city, state" convention's role is disambiguation. My whole point is that disambiguation is the only role the "city, administration" convention has that is of any use to Wiki - especially to its non-(locale in question) readership.

The overwhelming majority of Wiki disambiguation is done using parentheses.

The other means of "disambiguation" you cite are in fact nothing of the kind: People's middle initials are still their own name. Soccer player's surnames are still their own. Diacritics describe alternate pronunciations or spellings that are still the subject's own. if the article is on a Malaysian passport, then you will not name it passport, because Malaysian passport is an entity in itself. If the article is on the Department of Justice of the United States, it is not even conceivable that you title it Department of Justice. If the article is on the language that is French, it is only normal that you be precise and name the article French Language.

On the other hand, you cannot say that State in a City article is City itself - in this role, it is either a locator or disambiguation that may place or designate the city in question, but the addition is not the subject of City itself.

I don't understand why one would redirect an article on an entire department to an article on the sole office of its minister. THEPROMENADER 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments reveal a profound misunderstanding of disambiguation on Wikipedia. Using alternate names IS disambiguation and constitutes a large part of how disambiguation is done. Parenthetical disambiguation is arguably the last resort, that is appropriate only when there is no other acceptable common name. For example calling something Malaysian passport would really only apply in contexts where it is necessary to distinguish it from passports from other countries. Without that necessity, it would be referred to as simply passport. And why on earth is it "not even conceivable" that one would title an article Department of Justice for the U.S. DOJ? There are countless examples of people doing precisely that (both in the U.S. and for entities from around the world). By the use common name principle, if one does not "know" in advance that there might be other things sharing that name, why should one assume that it needs to be disambiguated? Until someones recognizes to potential for ambiguity and presses to rename it or until some project with established naming conventions adopts the article, it likely would remain at the simpler name. When you parenthetically disambiguate, you virtually ensure that no one unfamiliar with Wikipedia disambiguation practices would select that term to search for and force them to go through one or more disambiguating links. Using an alternate common name enables some portion of users without prior familiarity with Wikipedia disambiguation methods to get it right the first time. older ≠ wiser 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of misunderstanding anything - I have made it perfectly clear throughout all my arguments (and that just above) what is or isn't disambiguation. Please - a Malaysian Passport is a type of an object in itself - this is a bad attempt at an example. Department of Justice is an object in itself - why would it automatically describe the U.S. Department of Justice? This is what's inconceivable. Don't other countries have a Department of Justice? I'm sure you get my point. Yet in light of the above, would you say that "city" is an object, and that "state" would be the type of that object? Not at all.

Nothing is clearer as disambiguation as the method in use for the rest of Wiki - parentheses - but I am not arguing only for this method - just a recognisable one, whatever that may be. I see neither fact nor objective in the "forcing" part of your parentheses theory - there is no reason why disambiguation cannot be clear. An "alternate common name" is only common to those knowing it already - this is what I mean by segregation. It should make no difference if the same disambiguating "common name" term appeared in the same way the rest of Wiki disambiguates - at least then it would be recognised as disambiguation - by everyone. THEPROMENADER 00:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What you have made clear throughout your arguments is that you do not seem to have a very good grasp of either disambiguation or of Wikipedia practices in general. The parenthetical method of disambiguation is a completely artificial construct. Of course an alternate common name may not be familiar to everyone. So what? There are tens of thousands of articles in Wikipedia about which I wouldn't even be able to come close to guessing the topic based on the title alone. The purpose of the city name titles is not only about disambiguation. I think it is far preferable for an article to be at an alternate common name than at an artificial construct that no one would think to look for without prior knowledge of Wikipedia disambiguation practices. older ≠ wiser 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, hold the vague assertions of my "lack of understanding" - this is obviously not true, and a such assertion, as it points at nothing in particular, does nothing to help the discussion.

I've said dozens of times before that the sole sure value one can place on a term used for disambiguation is its ability to disambiguate - nothing more. We agree that it is pointless to count on the "informative value" of the disambiguation term.

Yet to present this disambiguation in a method differing from the method in use for the rest of Wiki, a method recognisable (as disambiguation) by readers already familiar with the method (or everyday common practice) and the places concerned is against the interests of the international media that is Wiki. Do I make myself clear?

As for descriptions such as "artificial construct" and "alternate common name" - both of these are based on the point of view of those already familiar with the practice you defend. There is neither "common" nor "natural" (as opposed to "artificial") for anyone unfamiliar with the places or terms used - there is the name, and there is disambiguation. That's it. THEPROMENADER 10:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The practice of naming city and town articles with "comma state/province/county" meets the requirement expressed at the top of WP:NC of "...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." Some readers might find the additional information helpful some of the time (I do), but it doesn't matter if they don't. I think I understand your argument about wanting to use parentheses, I just disagree with it. As pointed out above, the preferred method of disambiguation is to find another name for the article to avoid needing to use parentheses (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic). Alternate titles without parentheses have been used many times in naming Wikipedia articles, but it is probably impossible to count (how would a tool identify that the example cheque is a disambiguated name for an article that could otherwise have been named check?). It would be fascinating to discover how many articles about places have a) comma, b) parentheses, c) neither to find out if your assertion is true, but as yet nobody has attempted to count them. A combination of WP:PRECISION and the "linking to those articles easy and second nature" leads to my preference for always using "comma state" instead of sometimes using it, depending on whether the author believes there to be a potential conflict. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting)
Apologies, but I find the WP:NC justification a bit of a stretch, as a) I don't think it was made to accommodate naming habits beyond the name itself (like added disambiguation or location) and b) the name of a State is not that of a City. Let's not even get into the "rule game" (god knows how many times we've been there before) as I could start digging up the same on my side (such as "shortest name possible", "disambiguate only when necessary", etc.), so let's just look at what we've got and how it works in relation to every article and every reader.
How does comma disambiguation make "linking to those articles easy and second nature"? For who?
I also wish there was a way to count comma vs. parenthetical disambiguation - adopting that in use in the majority of Wiki articles of course should be the one to choose - but I think it important for universal comprehension that there be one. In all evidence, parentheses have the overwhelming majority at present. THEPROMENADER 13:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: I do agree that having some city articles at "city" and others at "city, state" is rather pointless - it negates itself (the city, state convention) and adds just another level of confusion to the above. The convention certainly would be better understood (by all) were it cross-board. THEPROMENADER 13:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not suggest that "the name of a State is that of a City", and I don't think anyone else has either. I said that uniformly naming articles about cities and towns in the form of "City, State" is something that the majority of English speakers would easily recognise, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Habits can be formed and unformed, and any consistent naming convention will lead to the habit of linking to articles using that convention.

A naming convention is as much style as disambiguation, so your question about "comma disambiguation" is already loaded to your point of view. The answer is that editors (who else can linking be easy and second nature to?) can be confident of linking to the right article in almost all cases without having to open the target and check. The "pipe trick" reduces the redundant typing. This allows an editor to concentrate on the topic they are writing about.

For the purpose of counting articles, it should be done for articles about places, not all Wikipedia articles. The naming convention for towns can transfer to people no easier than the naming convention for people (Firstname Surname rather than Surname, Firstname Middlename) can transfer to places. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(after ec) So much of this round and round seems to center on your refusal to recognize that "city, state" IS a valid alternate name for these places. You claim that the sole sure value one can place on a term used for disambiguation is its ability to disambiguate - nothing more. But that is your opinion and nothing more. You go on to state: We agree that it is pointless to count on the "informative value" of the disambiguation term. No, I agree to no such thing. All that I agree with is that with a term like Gauteng is as equally uninformative as Boipatong for anyone unfamiliar with either. For those who have some familiarity, it has some significance. What you appear to want is mandate a disambiguation method that makes an article title equally unfamiliar and difficult to find for everyone (that is, no one, without prior knowledge of Wikipedia disambiguation techniques, would think to look for a term with parenthetical disambiguation). What I advocate, is that by using an alternate familiar name, a large portion of those familiar with the name will be able to find the article on the first try.

You make the statement: "Yet to present this disambiguation in a method differing from the method in use for the rest of Wiki, a method recognisable (as disambiguation) by readers already familiar with the method (or everyday common practice) and the places concerned is against the interests of the international media that is Wiki. Do I make myself clear?" -- no, I'm afraid I am not able to parse this statement in any way that makes sense. Are you saying that the comma method is a method differing from the method in use for the rest of Wiki? Sorry, but that is not only incorrect, but patently ridiculous. Why is it against the interests of the international media that is Wiki to use article names that are easily recognizable to a very large number of readers? Why should we force artificially constructed titles on articles to satisfy some sort of ideological purity test in the name of correcting purely hypothetical problems for international readers? older ≠ wiser 14:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You two seem to be entrenched into a justification of the present convention, even though I am not proposing/imposing any definite solution per se. All I am asking is the question: "is the comma disambiguation, in relation with practices used in the rest of Wiki, easily recognisable as such by all?" Yet none so far have even considered the matter in that light, answered only that the present convention is comprehensible to "a majority" (without even considering the question of a convention accessible to all) and have gone into a justifying-argument-searching draw-the-line defence of the convention existing. Perhaps this issue has come up many times before, or I'm asking in the wrong place. Anyhow.

"You claim that the sole sure value one can place on a term used for disambiguation is its ability to disambiguate - nothing more. But that is your opinion and nothing more."

No, it is fact. If the reader knows nothing about the identity or locale of the term used to disambiguate, that identity will only be revealed on a DAB page or the article itself. Until then, the only role of the disambiguator is to separate the article from other articles on other subjects sharing the same name.

"Are you saying that the comma method is a method differing from the method in use for the rest of Wiki? Sorry, but that is not only incorrect, but patently ridiculous. "

The comma has many uses in Wiki (titles, proper names), but the parentheses, save a very few exceptions, are used only for disambiguation and are easily identifiable for as such. Most disambiguation (and most all disambiguation that is not place names) in Wiki is done with parentheses. Go figure.

"Why is it against the interests of the international media that is Wiki to use article names that are easily recognizable to a very large number of readers? "

.. simply because it is possible to create a disambiguation that is recognisable to all. But here we don't even seem to be willing to even consider the question. "Hypothetical problems"? Let's not suggest that I'm digging up issues for the fun of it. THEPROMENADER 16:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The answers to those questions are straightforward: the comma and the parenthesis are both widely recognized. Neither is recognizable to absolutely every conceivable reader. The comma will be more widely expected in this context (It is used for geographical names in Turkish, for example); whereas the parenthesis is used for disambiguation only when there is no alternate term, as there always is here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with PManderson) I don't think I'm "entrenched into a justification of the present convention", although I believe that the broad thrust of the US, AUS and CAN city naming conventions is much better than the UK one. I actually dislike the occasional three-level US article names for example.

The reason you have not got an answer to whether "comma disambiguation is easily recognisable as such to all" is that it doesn't matter, and is an unanswerable question anyway. You can prove it's not by finding one person who didn't recognise it as disambiguation. So what? At least part of the naming convention is style, which means it's not just disambiguation. Many readers will not recognise "Cheque" as disambiguation, either - that's the way it's supposed to be written in some variants of English.

The bit about the sole sure role of a disambiguator is to create a unique title is true, even if the disambiguator is " (anthropologist)" - the term means nothing to someone who doesn't know what it means. I'm not sure I understand your point.

There are three main methods of disambiguation used in Wikipedia, and we appear to have agreed it is not possible to count their uses. I suspect that comma is by far the most common for articles about towns and cities. It is relatively uncommon as disambiguation (vice style) in articles about other things, again, so what? The comma notation and naming style is natural and easy to read for most English readers, moreso than parentheses.

I don't understand your last point, so won't attempt to answer. Please rephrase if you want a response from me. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if my replies have not been the clearest - I have been attempting to mix my pointing out the usefuless of a "universal method" with answers to arguments seeking justification for the present method. And yes, there are many of the latter to answer to - I do think defenses are up here for one reason or another.

To tell you the truth: I don't know what the method in use for the UK is, so I can't judge there. I do agree with the dislike of three-level and "no level" disambiguation - these render the two-level disambiguation pointless and causes (further) confusion between disambiguating entities.

I do understand that commas are more "natural" for placenames for most English-speakers. My point is that, in this single media that is wiki, this comfort for this subject should perhaps not be the formost issue in titling articles. I would think that article-to-article comprehension (of method) should be more important, no matter the subject. I think parentheses are ugly (especially after "url_encode"-ing), but if it is the most obvious choice, than so be it. The same could very well be for the comma. All I'm promoting here is the usefulness of a single method.

THEPROMENADER 23:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The UK uses "comma county" for pure disambiguation - they use just the city/town/village/hamlet name until someone points out the need for it to be disambiguated (see talk:Bath#Requested move for a current example). They also have confusion over the definition of "county" - it appears to be the current "ceremonial county", but that's not clearly expressed and agreed, and cities may have a "historic county", "ceremonial county" and "administrative county", and I think they can all be different, and the city could have been in yet another county for about a hundred years up to the 1970s.

I don't believe a "universal method" is possible for all Wikipedia articles - yes it would be possible to specify that there must be a term in parentheses in the title to distinguish a particular article from all others, but then the discussion would be about the appropriate set of terms, and under what circumstances - for example Springfield (city) is no more use than Springfield.

A wiki server is a tool. Wikipedia is a set of products built from the tool. This is the English Wikipedia, so we do not have to choose article titles that a non-English-speaker can instantly recognise, as long as English speakers do. As far as I know, the comma notation for city and town names (followed by a state, province or county) is universally recognised (maybe not used) by English speakers the world over. That makes it ideal as a naming convention for the English Wikipedia. It is purely a matter of individual interpretation whether one sees this as "disambiguation", "predisambiguation" or "style", and it is not really important to the project which interpretation is applied by any particular editor. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the UK and its "-derry"'s and hamlets parishes and official counties and ceremonial counties and "Greater" areas that are known as the City name... I don't think they could have a "city, whatever" convention even if they wanted to.

"yes it would be possible to specify that there must be a term in parentheses in the title to distinguish a particular article from all others, but then the discussion would be about the appropriate set of terms, and under what circumstances"

Exactly - and I saw that one coming. The thing is, if there is no more convention to follow and disambiguation is identifiable for what it is, one is no longer restricted in his choice of terms used for disambiguation. For example, one could put Springfield (Jacksonville, Florida) or Springfield (St. Croix County, Wisconsin) - the only restrictions would be using the least amount of terms as possible (already the case for the Springfield of St. Croix County (Wisconsin)) or none at all - yes, this is practically impossible for Springfield.

The reason I have been argumentative is not because of any urge to enforce change, but my astonishment that so few are willing to admit that the porting of the "English-speaking comma habit" to Wikipedia titles is a "comfort issue" more than anything - it's contributors taking what everyone already does in their own respective region and making it a standard here, more often than not for articles about their own regions of their own writing. Some even took offense at this propos.

I have nothing against the local practices themselves, but I hesitate at their lack of respect of each other - each convention was presented with its own well-being in mind, and no thought at all to the foreign reader or existing Wiki uses (other uses of the comma, etc). Non-English speaking countries not edited by "non-local" people get even less respect - actually, in a way, I don't think the language spoken should be a reason for differing treatment - all countries - andl all subjects if possible - should be treated the same. Is this unreasonable? THEPROMENADER 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, if there is no more convention to follow and disambiguation is identifiable for what it is, one is no longer restricted in his choice of terms used for disambiguation. -- And you think that this is a good thing? Advocating for more unpredictability in names? I don't see how that could possibly be beneficial to anyone. The mind boggles. older ≠ wiser 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

<--------undenting

It might help if Promenader would describe some of the places where the comma convention does violence to the place naming. I think some examples were provided in the past, but I'll have to pass on combing the archives for them. An article like Mount Vernon, Singapore appears to have been created by a local who would be less likely to adopt the "American" convention simply because it was there. Australian articles appear to use comma disambiguation. Indian places vary (see Jaffrabad and Asola (parentheses) versus Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and Belur, West Bengal). South African articles often use commas, such as Sandton, Gauteng, of course, and Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape. Obviously, non-English speaking places may differ, and I'm not familiar enough with them to comment much. But should the article currently at Saint-Denis, Réunion be at Saint-Denis (Réunion) or Saint-Denis de la Réunion as the article suggests? I don't understand French language or culture well enough to know whether it makes a difference. --Ishu 18:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait--Promenader wants only parentheses for all disambiguation, right? In which case the place naming isn't an issue at all. All the same, commas don't seem to be confined to Americans. "Many" English speakers, maybe, but not only Americans. --Ishu 18:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Promenader "wants" an identifiable method - meaning "one" - for disambiguation. He has no preference, and has stated before that he thinks parentheses practical - but ugly.

If I was to indicate a French city "French-style" (as in a French newscast), I would say Crotelles, dans le département d'Indre et Loire; this is meaningless to most people foreign to France and its geography. "City, State" is the same to they, by the way. Yet I'm sure (as experience has taught me through my contributions to the Paris (et al) articles) that native French-speaking Wiki contribution is much larger than English-native contribution to French Wiki - and I'm sure the same applies for most other languages. Thus I think we should pay a little more attention to other cultures and methods - in our own presentation of ourselves. THEPROMENADER 18:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but what I should have asked for is a "French-style" article title. Saint-Denis, Réunion, Saint-Denis (Réunion) or Saint-Denis de la Réunion, to give one example. --Ishu 18:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Other examples: Chemistry

Perhaps we might review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) and the IUPAC naming guidelines for chemical compounds.

Naming chemical compounds has some similarities to settlement names such as:

Very few people know about chemical compounds except for people who know about the conventions before coming to Wikipedia (e.g., chemists and others with specific education/training).
Chemical compounds are governed by several different formal naming conventions.
A very small portion of chemical compounds are known by true common names (e.g., Dioxin, LSD, Acetic acid), which serve as the article titles for these compounds.
Other common names such as Baking soda redirect to a more technically correct title.
A very large number of compounds have article titles such as Bromotrifluoromethane, Benzo(c)cinnoline, or 1,8-Bis(dimethylamino)naphthalene that are unambiguous yet also meaningless to the vast majority of readers. (See List of organic compounds and List of inorganic compounds for many more examples.)
Context and audience are key considerations for the level of specificity. More specificity is required when the context (a dinner table versus a chemistry lab) requires it.
Additional contextual elements (e.g., Chirality) are added when necessary but are often left out of common names (e.g., Glucose).

One significant difference is that chemical compounds already have a set of accepted international naming conventions (external to Wikipedia). It is common to give the name of a compound according to several conventions to resolve ambiguity. Places (settlements) do not have a single convention, and it is not common to list a place name according to multiple conventions. Another important difference is that compounds do not have multiple namesake compounds (e.g., York, Portland). One last difference is that there is no food fight over chemistry naming conventions at Wikipedia. ;)

This is also another example of the use of parentheses (and commas) in article titles that is not disambiguation, at least in the Wikipedia sense.

So long as there is a "reasonably" consistent method of disambiguation, it matters little what that method is. The Wiki preference is to use disambiguation that has more correspondence with "common" usage as possible, and then to deviate when necessary, generally following common usage disambiguation. Finally, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) specifically references Wikipedia:Deletion policy to state "Don't worry, redirects are cheap." Maybe we can chew on this instead. --Ishu 16:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Another example

There is even a place naem wnich uses parentheses without meaning to disambiguate. Bath (Berkeley Springs), West Virginia is a muncipality incorporated as the (apparently unambiguous) Bath, West Virginia, but in which the post office is Berkeley Springs, West Virginia. Wikipedia is inconsistent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Universal conventions

(new heading for ease of editing, and subject has evolved) ThePromenader above appears to be proposing that all disambiguation in all language wikipedias should follow a common convention regardless of the topic of the article, and that English-language conventions should not be applied to a globally-accessable wiki.

My question (since ThePromenader's user page has four babel boxes on it) is "How do other language wikipedias deal with these problems? There must be similar difficulties in other languages, especially the ones spoken in multiple countries.

I also note that there is no problem whatsoever with 'porting of the "English-speaking comma habit" to Wikipedia titles' within the English Wikipedia - there could be a problem forcing English-language conventions onto the French or German Wikipedia, but we're not trying to do that. I attempted to raise a discussion to standardise the naming of settlement articles across the entire English Wikipedia (see /comma for all cities) and it was clear that the most people who responded did not even wish to extend English language habits to English-language articles about non-English-speaking places. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL - thanks for the special section. But you know, I haven't even really paid much thought to how other languages deal with the problem. As for an international media such as Wiki, all solutions should be the same - the treatment should be adapted to the media and its readership. Unless of course we are dealing with a very, very limited language that is not shared by other countries... but then I can note that Japanese treatment of pages on certain cultural subjects (that I am familiar with) are quite appalling... but that is another debate. Here we have a Wiki where not only many contributors write articles particular to their own country in their own language and traditions; Most probably because of English Wiki's popularity (voir: "majority"), there are also a large number of contributors who are not native English-speakers creating articles (off the top of my head - Mumbai). This, in my books at least, is an even higher motivation to "think large".

No there is no "problem" per se with the "local tradition" "conventions" - let's just say that, from an extra-cultural point of view, it doesn't look very serious. Wiki as a media should be behaving as a whole so that any reader, from anywhere, can find any article about any place with the same method. Wiki is perhaps one of the world's first chances at a "World Encyclopaedia" written from a "world point of view" - to tell you the truth, I'm quite enamoured with that idea. The thing is, for it to be seen as a solid and unique media, methods used within have to be constant cross-board. Otherwise Wiki looks to be a place where every contributor, with nary a thought to the traditions of other cultures (especially those of their readers) carves a little corner of their own. THEPROMENADER 00:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the convention is that each language Wikipedia may name and organise articles in a manner that makes sense in that language. I don't know where to look for that guideline/policy though. Interwiki links allow readers to easily swap languages and find the equivalent article. I note that about 8 of the other language links for Mumbai have names similar to Bombay rather than Mumbai. There are at least two languages that appear not to believe there is a need for disambiguation of Springfield (eu:Springfield and sk:Springfield). Other languages appear split about 2:1 between Springfield (Illinois) variants and Springfield, Illinois variants. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I did say though that my questions never even touched on how other languages deal with similar problems (or if they even have them) - I've been looking particularily at English Wiki articles and its treatment of the same/exposure as a whole. English Wiki is by far its most popular and most mediatised version.

Perhaps again I wasn't clear - by "ethnic corner" I meant "within English Wiki." THEPROMENADER 01:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki as a media should be behaving as a whole so that any reader, from anywhere, can find any article about any place with the same method. This anticipates that multiple sets of searches should lead to the same point. For example, Springfield, Illinois and Springfield (Illinois). In which case the particular disambiguation method is less important than the fact that two different searches end up in the same place. For "settlement" article titles, this discussion seems to come down to what constitutes "second nature" as suggested in the policy WP:NC:

Parentheses disambiguation, used most frequently in Wikipedia, or
Comma disambiguation, used by many people and in many places, but recognized by even more people when disambiguating places. --Ishu 05:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

With the above you are essentially saying: "Most of Our people understand our way of doing it" - I think I already mentioned my thoughts on that above. Here I am proposing the creation of an "all people recognising one way of doing it" method. THEPROMENADER 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I almost agree with you - I meant actually that it would be best that Wiki adopt a single method that would become recognisable (hopefully) from the first time it is seen, so that the reader would know what to expect in the next title read if the same method is seen again - but there's no reason both possibilities can be covered - think "correction" - if they redirect to a single method. THEPROMENADER 05:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I do understand what an uphill battle implementing a universal method would be. The thing is with a media such as Wiki, where volunteer contributors submit articles of their own choice using their own methods decided by themselves, is that there is going to be a certain amount of contributor "me" in each submission - this is only to be expected. But this "me" stretches way beyond locals using locally-recognisable practices to name articles about towns from their own country - "river" affectionados have "their" way of titling articles (river tributary as both locator and disambiguation - between parentheses); "highway" amateurs have their way of doing things (not only with little thought to the existence of other countries, but also bridging several methods of disambiguation/designation), and I'm sure there are other "special to interest" examples that have nothing to do with placenames.

I suppose in hearing the above facts one could throw his hands in the air and declare: "Oh, well, I guess Wiki will always be that way; one can't very well ask volunteer contributors to contribute in a way they don't feel comfortable with." Yet in spite of this I still do think that a universal method is possible, but before that can happen, a fundamental change must take place: contributors must think of Wiki as a whole, as for now its methods, qualities and criteria are splintered into a myriad of "special interest" groups, each with its own criteria, quality and methodology. I find this phenomenon to be an odd one as, since contributors rarely pay little heed to subjects outside of their own interests and knowledge, they are often not aware of such differences; yet to the reader, whose unpredictable origins and interests are not limited to the same criteria (the same reader may return for several different subjects), these limitations do not exist. So, in short, the contributor is rarely aware of Wiki as a whole, but the reader often is.

I suppose that this is indeed the wrong place for discussing such things. The above did indeed develop with second thoughts about the "City, State" methodology (after an initial show of support), but seems to have moved beyond. In any case, a "solution" for the "city, state" convention will never be reached by quibbling over details here; contributor awareness (and interest) must grow first as a whole. Yet where would be a place best suited to bring this up? I have yet to see (as corny as it may sound) a "Wiki as a whole" section. THEPROMENADER 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The absence of a Wiki-as-a-whole section is probably a good thing: meta is the closest available approximation. In what language would we conduct it?

Even English WP has very little covering it as a whole; and this is also a good thing. With the exception of a handful of universal policies, Wikipedia grows bottom-up, and is inconsistent; see WP:POINT. Universal practices must evolve, with genuinely universal consent, or they are unenforceable; indeed, there's no way for any central bunch of pontificators to ensure that every editor knows of their decrees (the closest I can imagine is putting it into the edit screen; and even that doesn't work). Uniform disambiguation is neither possible nor desirable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I've never spoken "inter- language Wiki" - my concerns are with only this - most popular, and most regarded - English Wiki.

LOL - again, your own arguments for your own conclusions. You are again speaking from a comfortable contributor point of view. Imagine if you had the chance to contribute an article to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I'm sure that you'd pay much more attention to how your article "fits in" in regard to other articles and protocols. That sort of criteria does not yet exist here, so you need not worry. THEPROMENADER 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]

Promenader is proposing the creation of an "all people recognising one way of doing it" method. I simply do not believe that there is any such thing with an entity as large as WikiPedia. Hard copy general-audience references are restricted in the total number of topics, so they don't have problems with naming of "uncommon" molecules and "less well-known" places--which are left to be covered in specialty references, which have their own conventions. With the smaller set of topics, it's easier to have single ("universal") conventions for article naming.

Once you have a "universal" reference (e.g., WP), having universal conventions becomes much less viable. And the technology of redirects and web servers makes it unnecessary. So long as there is both general structure and "local" structure within topics, there is no danger of anarchy or chaos. Redirects easily bridge discontinuities in naming by allowing multiple search paths a single article.

At the risk of Wikilawyering, I'd like to break down the WP:NC 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.

what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize: Even if we allow one-country, one vote, the comma convention appears to satisfy this requirement, since it conforms to what people use outside of Wikipedia. On a strict count basis, which search term is more likely: Kansas City, Kansas or Kansas City (Kansas)?

with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity: I think it's unreasonable to assume that a completely naive reader is the "most likely" reader of a given article. It makes far more sense to structure article titles for readers who are "vaguely familiar" with a topic. After all, who is more likely to be searching for places in the US? People in the US or people outside the US who are completely unfamiliar with US naming conventions? Deviating from conventions familiar to a majority (if not most) readers increases ambiguity, however slightly.

As a side note, I hope we agree that Use the most common name is in the service of "most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" and that this does not mean the reverse, namely the article title should unambiguously call out the common name of the topic.

Most actual readers and users will be familiar with and "comfortable with" the US naming conventions. Those unfamiliar with the conventions may search using a DAB page, or maybe even the parentheses DAB, but it will hardly be impossible for them to find the articles. On the flip side, I believe (but cannot prove) that using a non-standard convention for placenames (in the US and probably elsewhere) in WP will make it harder for most actual readers. At a minimum, I doubt that using parentheses will make it easier for readers than it already is. --Ishu 18:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What you are citing is (again) 'a majority of locals understand their own method (style) of designation/disambiguation'. If you are not interested in any higher level of 'universal understanding' (that the WWW is), then you have nothing to contribute to the debate that I have proposed. THEPROMENADER 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I can also add that you are justifying your points on your interpretation of an existing convention. If I was to argue in the same way, with the same phrase, I could say that "with a reasonable amount of disambiguity" (itself a quite vague phrase open to many interpretations) could mean "don't disambiguate at all if the need is not pressing". I could also point out that this conflicts with the fact that at present there are myriad of articles that have been pre-disambiguated in the "local style", without any consideration at all to whether there is a need (or not) for disambiguation - which makes linking to city articles in no need of disambiguation cumbersome and un-natural thing to do. So there really is no need to play the 'rule' game - just take a method, apply it to a given scenario or circumstance, and see if it works - that's it. If this discussion has been revolving around the "rule game" in this way, it is only normal that it has been going on for ages. THEPROMENADER 00:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As I repeat below, and have noted before, I do not support pre-emptive disambiguation for cities. If you--or anyone else--disagree on my interpretation of the policy, let's have that discussion. You seem to want a policy that says always disambiguate this way, never any other way. I suspect that many others would oppose such an inflexible suggestion. I have been trying to argue that such an inflexible policy is unnecessary, undesirable, and unlikely to achieve the aim you have laid out: to call out disambiguation unambiguously. --Ishu 02:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposal. I assume that disagreement is a legitimate contribution to your debate. --Ishu 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what do you disagree with? That all should be understood by all? Then we can rest assured that you are happy with Wiki as it is. If I am a maverick (at present), then so be it. THEPROMENADER 19:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it's possible for anything to be understood by all. I have stated variations of this claim several times before, most recently: Any scheme of disambiguation--in the title--will always leave some doubt as to whether or not disambiguation is used--in the title. I am not happy with Wiki the way it is, either. --Ishu 19:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Any scheme of disambiguation--in the title--will always leave some doubt as to whether or not disambiguation is used--in the title"

Well, if the whole website uses comma disambiguation and there is a comma in the title, we will know what is disambiguation (and what is not) there will be no confusion. The same will be true if any form of disambiguaation is used cross-board - no confusion. On the other hand, if everyone is "doing their own disambiguation thing", especially when the reader is skipping between subjects, doubt and confusion there most certainly will be. THEPROMENADER 01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good lord, then since having been here (unsatisfied) since so long, it should be you making the propositions! What have you to suggest? THEPROMENADER 19:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have stated my preference before, in discussions with you, in fact. But for clarity:

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.

As for your suggestion that universal comma disambiguation would eliminate confusion, I have addressed this point previously as well as above: No one system of disambiguation will fit all purposes without some ambiguity.

Besides, you observed that royal titles are one example where commas are used for purposes other than disambiguation. Separately, I noted that chemistry is another example of the use of commas and parentheses that is not disambiguation via Wikipedia conventions.

When you warn (sounding like Yoda) doubt and confusion there most certainly will be can you elaborate on the "doubt and confusion"--specifically, who will be doubting and confused? --Ishu 01:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could have done this whole thread in "Yodaspeak" and we'd all be rolling on the floor. I'm less concerned with copying my countrymen (whose company I have not had the pleasure of since going on seventeen years now) than making myself understood, which I was, obviously.

"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."

Well, the above is basically you stating your preference for the comma disambiguation, although the "should be" is a bit strong for an expression of preference, especially since it is not backed with any arguments proving that it is indeed the best option, without any mention even of any other option.

I think it pretty obvious that if every topic is using their own disambiguation method, discerning disambiguation from topic to topic will be more confusing than if the whole encyclopaedia were using the same method.

What of a reader looking for information on (say) Benjamin Franklin's chemical comparison of water from the rivers Seine and Potomac presented to the French court at Versailles and visiting dignitaries from Philadelphia? In all evidence, even though many are (even ferociously) protecting usage in their "own corner", I don't think the question has ever been considered. Again, there's nothing wrong with this per se, but we can say that it doesn't look very serious from an outside point of view. THEPROMENADER 11:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: I am really beginning to wonder what the print version of Wiki will look like. THEPROMENADER 11:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

<------undenting

Well, the above is basically you stating your preference for the comma disambiguation, although the "should be" is a bit strong for an expression of preference, especially since it is not backed with any arguments proving that it is indeed the best option, without any mention even of any other option.

Well, in fact I did "back with arguments" previously, which you apparently took to mean that I have nothing to contribute to the debate that I [Promenader] have proposed.

The alternative that I support, was embedded in the previous posting. Here is the key excerpt:

Once you have a "universal" reference (e.g., WP), having universal conventions becomes much less viable. And the technology of redirects and web servers makes it unnecessary. So long as there is both general structure and "local" structure within topics, there is no danger of anarchy or chaos. Redirects easily bridge discontinuities in naming by allowing multiple search paths a single article.

If you are looking for me to provide an "other option" that is universal throughout Wiki, then you will be disappointed. I will emphasize for emphasis: I do not believe that any one disambiguation system is a good idea. I do believe that it will not be universally unambiguous. I do believe that it is unnecessary. I do believe that it is probably undesirable. I have described this all before, often in responses to your contributions.

Your example is a perfect demonstration as to why universal disambiguation is unnecessary. Suppose you meant to link to Benjamin Franklin (religion), Seine (département), Versailles, Pennsylvania, and Philadelphia, New York. (Potomac is a disambiguation page.) We could write a sentence to add into Benjamin Franklin (religion) like this:

In 1860, Benjamin Franklin visited the Seine region in France on a scientific mission. He had brought water from the Potomac River for comparison. Upon his return home, he presented the findings of his work to a group of French dignitaries, who were visiting Versailles, a namesake town in Pennsylvania.

When contributing there are multiple ways to provide links that are natural for readers to understand. I contend that readers don't care much what are the article titles or the overall system of naming. They just want to find information, and most of this is done through linking, I suspect (but, again, cannot prove). --Ishu 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The debate I proposed was to examine all options to see if there was a way to devise a unique method; it wasn't to defend one method or another with arguments to that end.

True that in-article linking is without a doubt the most-used reader method of getting around - most often they won't even see the disambiguation term. The article title form is important in only two major ways: the visible namespace of the article (being read) and the ease with which contributors can enter it as a link. For the former, I think it would be more "serious" to have a standardised and predictable form; for the latter I think it would be better to have a standardised form of disambiguation that would require less "looking up" (to verify the type and term of disambiguation) when making in-article links. Remember that contributors linking to other articles are rarely the authors of the article linked to - and are rarely from the region being linked to. Knowing what method to use is already one job less.

There's also technicalities to consider, although I don't consider these to be concrete - these can be adapted. At present the "pipe trick" will mask the iparenthesised disambiguating term, so it need only be typed once - does this work with comma as well? Parentheses: Benjamin Franklin ; Comma: Benjamin Franklin. Hey, wow. THEPROMENADER 14:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, your debate proposal is:

Wiki seems to have developed two forms of disambiguation - comma and parentheses. I think it would be useful if Wiki used one of these universally, as this would make disambiguation recognisable for what it is no matter the subject.

I have addressed this just above:

I do not believe that any one disambiguation system is a good idea. I do believe that it will not be universally unambiguous. I do believe that it is unnecessary. I do believe that it is probably undesirable. I have described this all before, often in responses to your contributions.

I have provided arguments for this position above that.

If I am mistaken, please restate your discussion proposal.--Ishu 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's my debate proposal to a tee. Ishu, like I said before, with all due respect, if you prefer to argue only for your preferences, then there is no point in your pursuing the debate any further. Your "beliefs" are very clearly stated, but your arguments for them are selective and not very objective; most all of them are in defence of the existing structure, and none even attempt to examine how things would work if there was one structure - you arguments just stop at "it isn't necessary" and go back to the defence of conventions existing. Nor have you considered the question from the point of view of someone researching/contributing across several subjects - neither visitor can be expected to just stay within one subject and one set of rules, so his point of view should be examined as well.

If you would like to continue, I suggest you take a step back and consider this from a global point of view - exactly what I'm asking in my debate proposition. If there are reasons why several sets of rules and several methods of disambiguation are better than one, you should be able to say exactly why without using generalisations, references to rules existing or already-answered arguements. Remember that the point of my proposition is to look at this from a "universal" point of view, meaning from no country (or no majority or whatever). "Most understand our way of doing it" is not an argument in this light - especially when I'm proposing that we look for a way for any to understand all.

Excuse the brakes, but when we start referring to earlier posts while there still remain points to be answered, that means we'll be going in circles; I'd like to avoid that scenario. Remain objective with concrete examples and we'll be arguing forward, no matter the conclusion. THEPROMENADER 18:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Promenader, perhaps it's time you make a separate page (probably a subpage of your user page initially, or WP:NC as it is wider than the scope of this page), and develop your proposal from scratch. You have heard a number of opinions here, and tend to dismiss any opinions in support of current conventions as being too narrowly focused. If you write up a draft proposal, then there will be something concrete to discuss and improve. You can develop the proposal, then invite others to identify "tricky" articles to demonstrate how your proposed names would be "more natural" or easier to link to than the current names of those articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good advice. I'll follow it, as, although my questions started with doubts about the "city, state" disambiguation, they seem concern things far beyond. Perhaps Serge should follow the same advice, if it is not only the City, State convention he wants to change.

It's not that I am "dismissing" the present conventions - I'm dismissing arguments (for or against) existing conventions for being hors propos, as what I was attempting to develop were ideas for or against a universal disambiguation scheme - discussing a single branch isn't discussing a whole tree.

In summary, the city, state convention will be fine until Wiki does get around to thinking of itself as a whole. Until then Wiki will remain a panoply of "specialist" contributors contributing in their own special way... especially for "high identity" subjects such as towns and countries. This does render Wiki rich as a community, but I tend to think that this lack of coherency may have an effect on people's opinion of Wiki's "seriousness" as a reference, as a whole. Thus, for objectivity, perhaps I should displace this debate even farther away - to a place even outside Wiki. THEPROMENADER 23:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If only for my own sake, I will make this my last comment on this topic for a while. Most topics in Wikipedia, as with knowledge generally, have conventions. Not a few of these (e.g., the various disciplines in science and mathematics) have their own international conventions. Many other subjects of longstanding scholarly inquiry (e.g., so-called Classical music, Art history) also have widely-used and understood conventions. Other topics are somewhat nebulous (e.g., pop culture including television programs) or have local conventions (settlements). These conventions use variations of commas, paretheses, and other everyday symbols for disambiguation.

I have not seen a compelling argument for why the existing conventions are inadequate. So that some person, otherwise naive about several topics, can write an article that spans the topics? Even supposing that is a common and desirable event, yes, WikiPedia seems to work just fine the way it is having other editors fix redlinks, or correct incorrectly formed links. After all, it's the readers that count.

Other than the proposal for parentheses that appears to have been tabled, I haven't seen a single alternative suggestion from Promenader as to what else we might use for disambiguation. Talk about "using generalisations"... One need not commit to any one example, but it might be helpful to offer suggestions as to what might be considered. For example, we could use something ridiculous and cumbersome, like ()AAUAAA() on either side of the disambiguation words. But other than parentheses and commas, most other single symbols that might be used as disambiguators (e.g., #, $, etc.) present technical problems that perhaps could be resolved, but are unquestionably less natural than parentheses and commas--in almost any flavor of English, and probably in many other languages as well. And many single symbols are already used in one or another system of disambiguation, or in Wikipedia-approved common names as I have shown elsewhere.

For what it's worth, I don't even believe that Promenader has been reading my contributions seriously. I have tried to go outside of the "settlements" area (e.g., chemistry) to demonstrate reasons why one method is not really possible. Not one person has even acknowledged (even to dismiss directly) these points. I'd genuinely appreciate feedback from anyone telling me that my contributions aren't worth the electricity it takes to display them--or any other civil comments you'd care to make.

Perhaps once a concrete proposal is drafted, then it might be more possible for me to respond in a way that satisfies Promenader.

[Taking this page off my watchlist] --Ishu 03:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your additons, Ishu: I did indeed read your comments before posting the below. THEPROMENADER 19:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ishu, as noted by Scott earlier, I dismissed some of your arguments - some for being hors propos and others for their being cherry-picked solely to the purpose of proving that the existing convention does not have to be changed. If you want to seriously treat my question of a universal disambiguation, you must take the proposed model and try it and its proposed methods across the board. As I said before, such selectiveness leads that discussion nowhere, as it simply dismisses the initial question out of hand -I don't think that dismissing a unilateral proposition with a selective area and a selective point of view is treating it fairly. If you do not agree with the idea of universal disambiguation, then simply pull out of the discussion; should anything ever come of this, and a movement to change ever made, vote against it. Simple as that. THEPROMENADER 10:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is begging the question: is there any prospect of a consensus for any form of universal disambiguation? Does anyone but Promenader (and perhaps, with his own different system, Serge) want one? Private discussions, to which all are not welcome, should be held on user pages, not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That is your question, and it seems to have more of a barb than a point: it takes a question to get an answer, and once again you are just dismissing the "universal disambiguation" question out of hand as though it doesn't deserve any answer. Like I said before, if you don't like the idea, let it go, and if really no-one is interested, the question will die. This is indeed the wrong place for such a question, I'll grant you that. All the same, to suggest that the question (that you don't like) is something best kept out of sight also has obvious tones of condensention: civility and objectivity are good tools to use on Wiki, as not everything here can flatter everyone's interests and taste. THEPROMENADER 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Chile

Does this edit to create a section in this guideline for Chile have a discussion and consensus anywhere? It is not discussed on this talk page, I can't find a Chile or Spanish-speaking noticeboard or wikiproject. The motive for the convention is to "...help educate the rest of the world about Chile", and a quick glance at Category:Cities in Chile suggests this is a proposed standardising convention, not documenting an existing convention. No other large countries have a naming convention of [[City, Country]] for all articles. Comparison to English-speaking countries would suggest [[City, Region]] to be more appropriate, although Regions of Chile suggests that a roman numeral not a region name may be most common locally. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Santiago, Chile is fairly common in English. But Wikipedia's purpose is not to "help educate the world" about anywhere, and the proposal should be summarily removed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To respond to Scott, first there is no consensus on what I entered, but that is not necessary, especially in the context of how Wikipedia works. If three or four persons are the only people interested in a particular issue for a few days a "consensus" might be reached, which might be entirely contrary to what some other group might reach at another time.

new ideas don't generally begin by consensus, Wikipedia did not begin as a consensus, it just began with an idea which a great number of people adopted and still many people don't agree with it. In spite of that it's become a major tool.

Please allow me to explain my thinking as to why I chose to put this idea on the page:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
A fundamental purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate.
To educate we must communicate, clearly, precisely

The title of an article can convey a lot more information than just a single word if we take the care to do it. I was first struck by this when I came across a list of articles needing attention: Birote. Even though I've spent considerable time working on that article, I still don't know for sure whether this is a "settlement" or if it is some kind of bureaucratic division which may or may not contain several settlements. If the originator of that article had named it "Birote, Pakistan" it would be quite evident to me, and to most other readers that we were indeed discussing a settlement in the country of Pakistan and not something else such as Barm

We all have certain biases (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias)and there is a group of concerned Wikipedia's who see the need to attempt to break through those biases in order to increase the usefulness of this work for other people who may not have the same bias as you or I. This proposal of mine, is an attempt to do just that. I would think that it would be useful if this were to become a universal convention for naming all settlements, but after seeing the endless arguments which have been written about Los Angeles, California, for example, I don't have much hope. Much of the arguments in that debate seem to be a reflection of these biases (ie. why should settlement name be [[City, State]], when the majority of English speakers don't even live in the United States?).

Maybe, by planting a small seed this area might help to change this bias.

A final note, Scott, regarding the Regions, is that with the recent creation of two new regions, this designation in Chile is likely to change.

In contrast to PMAnderson, I do not hold the idea that Wikipedia's function is NOT to educate (you might reread the first Useful link on your talk page and drill down to see what an encyclopedia is). Although it isn't specifically stated in precisely those words, Encyclopedia has a fundamental role in educating. The word comes from the Classical Greek, literally '[well] rounded education',

In summary, I'd like to ask both of you if you can provide any good reason why the proposal not an improvement on the current lack of any direction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaxhere (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

A naming (or any other) convention is only useful (or even a convention) if people follow it. In this case, it would be good if you discussed with other editors interested in Chile geography, and agreed to this. You could then move a few high-profile articles with an edit comment linked to the discussion, and see if that flushes out any more interested people.

To be honest, I don't see that naming articles about towns in Chile with "..., Chile" actually serves to educate anybody about anything. The first sentence should identify that it is a town in Chile. The comma convention name does not exclusively apply to towns, and certainly does not apply to all towns. If the roman numeral convention is going to die anyway, then it would become reasonable to name articles "City, Region", thus educating the rest of the world that Chile has regions, and their names. Are there any duplicate town names in Chile that would clash, getting the same article name under your convention?

My specific concerns are:

The "education" rationale in the naming scheme
The repetitive triple-barrelled names for some articles
The potential difficulty of forcing a "convention" on people without prior discussion

--Scott Davis ^Talk 01:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

_{→I was sure I signed my previous entry, any ommission was purely unintentional.←}

Thank you Scott for your thoughts, and I agree with your view that any convention lacks value if no one follows it. But, between having some guideline which someone might choose to follow and absolutely no direction, I think it is preferable to have something to guide people -- provided it makes some sense.

Let's review your concern that the convention of "Name, Chile" doesn't serve to educate. There is, for example an article called Vicuña and another called Vicuña, Chile. In the first case you have to, read at least one line of text to learn that this article is NOT about a settlement. Certainly, if one reads that line, one learns that they must go elsewhere if they want to learn about a settlement, but if it became a widespread custom we could telegraph this information immediately to the reader in the title. It would be an improvement in communications -- perhaps not world shaking, but just a wee bit better than the current practice of sometimes identifying a settlement in the title and sometimes not. (Or do you hold that an encyclopecia does not exist to educate?)

I agree that this practice is not in universal use through Chile, waht I was attempting to do was set a reasonable standard that might -- through time -- become more and more widely used and (I'm dreaming) maybe be used throughtout the world.

The triple barreled term, as you put it, is I think a rather rare exception and, because it is so rare might benefit from some further thought or simply left out.

Your concern about "forcing" a convention is, in my view, kind of a straw-man. In Wikipedia we can't force anything on anyone, many people will create and edit articles without even knowing about these conventions and others will simply ignore those that they don't like, but if we can provide some positive guidelines they just might catch on.

While we are not talking about a Policy here, I think it is relevant to note that in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines it points out that consensus is only one way in which policy might be established.

Specificially concerning this subject of Settlement names (in Chile), the proposal I set forth, I believe at least meets two of the the Key Policies of WP.

It helps educate (which is the fundamental role of an Encyclopedia, and
It helps deal with bias in the context expressed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias which I mentioned above.

Let's not be concerned with why people might not be eager to adopt it (it's too much work, article editors are lazy or set in their ways, etc.) and set a guideline which helps, educate and communicate effieiently without disrupting Wikipedia.

If you think you can improve on the ideas, please do so.
If you see some problem with the idea (maybe it would oveload WP's system) or some other technical problem, let's consider it.

In the meantime, here is a slightly revised version of what was summarily erased so that others might know what we're going on about.

--JAXHERE | ^Talk 01:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It is preferable to name articles about Chilean settlements [[City, Chile]] to help telegraph to readers that the article is

about a settlement and,
in the country of Chile.

In the rare case where there is more than one settlement with the same name, it could be differentiated from the other by adding the name of the Province to the name of the article (ie [[City, Province, Chile]].

Much better. Is the bit about the article is about a settlement based on the perception that many/most settlement articles have a comma in the title, and most non-settlement articles do not? I do not think this is recorded as a convention or guideline anywhere.

I suggest that there should also be something like "The unqualified Town article should be either a redirect or disambig page." to assist searches to find the right place, to assist editors to link to the right place, and to ward against getting two articles about the same place that later need to be merged.

I still believe (you and possibly others obviously disagree) that there should be a discussion with other Chile geography editors first, move some of the articles to their new names second, so that this page documents the convention rather than imposes the guideline. Then move the rest of the articles if no major objections arise. If there is no appropriate noticeboard or WikiProject, then the talk pages of the individual cities would seem to be the only place to discuss it. Start with no more than five in that case that might be watched by different people. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have the perception that there is a widespread use of distinguishing articles about settlements from articles which are about other things including political and/or administrative areas. It seems to me, that it would make sense to encourage this practice which is why I chose to use the word "settlement" rather than town, city, villiage, or any other designation.

Chile has lists of towns, cities, regions, provinces and municipalities and yet there doesn't seem to be a clear understanding of exactly what each of these mean (ie what distinguishes a city from a town?). There's even an obscure entity called a "comuna" of which I've yet to find anyone in official government offices who can clearly define what the term means. It is easy to distinguish a settlement from an administrative area and this would be a step in the right direction to help clarify all the different possible designations.--JAXHERE | ^Talk 13:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The comma convention is noted here as the "most common" form of disambiguation for settlements, but is not generally accepted as the standard. It is also used for some administrative areas larger than settlements in some countries, and may have also been used for rivers, mountains, historic sites, buildings, streets, parks etc., so cannot be relied on that a two-four word name with a comma is a settlement article. Definitions of city, town, village, hamlet vary in regional dialects of English and legal systems, even in English-speaking countries. It is likely that words in ~~Portuguese~~ Spanish do not exactly map to these terms, so settlement is a fine choice of neutral term for the purpose.

What we need is general agreement of the editors most concerned that your proposal is a good one (or to refine/change it and affirm that version). The note about plain town names is important as that is the most likely search term, as distinct from linking or following links. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So what we need then, perhaps, is a redirect from a simple one-word entry to the fully named article where there is no duplication of the use of the single word for other articles, or a disabiguation page where there are multiple uses. This use of a redirect page is also needeed, in my opinion, where a place name is spelled differently in English than it is in Spanish. Example, Pucón, Chile, would benefit from two redirect pages: one named Pucon (no accent) and another Pucón with the accent. The rational here is that English speaking users are not accustomed to using accents and might not even be aware that one is necessary for a search, yet the article title should best reflect the correct name of the settlement. JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not here to recognize "correct" names (and who decides?), we are here to communicate with English-speakers, and not with a pot of message either. If you want to send a message, use Western Union.

Is there any other support for this propoposed Chilean convention? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

To Jaxhere: Yes, both those redirects would be a good idea, along with Pucon, Chile. redirects are cheap.

To Septentrionalis: There is no evidence that there is not consensus either. Jaxhere has been trying to comply with requests to ensure that consensus can be reached through discussion and moving slowly. It has not raised any objections to the intent yet, only to the form, which is being worked on. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I just created a Chile noticeboard. We can move this discussion to it. Jespinos 18:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Wikipedia talk:Chile-related regional notice board with no opposition. Jaxhere moved a few articles a day with edit comments linking to that discussion. No dissent from regular editors was received, so I have removed the "proposed" paragraph. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Chattanooga, TN

Looks like Chattanooga, Tennessee is the latest city on the let's move cities to the [[City]] drive. --Bobblehead 00:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Cite? I can't see any present evidence of a move attempt. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean aside from this? --Bobblehead 07:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No wonder I couldn't find it. It wasn't properly linked anywhere. Even if apparent consensus for a move had been achieved, I would have reverted it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I could not find proper proceedures for withdrawing a move request, so I deleted it, with is what I have pbserved with other moves that don't meet the criteria. I was not aware that I had to leave "present" evidence of a move. Sorry. Btw, I would have moved it back. - BillCJ 00:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Guidelines

I've reverted the U.S guidelines to list the three (only?) major exceptions to the comma conventions, as it has been for months without objection. If anyone wants to change that, I suggest having a discussion here first. Hopefully, we won't need a survey on this. --Serge 22:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The exceptions are not part of the guideline. They should not be included. -Will Beback · † · 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, this was discussed here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 14#Concrete proposal. -Will Beback · † · 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, Vegaswikian suggested making his change a few weeks ago. There was a 3 to 3 disagreement about it. When I made the change months ago, I had no reason to believe it would be controversial (since it corrected "the only exception is NYC" to "exceptions are ..."). And, no one objected. Then, Vegaswikian suggested his change a few weeks ago; that was clearly controversial (3 to 3 support/oppose). Then he made the controversial/unsupported change anyway. That's what I just reverted. Finally, the guidelines are supposed to reflect convention, not dictate convention. They are supposed to accurately inform editors about what the conventions are out there (so every editor does not have to do his own research from scratch), not determine what some minority would like the convention to be. --Serge 00:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If only three editors support it, while as many oppose it, then there's no positive consensus for it. One editor adding something is the smallest minority. -Will Beback · † · 00:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There were only three editors supporting Vegaswikian's change, and as many opposing it. So there was no "positive consensus" for his change, yet he made it anyway. My change -- months ago -- on the other hand, which I admittedly did per WP:BOLD and the belief that it was uncontroversial (since it was correcting a falsity - that NYC was the only exception), was unchallenged for months. That implied a clear lack of consensus opposition, if not the presence of consensus support for the change. Changing the guideline now is unquestionably controversial and should require a consensus to change it. Note that Vegas' (proposed and unsupported) change is not about going back to what it said before I made my (unchallenged) change months ago, but to something else again: wording that does not say NYC is the only exception (because, presumably that would be blatantly wrong), but wording that implies NYC is the only exception (which is arguably equally wrong and misleading). --Serge 00:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Then let's go back to the earlier proposal and omit the exceptions to the guideline. Unless we can enunciate a general principle for exceptions there's no point in mentioning a few cities that were never voted on as part of the guideline. I don't know of other guidelines that do so. Your change does not become policy just because it was not initially challenged. -Will Beback · † · 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for a guideline that allows for no exceptions. The NYC exception has been in there for years without controversy. After the new exceptions were created (by "new exceptions" I mean the Chicago and Philadelphia actual moves, not the change to the guideline that reflected those changes), saying or implying in the guideline that NYC is the only exception to the comma convention would be inaccurate and misleading. That's a fact, not a matter of opinion, and correcting it should not require a vote! Omitting the exceptions from being mentioned in the guideline would not only be misleading about the facts regarding the actual convention, it would be contrary to consensus. There is probably no wording that would be universally supported, but the current wording (listing the three current exceptions) survived several months without any challenge whatsoever. It seems to be the least controversial wording. But I continue to support putting a disputed tag next to the guideline because, again, I think that reflects the current reality of the situation, and gives us all incentive towards working towards a consensus solution to all this. --Serge 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the inclusion of three exceptions is not uncontrversial. If we need to we could say, "Exceptions are permitted", though that's implicit in all guidelines. -Will Beback · † · 01:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is probably no wording that would be uncontroversial, so pointing out that the current wording, with the inclusion of three exceptions, is not uncontroversial, is not saying much. The issue is what wording is least controversial. With this guideline in particular, since there seem to be significant numbers (though far from a consensus) that want no exceptions (and have been known to inaccurately argue that that's what the guideline says on particular RM surveys), I think it's important to emphasise that exceptions are allowed, one way or the other, in the guideline itself. But I'm dubious about whether stating "Exceptions are permitted" explicitly would be less controversial than the relatively uncontroversial current wording. But, personally, I'm okay with it. --Serge 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well we haven't tried the generic wording so let's see how controversial it is. -Will Beback · † · 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I prefer Serge's "exceptions include Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York City" or nothing to Will's "As with all naming conventions, exceptions to this guideline may be made by a consensus of editors on the article talk pages" as Serge's version is (almost) closed, but Will's is clearly open. I'd prefer "Exceptions are Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York City)" (documenting current practice) or "An exception is made for cities which span multiple states, currently only New York City, and ..." (whatever made Chicago and Philadelphia exceptional). This clearly gives a guide for creating new exceptions to the general rule other than "find a group of passionate editors, and pick a time when the nay-sayers are busy". --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

New York City does not span multiple states. It does span multiple counties, but that is not unique (Atlanta is another example). -- Donald Albury 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If there were a consistent reason for the exceptions then I'd prefer that too. New York is an exception due to its burough structure. The other two cities were changed, well, because there was a passionate group of editors. Let's take out my text and see if there's any text that we all agree on. -Will Beback · † · 07:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, strongly object to the latest wording from Will, which, as I explained above, is very misleading, and was done with little discussion and nothing close to consensus. For the record, this is what it currently says[1]:

The canonical form for cities in the United States is [[City, State]] (the "comma convention"). Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina).

A United States city's article, however, should never be titled simply "city, country" (e.g "Detroit, United States").

Again, NYC has been an exception, and was listed as one, for years. Chicago and Philadelphia are also exceptions. The implication of this current wording is that there are no exceptions and, arguably, that there should be no exceptions. This is misleading, for it does not accurately reflect actual convention nor opinions held on this talk page. But, if I'm the only one objecting, I'm not going to revert it. Anyone else? --Serge 18:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the best argument for using 'New York City' rather than 'New York, New York' is that the latter commonly refers to only Manhattan (i.e., New York County), just as 'Brooklyn, New York' refers to Kings County, New York. I do not see any good rationale for any other exceptions to the 'City name, State name' convention, and I do not think any other exception should be enshrined in this guideline. -- Donald Albury 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether the rationale for any of the exceptions is "good" (a subjective judgment) should not be a consideration regarding whether the guideline that is supposed to reflect actual convention (not dictate it) should indicate whether there are any exceptions or not. What should determine is that is whether there are any exceptions, period. --Serge 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that both Chicago and Philadelphia were controversial exceptions (mostly for the inconsistency that they introduce) while New York doesn't stir up as much ire for the unique reasons listed above. If Chicago and Philadelphia are listed in the guideline, it should be noted that their "exception" status is disputed or controversial. Agne 20:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If they are disputed, that should be noted on their talk pages. --Serge 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's controversial, it should be noted. This entire policy is disputed, so that should be noted on the page as well.--DaveOinSF 21:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Template:Controversial Title somewhere that could be used? It's pretty clear from this talk page and the most recent archives that they are disputed. The fact that some of the editors here didn't particpate in those votes is due to timing and the lack of publicity for the move. The major reason why move request to go back to City, State haven't been issued is that it would be more prudent to hammer out the issue here rather then go through a page move carousel and also to avoid the appearence of WP:POINT. But they are clearly disputed and if the original move request were to go through Today, they would be hard press to gain consensus. If they are included in the guideline under the "exceptions" banner, that should be noted. Agne 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a guideline; it can have exceptions. I've added, at the top, the language from {{guideline}} that says so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That is fine but if there is dispute and controversy over the "exception", that should be fairly noted as well. Surely, you see a parallel here to the in-line citation debate over at the Good Article guideline? Agne 20:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

An interesting point; but I see a clear distinction: Will's short text says nothing about the point at issue, endorsing no position. The equivalent at WP:WIAGA would be a text which did not include the word "inline"; a solution which I would find quite acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the Canadian section, which is otherwise parallel in basically every way, doesn't have the same problem with noting exceptions for well-known cities. Perhaps Canada-interested editors are less anal about the "inconsistency" of Toronto not being at Toronto, Ontario? (Why do we have separate guidelines for the U.S. and Canada anyway, despite the parallel naming structure of provinces/states?) --Delirium 11:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we're less anal...but primarily we're more interested in being in line with the convention in place for the rest of the world than with the endless wankfest over the American convention :-) Bearcat 02:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

1001st edit to this page

To post something (hopefully) light hearted and interesting about this page [2]. Apparently, I just miss the cut off for the top 10. :p Looking at some of the other naming convention pages is an interesting read as well. Agne 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

City related page move for Newark

See Talk:Newark. Please add your thoughts. Whatever they maybe. 205.157.110.11 03:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver

I was clicking a like looking for Vancouver, Washington and was expecting a DAB page but much to my surprise it the Canadian city alone. I found that very odd considering the ambiguous nature with the Washington city and Vancouver Island not to mention the other items on Vancouver (disambiguation). Surely even the "City name" only crowd will think that a page move is warranted? Agne 07:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, here you're just tapping into the "most known" debate. I'm sure that Canada's city of "Vancouver" is the much better known "Vancouver" worldwide (jk - and I'm sure many Canadians won't agree with such a move). There's a DAB line under the title and that is just fine. THEPROMENADER 08:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the Canadian city is "sufficiently more famous" to make it sensible. We don't move Paris to Paris, France or Paris (France) after all, and that is arguably actually less clear-cut than Vancouver since Paris (mythology) is also very well known. --Delirium 08:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This was a WP:RM discussion a while ago. The consensus was clear that it should be left the way it is. Vegaswikian 08:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh if that ain't a head slapper. It is not a matter of most well known like it is some kind of competition but rather if there are other items that well known in there own right that reasonable people would be searching for. Vancouver is ambiguous. Agne 08:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So is Paris. THEPROMENADER 11:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that Vancouver is more so because of the present tense ambiguity. The mythological Paris has a finite sense of ambiguity in that it relates to a historical figure and is confined to one particular realm of knowledge--i.e. European mythology. A similar example would be to compare ambiguity issues between Vancouver and George Vancouver. Vancouver, Island and Vancouver, WA offer more ambiguity by their nature of being current and populated locations. The reasons to search or link for them is immensely more relevant then it would be to link to a mythological figure. Hence, more ambiguity considerations. Agne 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation is disambiguation, no matter the tense or place of the original or compared-to term. If the Roman Paris of myth was better-known to the world than the European city, then the city would be disambiguated. Consensus has made this the standard in Wiki thus far.THEPROMENADER 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver/Naming_conventions#Vancouver for a list of past discussions about this topic. Mkdw ^talk 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Google Stuff

Now I don't doubt that Vancouver, BC is the most well known and would overall get the most google but I think there is evidence that there is enough ambiguity with Vancouver, Washington and Vancouver Island to warrant disambiguation consideration.
Searches with quote marks

1,270,000 for "Vancouver , WA"
1,140,000 for "Vancouver , Washington"
1,810,000 for "Vancouver Island"
- 12.300.000 for "Vancouver, B.C." --THEPROMENADER 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Searches without quote marks

2,990,000 for Vancouver + WA
30,600,000 for Vancouver + Washington
16,600,000 for Vancouver + Portland
- 16,200,000 for Vancouver + USA
- 9,400,000 for Vancouver + united states
- 37,100,000 for Vancouver + B.C.
- 84,300,000 for Vancouver + Canada --THEPROMENADER 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is of ill consideration to our readers to assume that the only Vancouver they are looking for will be the Canadian city. When there are reasonable concerns about ambiguity, a disambiguation should be employed. Why else do we have Cork at a disambig or the logical reasons for keeping Newark at it disambig. Agne 08:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cork is a dab because when most people think of cork, they probably think of wine! The situation you have with Newark is a better argument. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You neglected to mention that "Vancouver, B.C." turns up 12,000,000 results. This "google reasoning" is biased to the "majority" in the extreme - find a more objective argument that doesn't argue for one country in particular. Are you suggesting that we give more weight to US cities because a majority of English speakers (and Wiki users) are American? I don't really get your point. THEPROMENADER 11:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I said that I don't doubt that the Canadian city would get the most google hits but rather that the other Vancouvers are prominent enough to warrant disambiguation consideration. It not matter of giving weight to anybody but rather elemental fairness in that Vancouver should redirect to a disambiguation page. There is a sizable consideration in interest for the other Vancouvers and that is being blatantly ignored right now. Under the US convention, that wouldn't be the case. This situation showscases a major flaw in the "Canadian convention" (disambig if no ambiguity) because it lets "native pride" override common sense to the loss of the reader. Agne 20:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you're arguing for. How much more "well known" does a place have to be than the ten to one Google gives you in order to "deserve" non-disambiguation? I agree that the system is flawed, but this is no way to argue for or against it. The theory that Vancouver is non-disambiguated because of "Canadian pride" is a baseless one, so thanks for saving that sort of rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that all conventions are a matter of "national pride", as every country imposes its own commonplace practices for Wiki articles concerning itself - and it is this that is fundementally wrong.

If anything, "Canadian pride" would be adding the province or even country name to the article title - "Vancouver" alone is not this. Anyhow your Google search example is biased - as most "proof" this sort usually is - because you neglected to search for the essential, which of course only helped to make your own case (although I still can't see what it is). If you want real results, you're going to have to do a search for "Vancouver" alone and count how many articles speak of Vancouver, Canada against other places and countries. In my opinion, sir, the odds are stacked against you.

Yet even my "proving" that little bit solves nothing. The fact of the matter is that non-disambiguation against a convention calling for global disambiguation is a flawed method, as is unneeded disambiguation motivated out of some other desire than a real need for disambiguation; both methods can find a few arguments to support themselves - and all the more if everyone continues to cherrypick and argue in the details - but in looking at them objectively and entirely, neither help the system that is Wiki as a whole.

In short, best spend your energy elsewhere than individual examples that bother you (for whatever reason). If you really want to change things, you're going to have to argue at a higher level than here - or call a broader attention to your argument. THEPROMENADER 21:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe Agne's point was not about whether Vancouver, British Columbia is the most prominent "Vancouver", but simply that there are other significant Vancouvers with a significant body of online documentation about them. As I did most of the link updates when Bath became a disambig page (and a couple of hundred for Cork), I have no inclination to initiate another major city page move for a while yet, despite generally agreeing with the principal. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I get you. The argument wasn't very clear though - "degrees of prominence" is not a very clear concept. Either allow the "top dog needs no disambiguation" rule, or get rid of it all together. Anything between is just shades of grey. THEPROMENADER 23:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, the island is always referred to as Vancouver Island, never just as "Vancouver", so that one's not a valid argument for a dab page. So the matter really does come down to the Canadian Vancouver vs. the American Vancouver, and as things stand the convention does allow for orders of prominence to be taken into account. Whether it should or not, you might want to debate, but as policy currently stands, the Canadian Vancouver getting the undisambiguated title is consistent with policy as it's undeniably much larger and more internationally famous than the American one. Agne also should be aware that the Google searches without quotation marks may well be returning a significant number of results pertaining to the Canadian Vancouver (e.g. [3]), and thus can't be taken into account without that footnote. Bearcat 01:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'll wager that most Americans think that Vancouver is on Vancouver Island. Vegaswikian 07:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That is an awfully good wager to make. I live less then 3 hours from Vancouver, BC and there are quite a few folks even here who think that. Agne 07:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Olympics. I think that should settle the question as to why Vancouver BC is primary. If not, the population of Greater Vancouver BC is also another argument in favor. International notability given to Olympic host cities is significant. Further Vansterdam is known in the US for drugs and sex, so it also has notariety. (see magazines such as FHM). 70.51.9.114 05:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually that gives some more ambiguity to the type of Vancouver articles that a reader would be searching for. Especially over the next few years, a disambig page will become more and more useful for our readership. Agne 07:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how, since Vancouver BC is currently most popular, it is the site of a coming Olympics, it's the one with the largest population, FHM and other men's magazines extoll its virtues. 70.51.9.52 21:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's very nice that you "locals" can discuss this between you. Unfortunately, for most all of the world outside of your neigbourhood (and this coming from a "Torontontarioan"), "Vancouver" is a city before an island. In fact, most aren't even aware that Vancouver is an island. THEPROMENADER 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Most people would think of Vancouver, BC when someone refers to "Vancouver". Furthermore, the Google argument described above could be used for almost any debate. What matters is not the number of results for an alternate city, but the ratio between the two. I mean, "London, Ontario" got 1.3M results, and London + Ontario got 40.2M, but I don't think too many people will argue that London should be a disambig. If anyone's interested, the results for the "other" London got the following:

"London, England" - 14.8M
London + England - 142M
"London, UK" - 42.6M
London + UK - 335M

DB (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the world thinks of Vancouver as the Canadian one. The google stuff shows. Adding a dab page will result in an extra annoying page load for most users. Majority wins here! Canadianshoper 04:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well according to WP:NOThttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">, Wikipedia is not a democracy. However, its a place to bring up a point in the general concensus of Wikipedia that many cities such as London, Paris, and Toronto do not use the naming conventions where province or state is included in the article title. I would say from the conversation that its an overwhelming majority in support of having Vancouver follow the same intentions as was decided by those other examples, in that its by far the most notable place that uses that name and a separate disabig page, which already exists, should be the differ. Mkdw ^talk 08:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On a side note this conversation has a WP:SNOW chance in hell of going somewhere where the previous discussions have not. It's simple, Vancouver will be the most searched and is the most known Vancouver-related articles on the English Wikipedia. A disabig page does exist for anyone who wants to look for other articles pertaining to Vancouver. It's no different than other famous cities, ex. Toronto] etc. etc. etc. Mkdw ^talk 08:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it seems the snowball clause applies here, I'm not expecting my comments to resolve this matter, but here's my two cents worth anyway. Personally, I don't see what the harm would be in adding "British Columbia" to the name. I was led to this discussion during my research on naming conventions (I'm still fairly new at this...learning as I go) after a conflict with the name for the Downtown Eastside article (I believe Vancouver should appear in that name). The Naming convention general rule states that "Articles about cities and towns in some countries should be "pre-disambiguated", by having the article named as if there is a name conflict." Clearly there is a conflict here! However, further down that same page, under the Canada heading it states "Places which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name, such as Quebec City or Toronto, can have undisambiguated titles." One rule contradicts the other, so I guess either is correct. Does that make me a fence sitter? No, if the matter were put to a vote, I would choose Vancouver, British Columbia. Lainyg 23:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually your point is which guideline should carry more weight in a case like this. I would argue that one that avoids a conflict should be the one used. Another way of looking at that might be that country specific guidelines are fine, however if they cause any naming issues with articles from other countries, then the general guideline should apply. Vegaswikian 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Associated Press

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --Bobblehead 02:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Associated Press Stylebook lists the following cities within the United States that stand alone in datelines (i.e. do not need the state listed with them):

Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington.

It continues with stating that these cities were selected on the basis of the population of the city, the population of the metropolitan region, frequency of the city's appearance in the news, uniqueness of the name and how synonymous the city's name with the state that it is located in. All other U.S. cities/locations use the state with the name of the city/town.

The Associated press lists the following cities/locations outside of the United States that stand alone in datelines:

Beijing, Berlin, Djibouti, Geneva, Gibraltar, Guatemala City, Havana, Hong Kong, Jerusalem, Kuwait, London, Luxembourg, Macau, Mexico City, Monaco, Montreal, Moscow, Ottawa, Paris, Quebec, Rome, San Marino, Singapore, Tokyo, Toronto and Vatican City.

While this may or may not help settle the naming convention debate, I figured it was worthwhile mentioning these locations and how the Associated Press refers to them. Mellon123 03:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Support standalone city names per AP style book

Support. I think it would be an excellent idea to use standalone names for all city articles which the AP style book designates as being referred to by standalone name in their newspapers. --Serge 04:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Support and a similar discussion is taking place here − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Support for United States cities only; AP should not be the definitive standard for cities in Canada, Germany, Mexico, Russia, France, England, etc. Bearcat 07:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Support in general, although I think a case-by-case determination of notability and most-notable-of-that-name is the most prudent way to go, on a consistent global basis rather than these strange per-country guidelines. --Delirium 10:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Support. Again.--DaveOinSF 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Support --Yath 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Support, except in cases where there is ambiguity with non-places (like Phoenix). john k 05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Support. If we're going to have a convention for the U.S. that's different from other countries, then we might as well base it on an existing authority rather than making something up ourselves.--Atemperman 20:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Support, but for U.S. cities only. Eco84 | Talk 01:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose standalone city names per AP style book

Oppose. Ah, another strawpoll. The most important lesson for us in the AP guidebook is the value in listing places with city and state. They choose to refer to only a handful of places by cityname alone, while they refer to the overwhelming majority according to the same convention that we follow. Unlike the AP, we're not writing individual stories. We're creating a reference book, and the value of consistency within defined fields is much greater for an encyclopedia than for wire-service articles. -Will Beback · † · 09:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I thought we had a vote about exactly this proposal months ago. Ah, there it is. In the Archives (p. 10) under "A Modest Proposal". The same doggone poll. Why again? Will this happen every few months until the outcome is the "right" one? Phiwum 11:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Adamantly opposed. per Will and Phiwum, and my previous arguments to similar proposals, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. ^Blank ^Verse 12:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose yet another poll started by the same person. I agree with Will above. Also not all of those words are clearly the name of a particular American city, as discussed a month or two ago. Let's keep and expand a consistent and useful naming convention instead of trying to fragment it further. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose yet another poll for now. I don't think the discussion has settled down yet. I think 6 months would be a good time to wait ~~(one month for each poll created by User:Serge while another poll was open?)~~ — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- The issue was raised by User:Mellon123. I just chose to throw in my voice of support to his suggestion in a manner that encourages other to respond as well. It worked. His post was out there for weeks while any one of you could have simply pointed out that this was already voted on (frankly, I forgot). --Serge 18:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  (Strikeout personal attack above, sorry.) It's still too soon; I suspect most of the arguments have been presented, but, as this would require renaming a number of articles and modifying their infoboxes (see the automated time zone task mentioned elsewhere). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per arguments raised at the last poll. Is this going to go anywhere? Maybe its best to just speedy close it. As it looks the original author didn't set up a poll, just threw out an idea that he probably didn't realize was already discussed. Serge then formatted a poll out of this. I would think that he would be aware that this has already been discussed. Agne 20:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- The issue is controversial. As the voting here once again illustrates, there is no consensus in favor of any particular way to resolve it, including staying with the status quo. I think you can expect continued proposals on how to resolve it until consensus is achieved, one way or the other. --Serge 21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it is controversial but this stalemate won't be broken by recycling the same polls and the same arguments.Agne 21:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose How many times do we have to go through this? I think pushing one poll after another is disruptive. Please, no one open another poll until there is consensus here that it is time for a poll. -- Donald Albury 01:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose this perennially rehashed and recycled proposal, complete with already rejected ideas. My previous objections to needlessly changing this proposal still stands. Sorry to be rude, but please, please come up with more convincing reasons to change this convention. I'm willing to be persuaded, but isn't repeated the same rejected idea a bit too...um, what's the word...exhaustive?--²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose This has already been discussed enough. - Itsfullofstars 02:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Concur. One day I will have to count up all the straw polls that Serge has launched on this issue and bring him to the attention of ArbCom as Wikipedia's version of a vexatious litigant. He just keeps beating this dead horse, as we say in America. --Coolcaesar 07:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Who died and made AP god? It is an American news agency, and thus reflects the perspective of a single country and culture. Fishhead64 06:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The current convention itself is peculiar to American cities. If you don't think Wikipedia's conventions should be country-specific, then that's an argument against the current convention rather than bringing the current convention for American cities more in line with the rest of the world.--Atemperman 20:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose -- redirects are happy. Redirects make users happy. Redirects are sufficient. Use Them. Making otherwise non-standard names is simply a waste of our time. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Coolcaesar. Serge made this discussion, which could have been
- decent idea, but remember St Louis and others are ambiguous.
- There's no consensus to change, link to Poll on Tariq's proposal
- Do you have new arguments?
into this redundant poll. I believe this borders on disruptiveness, and am willing to sign an RFC on the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Eh...I don't know how disruptive this really was. It seemed like most were ignoring it till some of the folks who disagreed with the UTC page move discussion came here to start the discussion back up. Then everyone sort of had to chim in to prevent some "faux consensus" from being proclaim. It was redundant and pretty pointless for Serge to turn this into a poll but there are a lot more disruptive things that could have been done that would be more deserving of a RfC. Agne 03:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - again and again --Orange Mike 15:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - WP:NOT a newspaper. FCYTravis 20:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Since AP is a US based organization, are you suggesting this for all cities or just US cities? If you're suggesting this for all cities, I have to say that this would introduce a US bias. 70.51.9.114 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the AP "standard" apply to articles written for newspapers outside of North America, or is it a standard about US cities for US newspapers? --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason nobody responded to the original comment is because we knew it had already been discussed and there was nothing new to say. We have to respond to a poll or Serge will claim there was consensus to support his view when we are all just too busy in real life to respond. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I don't find that a standard used for press releases is necessarily a great idea for a naming convention used by people who are doing online research. Wikipedia is a research tool. The standards used for press releases have changed considerably over time and are more flexible than what should be used for purposes of research. City, State is a reasonable convention. The US Postal service established and still uses this convention. I find that much more credible than the AP as far as generating an enduring standard to follow.-Matt 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Canada

Was there a consensus for Bearcat's change to the Canadian guideline? While it is only a few words, it completely changes the expected title for thousands of articles about places in Canada, and tens of categories. Someone could be planning a mass rename based on this new interpretation. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. He/she inverts the established convention, which is to use the comma form by default, and only to use the plain form for well-known cities; not the reverse, to use the plain form by default and only use the comma form where necessary. --Delirium 10:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The established convention permits the plain form for well-known cities and for lesser-known cities (e.g. Iqaluit) whose name can be shown to be unique and therefore to not require disambiguation. In other words, the comma form is not any kind of "default" as the convention currently stands; the words I added were entirely consistent with the convention as written. If you think otherwise, you're seriously misreading the convention. Bearcat 06:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. His change also goes against the Vancouver issue since disambiguation would be needed there but they have came up with other reasons to keep it there. I think Bearcat's change should be hammered out here for consensus before being added to the guideline. Agne 19:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for gawd's sake. It does no such thing, nor was it intended to. I withdraw it entirely, and invite everybody to just plain forget about it. And no, Vancouver does not require disambiguation under the naming convention as written; the "other reasons" Agne is alluding to are direct quotes from the existing convention in the first place. Bearcat 05:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note a requested move in progress, the main discussion of which is taking place at the Current Local City Time Wikiproject talk page. The move would result in a de facto change of policy on Canadian names, requiring that even "most prominent" cities like Toronto and Montreal include the province in the article name. -Joshuapaquin 04:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy discussion

I don't see mention here that there is a naming policy discussion taking place in Village_pump_(policy) [4] (SEWilco 05:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

Interesting discussion but I don't see how it directly relates to this page? Agne 05:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What to do next?

Should the long discussion threads be refactored out of the list of pros and cons and moved to a section below, so the list of pros and cons for a position can be kept short enough to fit on a single screen? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good question. I have been giving this a some thought. I was thinking of moving this topic to a subpage, then closing the discussion. I believe that there is consensus that some of the options are not worth considering and for now can be ignored. There there are a few that had very few comments. Since those lack a large number of pro comments, they too can probably be ignored for now. So what to do with the remaining ones? Some refactoring probably makes sense. We also need to continue discussion on dealing with the cross-country naming that has been raised here. I was considering a second discussion like this to list and see how the various guidelines and policies impact city naming. They keep getting thrown around without much basic discussion. I was also considering a discussion on how common name, style sheets and disambiguation affect city naming. Since I started this, I guess I need to continue. So suggestions on how to proceed? I will not move towards any kind of decision process since I don't feel that would be productive at this time. There is still too much to learn for most of us before consensus might be looked for. Vegaswikian 20:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

- - Several other long-standing discussions have an agreed set of pros and cons, we could do the same, then at least the process can move forward, and new people can be directed to read the background. Moving the discussions out of the lists is a step towards that. A few of the pros and cons are flagged as disputed - we need to back those up with references one way or the other to show if they're legitimate. Then we can discuss the relative merits without having to rehash the arguments. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    I am 100% for compiling the list of pros and cons, their objections, and objections to objections. Even if no consensus is reached as a result of this discussion, such list would at least prevent starting a new discussion totally from scratch, as all major ideas and concerns would already be neatly summarized.
    
    As for reaching the consensus per se, I am afraid we are hitting a stone wall here. The reason is not even that both sides seem to be too prone to emotional outbursts (although that certainly plays a role in muddling the discussion), but that all objections ultimately boil down to unverifiable assumptions. For example, I can vouch that the system which does not use pre-disambiguation is not confusing, is very logical and is helpful to readers. I can back that up with the fact that in all the time this system was used with the Russian inhabited localities there was no single complaint about it being confusing, and the new articles are being consistently created under the correct titles. US editors, on the other hand, can say exact same thing in regards to the United States, where pre-disambiguation is used exclusively. Yet, these empirical statements of both sides cannot be measured—just because there had been no complaints doesn't mean people did not get confused without voicing their frustrations aloud—a possibility with any naming convention! Hence, we could assume that the problem is not determining which system is better, but how the fact that two incompatible systems are being used in similar topical areas (names of settlements) affects general usability of Wikipedia as a whole. But here we hit the same wall again—no empirical evidence exists that naming US cities one way and the cities in the rest of the world the other way has negative effect on usability. Which brings us to the root of things—we should decide whether uniform naming conventions are good for Wikipedia, or whether uniformity doesn't matter. Even if it doesn't matter much now, will it still be the case when Wikipedia grows to five million articles? Ten million? Hundred million? A huge question to answer for sure, but imagine how easier things would be once it is answered once and for all—we would either be striving to standardize all naming conventions across all fields as much as possible (without sacrificing quality, of course), or we would always be stopping such standardization efforts, thus saving editors their valuable time to do other, more productive things. We would set a strategy that would guide us for a long time to come, instead of fighting pointless tactical battles every few months. Let's set a philosophy first and rules later—what do you people have to say about this?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would support "uniform naming conventions are good for Wikipedia", but I think I mean something different than you and Serge. I support Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), leading to attempting to name articles so that they do not and will not need to be moved to disambiguate in future. I also support the abolition of "primary topics" - if there is ambiguity, give every article a unique name, and move the disambig page to the primary word/phrase. Is naming an article Walla Walla, Washington predisambiguation or style, before you discover there is also Walla Walla, New South Wales and Walla Walla (tribe)? What about College Place, Washington next door? What would you name the articles Chief of the Defence Force (Australia) or Encyclopædia Britannica? Both articles have titles with an extra word to assist precision, otherwise known as "predisambiguation".

Nobody has yet downloaded the database and attempted to count the number of settlement articles, and what proportion of those a) contain a comma, b) would be ambiguous as primary topic, c) contain parentheses or d) are in the USA. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here! Here! Scott sums it up perfectly. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. Stupid question, but is it possible to download the db? With a bit of php we could certainly have some 'solid statistics' fun. Although separating 'placename' articles from the rest would be a gargantuan task... but we could do an accurate 'comma disambig vs. parantheses disambig' count for sure. THEPROMENADER 11:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Case-by-case basis

I believe that the most logical way to go about this issue is by a case-by-case basis. For example, the articles Philadelphia and Chicago were moved by voting on their respective talk pages. I propose that we allow an open forum of discussion on articles talk pages on whether an article should be located at city or city, state without a convention that dictates which is proper overall. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 20:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro as per proposal. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 20:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of the naming conventions

(edit conflict though I see Vegas has another idea) An interesting discussion came as an offshoot of the Infobox discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Current Local City Time regarding ownership of the different country naming conventions - (i.e. American editors deciding the American convention, Canadian editors deciding the Canadian convention, UK editors deciding UK etc). The Canadian editors do make interesting points but in dealing with this decision over the last few months, it's hard not to see the centergy and interconnected nature all the articles have. Many times the affect of one article's title will have repercussion on several more articles--especially with City names where there are often similar city names in other countries. In tackling this complex issue is it best to split off into "national parties of editors" working independent or would it be best to start from scratch and try to hammer out one worldwide Wikipedia convention. Agne 21:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. You are brave to bring this issue up. My basic reaction is that it is better to have a strong guideline that covers all settlement names with local editors refining the basic guideline as needed. So, if the basic guideline was comma convention, then the local editors would decide what was used before and after the comma(s). If the basic guideline was city, then the local editors would need to select a format for more descriptive names either as a style sheet or using disambiguation. Vegaswikian 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think that might go just a little too far. Having one guideline that covers everything is not the answer, hense why there are conventions by country. Things vary by country; they are unique. As for the ownership thing, it's kind of an informal agreement between wikipedians that we will not make you change your convention, and you don't make us change ours. It's obvious that the US has no consensus on convention (from the above). So, the rest of us should sit back and let the US wikipedians decide what to do, as we probably would need to read a ton of background into it. We will let the locals deal with local matters, and we will deal with our own matters. Even though this is an international encyclopedia, it's divided. You can't possibly expect that editors from the US, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Germany, Russia, China, ect will all be able to find agreement on everything. Especially when we're talking about things that involve one country (such as the US discussion above). Therefore, it makes sense to stay to your own country unless you understand what is going on presently, what has in the past, and all the pages worth of discussion that have happen to lead up to now. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Well we've had editors from other nationality chim in on the US convention before and I, personally, don't think that is an issue. In fact, I would expect other editors to be keenly interested in the US convention a rather large segment of the "settlement" articles are US related. As the project moves towards more consistency and respectability, the status of the US convention may very well have an effect on the other countries' articles. Agne 05:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    - You're perfectly free to express an opinion on the Canadian convention; nobody ever said you couldn't. What's being objected to is your seeming belief that you should be able to arbitrarily dictate and force changes to the Canadian convention without Canadian input. Bearcat 06:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Well considering that not even admins could arbitrarily dictate and force a change to any convention, I don't see where there is reason for concern or assumption of bad faith. Things are done here by consensus, always has and always will. Agne 06:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      - I doubt anyone even considered planning to "...arbitrarily dictate and force changes to the Canadian convention without Canadian input". That doesn't mean that the convention for naming articles about cities in Canada can't be changed by the whole community (including Canadians and Chileans and everyone else) any more than any other Wikipedia guideline. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Agne that the naming conventions belong to the entire community, not only to the editors from the country that the towns/cities happen to be in at the moment. That said, I expect most details (on any NC, not just settlements) to be sorted out by applicable wikiprojects. I attempted to raise a discussion a few months ago about commas in the names of all settlement articles (linked from the archive box), and quickly discovered that one size cannot fit all. We can attempt to create some "metaguidelines" on how to create broadly consistent guidelines for different countries and situations. Variables include big or small, federation or not, English-speaking or not, etc. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that something wacky like common sense should prevail. There's a reason why we have This article is about x, for other uses see x (disambiguation) - and it is because there are certain settlements wheich are undeniably, universally better known. It would violate common sense to have Toronto, Paris, or Moscow redirect to a disambiguation page - and if they don't redirect, why specify "Ontario," "France," or "Russia"? Because significant numbers of people might be confused?

There is a discussion, initiated by me, at Scarborough which highlights the parochialism inherent in such discussions nicely. Currently, Scarborough redirects to a settlement more than ten times smaller than Scarborough, Ontario - and English wikipedians are arguing that it is better known, although the Google results do not support that claim. But it is the case that if you ask any Canadian where Scarborough is, they'll say "Toronto," and a Brit will say, "Yorkshire." Currently, the consensus seems to be moving to a redirect to a disambig page and a renaming of the article Scarborough, North Yorkshire. This seems reasonable since the case is not clear-cut, and reflects the common sense of which I spoke - a common sense that prevails in large cities like Boston and smaller centres like Lloydminster.

I really do think that the number of cases requiring a genuine tussle are few. But since some wikipedians think Vancouver is ambiguous, perhaps I am being too sanguine about the power of parochialism. A drive along the Interstate 5 through the little town of Vancouver, WA takes fully seven minutes. London, Ontario, anyone? Fishhead64 06:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

London, Ontario indeed. That, and Paris, Ontario is not 60km away : ) THEPROMENADER 11:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Berlin used to be close by as well... Bearcat 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Other issues relating to naming conventions

I wanted to bring this up as a separate discussion because it doesn't really lend itself to an argument in favour of or against any particular naming convention, but it is an issue that needs to be raised nonetheless.

No matter what convention is used, people don't always realize that there is a constant need to clean up situations where people link to the wrong targets. People frequently link to undisambiguated location titles even for American topics. For instance, just moments ago, in doing a bit of research, I actually had to clean up links to the undisambiguated Worcester and Springfield in the article Massachusetts itself, a topic where most potential editors know perfectly well that Worcester, MA and Springfield, MA are not at the undisambiguated titles. Then I looked at Worcester, and found at least one example (J. Geils Band) where the article contained links to both Worcester, Massachusetts and the undisambiguated Worcester in different places in the article. The status quo isn't any better or worse for the existence of incorrect links than other conventions are, but what I do want to say is that people rely entirely too much on the assumption that the "predictability" and "consistency" of an invariable "city, state" format eliminates this problem, when in fact it doesn't — instead, it makes people more likely to not realize that there is a problem.

Let's take a look at one example: Justin Timberlake's Justified and Stripped Tour. With the solitary exception of Washington, DC, every concert location in that article is linked to without a state disambiguator, meaning that in numerous cases (San José, Phoenix, Portland, Oregon, St. Louis, Memphis, Orlando, Rosemont, Buffalo, Columbus, Uniondale, Albany, Saint Paul) it's linking to dab pages. And if you check their "what links here" tabs, every last one of those dab pages does have other articles linking to it instead of to the intended American geographic location.

What I would recommend is that the American contingent start compiling a list of topics that need to be monitored for wrong-topic links, similar to the one I started some time ago at the Canadian notice board. Start with the pages I've noted here, and add to the list as needed. This issue does exist no matter what naming convention is used; the "predictability" of the current American convention does not, in fact, prevent it from happening for American topics. Bearcat 06:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Links to dab pages are easier to fix then incorrect links to articles. With a dab you know all of the incoming links need to be changed. Where there is no dab and the links go directly to an article, all of the inbound links need to be checked and a decision made if it is correct or not. In many cases, the context may not be clear from the article text. Portland, Oregon being an excellent example for anyone who is not familiar with what cities that tour finished. One list of cleanup for places appears at Disambiguation pages maintenance. The problem is not only US articles or Canadian ones. Vegaswikian 06:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also aware of this issue, and it's the major reason I advocate the comma convention for all city/town articles. Any links direct to the article are deliberate, any to the plain name are candidates to have been made by accident. I'd support that any plain city names that are redirects and have a matching "City (disambiguation)" article should be fixed to have the disambiguation page at the primary name. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions bypass of this page

Just thought I should notify watcher of this page that three or four individuals on a minor discussion page resulted in one person deciding to trash conventions of disambig pages for initials and letter combinations.

See the WP:Tfd for Template:2cc(edit talk links history), where 2CC through 5CC have been nominated for deletion as were their categories on CFD. // FrankB 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Settlements

Question posed: Is 'Settlements', 'Human Settlements' or 'something else' the best collective term to be used in WP for 'cities, towns, villages, and the 'like', such as is currently used in Category:Settlements and Category:Settlements by region and their subcategories. Whatever is decided, there also needs to be an article named 'Settlements', 'Human Settlements' or 'something else' that explains and supports the chosen term. Thanks Hmains 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A Possible source of information is Google search on 'human settlements', not 'settlement', though--of course--Google is not the controlling factor in what WP editors decide to do. Hmains 22:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been attempting to overview and tidy up the geography cats which involve the places where people live. There appear to be two useful ways of doing it - by region, and by size. I discovered that User:Hmains uses the term settlements to cover all sizes of communities. The dictionary definitions [5] don't appear to fit this understanding of the term - and Hmains has altered the definition to fit in with Wiki usage: [6]. However, community appears to be the term used most often to describe the places where people live, regardless of size. This is the definition of community - [7]. Hmains bases the use of settlements on this decision, which was a declined proposal to rename Settlements by region to Populated places by region. What do people think? Is settlement the appropriate term for covering human communities ranging from well established cities down to refuge camps? Is community a viable alternative? Are there other choices? I started a discussion here and here, with the above wording, and have now linked those places to here to have one place in which to discuss this. I have left this message on the talk pages of active Geography Project and Category Project members. And then on this page. I am a bit lost as the best place to discuss this issue. I don't want to delete or rename any category. And I don't want to get into a revert war. I'd like an open debate to reach sensible consensus. SilkTork 10:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Settlements are small, newly created communities, generally on the "fringe of civilization". One wouldn't call New York City or Seoul a "settlement". Communities would be a much better general term. Parsecboy 20:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

'Communities' has been previously rejected as an alternative to 'Settlements'. See the article on 'Community' and it should be clear why this term does not apply to places of human population, such as cities and towns. A community, as shown in WP and as commonly used, is something that is self-created by people having/pursuing a common interest, with common beliefs, etc. Hmains 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that 'Human Settlments' would be the best term. See Google search for this term, not 'Settlements', and review the results to see current public use of this term. If so, an article on 'Human Settlements' should be created where the term can be fully discussed; it cannot not based on original research, I suppose. Thanks. Hmains 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the term settlement. However, I'd go with the word community if someone really prefered it. Being a geog school teacher, there are sections in our text books entitled Settlement but none entitled community. Generally in my mind, community seems to be a smaller unit. I would like to say that it was a USA v. UK lignuistic issue but actually I think you're both british so that's not very helpful. Choose one or the other and be done with it, it's not worth the grey hairs to debate it at any length. Thank you for asking my advice, just enjoy the real work in finding and adding encylopedic info. SuzanneKn 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

- Here's what I found:

32,600,000 for settlements 2,380,000 for human settlements 213,000,000 for communities 940,000,000 for community 104,000,000 for settlement 25,400,000 for human settlement 515,000,000 for human community 113,000,000 for human communities

To me, settlement or human settlement seems a better description of a place where people live or have settled, whereas community implies a developed town. Of course, I have no real expertise, little knowledge of Wikipedia rules other than the basic ones concerning article structure and content, and no clue why anyone wants me to help give advice. I agree with SilkTork's general plan for division of categories below human geography, but I personally favor the term "human settlement". Unfortunately, I'm still confused as to what is being debated and why. --queso man 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I like using "settlement" as the catchall term, I somewhat grudgingly acknowledge that I don't think any other better term has been suggested (at least not one that didn't have it's own shortcomings). Regarding usage of the term, I might note that the United Nations Human Settlements Programme apparently subsumes the entire range of human habitat. older ≠ wiser 20:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The counts above appear to be for the terms, without regard to the intended semantics, so are essentially useless. "Settlement" appears to have some support as a catchall term outside of Wikipedia so is acceptable. It's also neater than "populated place" which is the term I've usually noticed in gazetteers. To me "community" implies a degree of common interest or friendship not necessarily found in some of the cities included here. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Having completed a little bit of research into this, it appears that the two most common terms are settlements and communities. Populated places is used mainly by atlases, and human habitats is a vague usage that will need looking into. It is possible that we could go for a vote on one or other of the two main terms - settlement or community. We could also propose putting the terms together: Human settlements and communities, thus covering all shades of meaning and avoiding conflict in the future. SilkTork 13:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Parsecboy's argument seems to be pretty good here. Settlements seems more specific; big cities would generally not be called settlements. "Human settlements and communities" hardly seems necessary when "human communities" will cover it. "Populated places" seems even better, because it covers places which have one or two people (which "human settlements" would also cover), whereas community strongly implies many people. However, "populated places" has the downfall of applying to all organisms, and "Places populated by humans" is too wordy. Human habitats just...sounds awkward and weird. I really can't think of any other good ideas (though I'm sure there some). --queso man 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is a few more ideas for you: "inhabited localities", "populated localities", "populated areas", "human habitats", "populated/inhabited zones". "Inhabited localities" is my personal favorite (it is often used in the English language works on Russian geography and administrative structure). "Human-infestated zones" is another one to consider :).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What we actually mean, at least in Europe and the English-speaking countries, is municipalities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Some sources

Settlements:

Answers.com "A newly colonized region. A small community."

I don't like this source as it's usually nicked the info straight from wikipedia itself! SuzanneKn 21:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

UN stuff "Human settlements means the totality of the human community - whether city, town or village - with all the social, material, organizational, spiritual and cultural elements that sustain it."
UN Habitat No clear definition - talks equally about habitat.
[8] "urban centres of Latin America, Asia and Africa"

Communities:

Answers.com "1. A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government. 2. The district or locality in which such a group lives."
[9] "there are many types of communities. But they all have one thing in common: they’re places where people interact in some way."
UK government
Cambridge University

Populated places / Places:

[10]
U.S. Geological Survey

Human habitats:

Wikipedia
UN Habitat Same link as above for Settlement

SilkTork 12:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguments

In favour of Settlements / Human settlements

Settlements is already used on Wiki
The UN uses the term (though a definition isn't given and is left to interpretation)
The term is used in some geography books (but a definition hasn't yet been sourced)

In favour of Communities / Human communities

It is the accepted dictionary definition
It is used in geography books (definition offered here)
It is the UK definition, as used by the UK government and academic institutes [11]

In favour of Populated places / Places

It is a term used in atlases
It is the term used by the United States Geological Survey

In favour of Human habitats

It is a term already used on Wiki

Against Settlements / Human settlements

Settlements is usually understood to be a small or new place so there is some confusion when used for large and/or established places
It doesn't conform with agreed dictionary definitions

Against Human communities / Communities

It is not currently used on Wiki so changes would need to take place
The focus of the term may be on the people living together rather than the dwellings and infrastructure
It does no include areas with only one or two people

Against Populated places / Places

It is mainly an atlas term
It has no widespread and understood use
It is not specific to humans

Against Human habitats

It's use here on Wiki appears to be fairly unique
It has no widespread and understood use

SilkTork 12:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Vote

Given the above evidence it appears that Settlement and Community are the two main terms. Both terms are used. Neither appears to have a clear and established authority over the other. There are problems associated with using either one of them on their own. There is a proposal to use both terms together to avoid future confusions and conflict. The vote here is to indicate which of the several above terms people feel is the more useful.

Support Human settlements and communities

Support. I feel this combines the benefits of both terms and avoids future doubt. SilkTork 13:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Support Human settlements

Support - This describes what they actually are. "Communities" can mean anything from a faith community to a neighbourhood community. Fishhead64 16:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Support - This is what geog students study when looking at places. "Communities" need not be put in one place. We are really operating now in the Wikipedia community and we are in lots of places. Similarly as Fishhead says there are religious communities such as the Josephite community which has schools in numerous different locations but is one community. SuzanneKn 21:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Support - per UN precedent (for what its worth) --Dystopos 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Support - the best of the alternatives currently offerred. Communities, as defined and used in WP and elsewhere, always imply a shared, voluntary goal or interest--not applicable to ordinary living places such as cities, towns, villages, etc. Hmains 03:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Support - With "Human" not being required as a descriptor for human settlements. (SEWilco 21:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC))
Support In a postmodern sense, communities can exist without spatial boundaries - MySpace communities, religious communities etc. 'Settlement' is a term which only applies in a spatial sense.--Cooper-42 17:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Community is a broader term, this is more specific. GeoW 07:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Human communities

Support Populated places

Support Settlements has too many connotations to be right: it implies small, isolated. Communities doesn't mean co-location; isn't there a Wikipedia community? A Latino community? A Jewish community? etc., etc. However, what New York City, Tokyo, and Zamora, California all have in common is that they are populated places, which is a neutral term that doesn't have much connotations, unlike settlements and community. Carlossuarez46 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Nonetheless, only one person does a populated place make. Moreover, everywhere is populated by something - all "populated" means is that one or more of a categorizable entity can be found there. My home, for example, is populated by one human, two guinea pigs, and an unquatifiable number of dust mites. Fishhead64 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment for the same reasons you articulate your house is a "human settlement" as would be my house, and my neighbors' and everyone's house unless they are not settled there (vacation house? hotel? brothel?). None of these are perfect, but "human settlement" seems an odd thing to call New York City. Nearly all these choices also have the problem of being too inclusive: I assume that (e.g.) Iceland is a human settlement, a populated place, etc..... Carlossuarez46 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Human habitats

Comments

Objection. It is way too early to hold a poll. Voting is not the way to build consensus. I refer you to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Please, let us discuss the merits of different forms first. -- Donald Albury 20:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern - but let's take into account human nature. A lot of people will visit this page just the once. Without a means to cast their vote in an orderly manner, people will leave a comment for which naming they prefer and this will have to be untangled later. I think it's OK for someone to look at the arguments and sources, do some research themselves, bring in whatever knowledge they have, make comments and suggestions, come to an opinion and leave a vote. Where it would be inappropriate is if the vote closed too early. SilkTork 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I do not want to see 'drive-by' votes here. This will not be settled by counting votes. A consensus doesn't work unless everyone buys into it. This means that even if not everyone agrees with the consensus, no one is willing to disrupt it. It is very unlikely that we can reach that stage by voting. -- Donald Albury 03:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The evidence doesn't suggest we are going to get a huge level of interest here. Already people have come and gone without casting a vote. I doubt if some of those people will be back. I have broadcast this as loud as I could, and response has been minimal. I think we take what we can get. Protracting this discussion will inevitably lead to no decision being taken. And remember that no decision taken here is eternally binding, and that the decision, while significant, is not hugely important. SilkTork 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I would deprecate moving this page, although I see the problem. There are several pages on more or less the same subject(WP:NCGN comes to mind, and there is at least one more). Let's leave this where people can find it; it has enough endemic woes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a poll to change the name of this page, to change the text of the page, both, or something else? The parameters are unclear, therefore the voter turnout is low as we don't understand the effect of a decision. It is also suffering from the fact that there have been far too many polls instead of discussions on this page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a discussion on how best to categorise the places where people live. The notion is that we should have one uniform name, and that we should back up the name with an article. Currently there are scattered categories using variations such as Human habitat, Community, Settlement and Populated places. The most widespread use is Settlement. Evidence has been presented to show that Populated places is used in maps, Human habitats is not used, and there is widespread use of Human communities and Human settlements. The evidence suggests that Human communities is used slightly more widely than Human settlements, but that Human settlements has gained a foothold on Wikipedia and editors are more in favour of continuing that trend. A preference for Human communities has come from editors who feel that most readers and users of Wikipedia might not fully understand the term to mean places of all sizes as the general public understanding of the term is of a small or new community. Whichever term is settled on, there will need to be some text on the category and a supporting article to explain the usage of the term, and to prevent future challenges. I am quite happy to do that. There is only one poll. When the poll is complete, the result will go forward to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for ratification. SilkTork 20:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Use different terms in different contexts - for pity's sake! There is a reason why different terms are used in different contexts - it is because different contexts require different terms to avoid confusion. Geographers use the term 'settlement' in a very specific way. The public use the term 'settlement' in another way. Community has a range of senses, as does habitat. The terms city, village, hamlet, town, commune, metropolis and so on, are other words within this grouping. It is quite probable that English does not yet have a word suitably encompassing for our purposes, and it is bordering on creating a neologism to come up with a descriptive phrase like 'populated place' and try and shoehorn everything into that box.

The problem with the names of categories is that people think that the top category in a hierarchial category structure (note that not all category structures on Wikipedia are hierearchial) needs to be applicable to all the articles within the category. This is an unecessarily pedantic requirement. There are plenty of what I call 'spectrum' categories where this sort of handwringing can and has taken place, but in most cases no reasonable solution is ever found. For example: Category:Disasters and Category:Massacres both (if you look far enough down) contain events that are not, in the strict sense of the word, disasters or massacres, but the umbrella name applied to the top category is used to give a sense of what is inside the box, not an exact description of what is in the subcategories.

So my feeling is that rather than waste time on voting on, or discussing, names, concentrate on categorising articles and sorting out category structures and organisation. Categorise settlements in a settlements category, cities in the city category, etc, etc, and leave an explanatory note in the top category explaining what should be in there and explaining that the category name is not meant to be exact. After all, this category will only be visible in the category namespace, as it should not be used in any articles (there should be more specific categories for the articles). Carcharoth 16:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion arose, in part, because I objected to the definition of 'settlement' given here, which does not agree with any dictionary I've been able to find. I suggested 'populated place' because it is used by the USGS for any entity with a human population that has map coordinates. I realize that this is a US-centric convention, but at least it is an established use, and I thought it was clear, unambiguous and not in conflict with existing definitions. I'll just be happy if we avoid making up new definitions for words that conflict with established dictionaries. -- Donald Albury 00:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Places in Czech Republic and Slowakia should be treated similar to those in Poland

As it seems to me that there is no naming conventions in effect (and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Czech) seems to have discussed hockey rather than history), I suggest that places in Czech Republic and Slovakia that were part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire until 1918 should be treated similar to those in Poland that were part of German, Austrian and Russian Empires until 1918, with a new section:

Czech Republic and Slovakia

Use the common English (e.g. Prague, Carlsbad) name or in absence thereof, the current Czech Republic or Slovakian name. When mentioned in a historical context, if there is not a common English name for the city in that historical period and context, use the appropriate historical name with the current local name in parentheses (if it is not the same word) the first time the city is mentioned.

The same applies to Bohemia, Moravia, Sudetenland in historical contexts.

Also, I think that other former Austrian areas, mainly South Tyrol in Italy, deserve to be covered with a similar policy. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 21:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, what you mean by historical context is to add german names to all czech names. Edit with good faith and keep your nationalism back to your pockets and don't start another thread Danzig/Gdansk. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There is already WP:NCGN. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Per above, very strong object to this policy fork. WP:NCGN is enough.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Talking of Danzig/Gdansk - I was reading that page the other day, and I was struck by how the parts of that article covering the history of the name make the naming dispute look, well, silly. Just treat it objectively from the point of view of a linguistic scholar and give all verifiable name variants, with the dates and history, and thus educate the reader. The only dispute that is then left is to decide on the article name, which then becomes the primary name used in the article when there is not a reason to use any of the other names. Common sense, really. Carcharoth 16:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree in general with the approach; but please consider how this wording will work elsewhere. We do not want to give all verifiable naming variants for London, for example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

German/Austrian municipalities and locations

How should different German (and possibly Austrian) municipalities and locations with the same name be disambiguated?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions#Disambiguation covers many of the points below for Germany, at least. Olessi 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

German name in use

If there is a German name with a distinguishing addition in use, should that be used, e. g. Garching bei München and Garching an der Alz? Should it be translated, e. g. "Garching near Munich", "Garching at the Alz"?

My opinon: I would like to use German names already in use (if they exist) as specifiers. Daranios 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Translating is definitely not a good idea. Ksnow 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Ksnow

Should not be translated. Olessi 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally against translations of proper names. This is especially true for such names given by law. For example, the correct name of the municipality is St. Wolfgang im Salzkammergut, while the article exists at Sankt Wolfgang im Salzkammergut (actually, that's how it is pronounced, but the official name given by state law uses abbrevations [12]. It's of course different if something is added by wikipedia just to distinguish. That parts can of course be translated. --Wirthi

The "official" name in German is neither here nor there when writing English. The point is that professional English translators do not convert German prepositions or articles in placenames into English prepositions and articles, since this would not make the names significantly more intelligible. Following French practice, many English translators do' hyphenate such German names, e.g. Frankfurt-an-der-Oder, since this makes clear that they are complete names, not phrases. (The absence of hyphens in this context in German usage reflects the different significance of hyphens in that language.) Tacitus 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between places where the modifier is part of the name, and places where it's not, like resp. Altdorf bei Nürnberg and Altdorf (bei Böblingen) (usually with brackets in de:). The former shouldn't be translated IMO, the latter should follow the rules discussed below. Markussep 09:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrative division or nearby city

Should the appropriate administrative division or a nearby city be used as specifier in Wikipedia, e. g. Altdorf (Niederbayern) or Altdorf, Böblingen? Should always the highest possible administrative division be used, e. g. Berne, Germany if there is no other location within Germany with the same name? Or should it be something else completely?

I tend towards using the highest possible administrative division, if there is no distinguishing German name in use. Daranios 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't always know what that is when I create a stub. This could be a project to evaluate existing articles/stubs and rename as needed. Ksnow 16:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Ksnow

Disambiguate with federal state where possible. Olessi 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions#Disambiguation recommends using the state because state names are better known, and this English-language practice is familiar in Australia, Canada, the United States and other countries.Tacitus 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For Austria there should be little need to do this. Most municipalities have their official names made unique, check de:Sankt Oswald or de:Sankt Georgen. I'm not sure if this is valid for all municipalities though. If there is an ambiguity, use the federal state or the District. --Wirthi 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, I already found one ambiguity. There is a St. Oswald in Lower Austria (Niederösterreich) with exactly that name. In the german Wikipedia, we have it's article at de:Sankt Oswald (Niederösterreich). --Wirthi 20:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer using the highest unambiguous administrative division (Germany > Bavaria > Middle Franconia > Erlangen-Höchstadt). I'm a bit in doubt about river disambiguation (e.g. Neustadt (Wied)) and places like Ebersbach/Sa., Oelsnitz, Vogtland and Oelsnitz, Erzgebirge. Markussep 09:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Neustadt an der Wied is not a case requiring disambiguation by Wikipedia: it has already been disambiguated by the German geographical naming authorities. English-language practice is to spell out such names in full and not to employ German-language abbreviations (parentheses, forward slashes, "a.d.", etc.) which are not understand in English. Hopefully those abbreviations you mention will be untangled in the ongoing Wikipedia cleanup. Tacitus 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

German or English addition to name

If the appropriate administrative division is used as specifier, should it be used in German or English, e. g. Altdorf (Niederbayern) or Haar, Bavaria?

As it is the English Wikipedia I guess an English addition would be more appropriate. An additional redirect from e. g. "Haar, Bayern", would be nice in my opinion. Daranios 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

English, since we have the state names in English. I agree about the redirects from the German form, but with commas or parentheses? Ksnow 16:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Ksnow

Current guideline is to use English state names. Olessi 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer English names, in line with the related article names. Same goes for the regions of Bavaria IMO, Lower Bavaria instead of Niederbayern. Markussep 09:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comma or parentheses

Should the specifier be added after a comma or should it be placed in parentheses? Should that be left to every author her- or himself?

This seems mainly to be a matter of taste. I personally prefer brackets, but the comma seems to be somewhat more common throughout the English Wikipedia. I think an agreement on one or the other (set down in naming conventions) would be nice, but trying to establish that might not be worth the effort. Daranios 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that commas make it very English and seem odd in the German redirects. KsnowKsnow

Current guideline is to use commas. Olessi 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Munich (Bavaria) looks very odd in English running text. If we used it, it would always have to be masked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer commas (conform guideline), but it's no big deal to me. Markussep 09:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the tendency now, at least for U.S. settlements and places, is to use a comma for settlements and parentheses for other places and schools. So: Lake Worth, Florida (a town) and Mount Wilson (California) (a place) or Washington High School (Washington, Iowa). That's a helpful distinction. -Will Beback · † · 09:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So it seems we are back at the matter of taste. I thought at first that our opinions might be divided between pro parentheses and pro commas along the line of German vs. English as our native language, but that does not seem to be the case. Polling our only five opinions, Will Beback's suggestions seems to be a useable compromise for German municipalities as well. Would anybody like to try and start a larger polling about this or something like that? Otherwise I would just write that down as a naming convention and look what happens. Daranios 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The interwiki links in the German wikipedia would have en:Munich, Bavaria show up as "English" in the German text. It is only visible by editing or clicking on it. Please treat it as a curious item of information, like the link from California to de:Kalifornien. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line

Thank you everyone for the discussion! A part of what we talked about here already existed here, which I have somehow overlooked - thanks to Tacitus. I have incorporated some more details from this discussion there. Being rather new to Wikipedia, I have one more question about this thread: Now that the discussion is finished (I think), should it be deleted, archived or just be left as it is?

Daranios 11:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

New City Move discussions

FYI for everyone. See Talk:Atlanta, Georgia and Talk:Boston, Massachusetts. Another interesting one on WP:RM, somewhat related to this convention, is Talk:Norwich. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 07:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

New naming poll - Chile

Even though polls seem to rarely be helpful on this page, I have opened a poll at Wikipedia talk:Chile-related regional notice board#settlement article naming poll. The convention documented here was established by a few people over December and January, and is now being criticised as not having obtained consensus due to the small numbers involved. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Neighborhoods/sections of town/unincorporated settlements

Does this naming convention apply to such places listed in the header of this section? If so, how should one disambiguate. I'm planning to standardize names of such places in the U.S. state of Connecticut in the next couple of days. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 15:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

New Idea to Solve Problems

Why not just have every city follow the comma clause. For example London would now be London, England and Paris would now be Paris, France. This new policy would eliminate any disputes about which cities deserve article with just the city name, and which ones need to follow the comma clause. Black Harry (T|C) 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the issue in dispute, at least for U.S. cities. Some editors believe the comma clause to be unnecessary, others do not. Skeezix1000 18:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the comma clause, but I think naming conventions should be the same for all countries. If this means using the comma clause for all, so be it. If the AP (or Reuters) list is used to establish which cities don't need to follow the clause (with every other city using it) that's fine. I just don't like the idea that cites like Boston and Atlanta need to follow the comma clause, while a city like Norwich (UK) doesn't need to follow it, despite not being the most common usage in the US. Black Harry (T|C) 18:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The naming conventions ARE the same not only for all countries, but for all articles within Wikipedia: use the most common name for the subject of the article. The naming formats used to disambiguate in those cases where disambiguation is required do vary from category to category of articles, and by country to country within the category of city names. --Serge 23:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)

We would be grateful for some input on the above guideline. The suggestion is that we follow the existing Wikipedia conventions for place names when disambiguating school articles. There are however so many inconsistencies in the existing policies that it is very difficult to decide on a consistent global policy for disambiguated school titles. There seems to be general consensus that schools in America and Canada should be disambiguated as Any High School (Municipality, State/Province). UK schools are currently disambiguated purely by place name, eg, Forest School (Walthamstow). We then however have schools in other countries where there do not seem to be any clear guidelines. For example, there is a New English School in Jubriya, Kuwait and another one in Amman, Jordan. There might well be other schools of the same name in other countries. Should these disambiguated by place name, by country, or by both place name and country. Dahliarose 09:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Having edited a few schools in my day, We seem to be disambiguating North American schools in the form "Any High School" as "Any High School (State/Province)" and then "Any High School (Municipality, State/Province)", if necessary, though there are more than a handful in the format "Any High School (Municipality)" floating around. Alansohn 11:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- The current suggestion seems to be that all US schools, unless they have a unique name, should be pre-emptively disambiguated as "Any High School (Municipality, State Province)". Do you think this would work? Dahliarose 11:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Using city, county, state format when disambiguation is not needed.

After a move I made for Paxton Township, Ohio was undone, I raised the topic of requiring the county part of an Ohio township name at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ohio townships#Settlement naming convention, since I prefer the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) guideline of using the simpler form when possible. Please see that discussion if you are interested. -- JHunterJ 11:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Minneapolis, Minnesota

Another new poll, proposing to repoen this can of worms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)