→Comma convention only when needed: rsp to Septentrionalis |
Born2cycle (talk | contribs) →Comma convention only when needed: Chivo nyet, tavo nyet |
||
Line 283: | Line 283: | ||
**********And if she types ''Asheville'', and gets to [[Asheville, North Carolina]], what's the problem? It's the only Asheville (as searching on it shows); therefore it is the one she wants. It even has a dab header in case the reader meant one of the [[Ashville]]s (in which case, she is more quickly warned than if we called the main article [[Asheville]]. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 19:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
**********And if she types ''Asheville'', and gets to [[Asheville, North Carolina]], what's the problem? It's the only Asheville (as searching on it shows); therefore it is the one she wants. It even has a dab header in case the reader meant one of the [[Ashville]]s (in which case, she is more quickly warned than if we called the main article [[Asheville]]. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 19:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
***********That, I guess, is a fundamental difference between people who vote for this proposal vs. those who vote against it. To me, "Asheville, North Carolina" is a red flag showing that there must be another Asheville elsewhere. If this is indeed the only Asheville in the US (or in the world), then adding comma disambiguation (to me at least) is a direct violation of [[Occam's razor]] principle, because an extra disambiguator here is nothing more but a redundant entity. It all boils down to logic, and you, as well as other people voting against this proposal, are yet to convince me that the logic of the proposal is faulty. Using your reasoning, why not use "Asheville, North Carolina, United States[, Earth]"? Why not move the article about the state to "North Carolina, United States"? After all, the more disambiguators we cram into the title, the more warnings/confirmations the end reader receives.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)]] • ([[User talk:Ezhiki|yo?]]); 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
***********That, I guess, is a fundamental difference between people who vote for this proposal vs. those who vote against it. To me, "Asheville, North Carolina" is a red flag showing that there must be another Asheville elsewhere. If this is indeed the only Asheville in the US (or in the world), then adding comma disambiguation (to me at least) is a direct violation of [[Occam's razor]] principle, because an extra disambiguator here is nothing more but a redundant entity. It all boils down to logic, and you, as well as other people voting against this proposal, are yet to convince me that the logic of the proposal is faulty. Using your reasoning, why not use "Asheville, North Carolina, United States[, Earth]"? Why not move the article about the state to "North Carolina, United States"? After all, the more disambiguators we cram into the title, the more warnings/confirmations the end reader receives.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)]] • ([[User talk:Ezhiki|yo?]]); 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
************Ezhiki, you seem to be operating under the assumption that the supporters of the status quo can be persuaded with logic and reason to change their minds. Good luck with that. That fact is, they are simply blind to the ''wrongness'' of having any Wikipedia article at a title that is unnecessarily disambiguated. They don't care about the implication that there must be another [[Asheville]], or in the case of [[San Francisco, California]], the implication that there must be some other subject named [[San Francisco]] that is sufficiently prominent to keep the famous city from being at that name. They are blind to the inconsistency with the rest of Wikipedia. All they see and seek is "consistency" within the particular category (U.S. cities). They can't see out of that box for nothing. It's very frustrating. Chivo nyet, tavo nyet. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 22:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Con'''. Produces a biased result, frequently the location that first has an article at a name retains that name. Since a change to rename per [[WP:RM]] goes only on the affected page, all editors who might have an interest in renaming may not be aware of the discussion. The only way for this work might be if the guideline was that no other location had the same unprecise name.{{unsigned|Vegaswikian}} |
*'''Con'''. Produces a biased result, frequently the location that first has an article at a name retains that name. Since a change to rename per [[WP:RM]] goes only on the affected page, all editors who might have an interest in renaming may not be aware of the discussion. The only way for this work might be if the guideline was that no other location had the same unprecise name.{{unsigned|Vegaswikian}} |
||
*:Sorry, but I don't see the logic in this reasoning. If the renaming is to be done according to the naming conventions, then there is no need for ''all'' interested parties to be aware of the discussion. What are they going to say, anyway? "Even though the renaming is per naming conventions, we are opposed to it because the article to be renamed occupied the spot first?" Somehow I don't think it's going to fly.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)]] • ([[User talk:Ezhiki|yo?]]); 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
*:Sorry, but I don't see the logic in this reasoning. If the renaming is to be done according to the naming conventions, then there is no need for ''all'' interested parties to be aware of the discussion. What are they going to say, anyway? "Even though the renaming is per naming conventions, we are opposed to it because the article to be renamed occupied the spot first?" Somehow I don't think it's going to fly.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)]] • ([[User talk:Ezhiki|yo?]]); 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:51, 1 February 2007
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 |
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)
- 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)
- So is Paris. THEPROMENADER 11:37, 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)
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.
- 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)
- 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. [1]), 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)
- And I'll wager that most Americans think that Vancouver is on Vancouver Island. Vegaswikian 07:37, 27 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. [1]), and thus can't be taken into account without that footnote. Bearcat 01:20, 18 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 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)
- 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)
Associated Press
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)
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. BlankVerse 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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) [2] (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)
Alternatives for establishing possible changes to the US comma guideline
Rather then try another poll on this, can we get some discussions started on possible options and see if there is any support one way or another? I'm adding some of the options I'm aware of to start the discussion. Please try to remain civil and try to use these discussions as a means to reach some consensus on this topic. If I missed any options, feel free to add more sections. Please don't try to turn this into a vote, it is not. Let's limit the discussion to the pros and cons of the various options. Vegaswikian 21:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Status quo
Leave the comma convention in place either with no exceptions or only the long standing exception for New York City.
- Comment The status quo would include the exceptions of Philadelphia and Chicago as well as New York City. No matter what the guidelines say, there can always be exceptions. --Serge 21:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro. Most US cities already conform. Vegaswikian 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. If kept, would the rename requests and endless discussions ever end, especially if open ended exceptions are allowed? Vegaswikian 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Not supported by a consensus. Never has been, probably never will. --Serge 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- disputed Was originally supported by consensus, continued to be for a long time. --Scott Davis Talk 08:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- It was originally implemented by a bot. When some editors saw that it was bad, another group of editors rose up to defend it. I'm not aware of any time it was supported by consensus. --Yath 16:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- disputed Was originally supported by consensus, continued to be for a long time. --Scott Davis Talk 08:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Inconsistent with Wikipedia's most prominent naming convention/guideline: use the most common name of an article subject as the title unless disambiguation is required per WP:D. --Serge 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Most prominent naming convention is a subjective interpretation when WP:NC(CN) nutshell definition establishes that when common names convention conflicts with other naming conventions the other naming convention is to be used. --Bobblehead 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless of what the guideline verbiage states, the use-the-most-common name convention is the most widely followed naming convention in Wikipedia. Disgree? Which convention is more widely followed then? --Serge 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Most prominent naming convention is a subjective interpretation when WP:NC(CN) nutshell definition establishes that when common names convention conflicts with other naming conventions the other naming convention is to be used. --Bobblehead 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Inconsistent with primary practice in place for almost the entire rest of the world. Bearcat 04:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro Greater consistency for a greater number of settlement related articles. Consistent format will also be of aid in categorization and other article enhancements. Simply put, we can all get back to the work of improving our articles. Agne 05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro Removing subjective "exception creation" will enhance the stability of the convention. Agne 05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro. Commonly used outside of Wikipedia. --Bobblehead 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro. Avoids conflicts between same named cities over which city is more notable, ie Portland, Oregon or Portland, Maine, or if the other city is the preeminent usage, ie Vancouver, British Columbia vs. Vancouver, Washington. --Bobblehead 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- This proposal, being US only, would not address the cross country problem. That is a different problem. Vegaswikian 07:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Does this convention simply stem from a distrust of other editors? You should know that naming conflicts are handled all the time in Wikipedia. We're actually quite good at it. --Yath 16:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro. Adds another layer of location identification for lesser known, but unique city names, ie Sequim could be anywhere, but Sequim, Washington is clearly identified as being in Washington.--Bobblehead 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- This often means that reading articles such as biographies, the link title contains enough information for the reader, even if they have never heard of the town. --Scott Davis Talk 09:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Does not resolve the issue that it's intended to solve anywhere near as well as people think it does; people still quite regularly link to "City" alone, and hence frequently to dab pages or wrong topics, for American cities in spite of the supposed "predictability" of the current American naming convention. Bearcat 06:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately with the encyclopedia that anyone can edit you will always have "newbie" mistakes such as incorrect linking to DAB pages, forgetting to sign your talk page post or even adding unsourced materials to articles. With most newbie mistakes, experience and observing others is the best teacher. Agne 07:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro It is much easier to identify and fix bad links to the plain city name if the "good" links are to a unique name. This assists resolving both present and future ambiguity. --Scott Davis Talk 09:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro Supported by Wikipedia:Naming conventions: Generally, article naming should prefer 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. --Scott Davis Talk 09:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how WP:NC would be violated by articles at Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Honolulu, and so forth. john k 15:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. (This would be pro were the comma disambiguation method the most-used on Wiki). The comma convention is not only an exception: it owes its existence to the "convenience of habit" practices of one speaking of another locale in his own country. Were there a Wiki for every country this would be fine, but the inhabitants of one country rarely refer to the settlements of another in the same fashion as its "locals". I find this practice to be rather segregationist - and it is better, especially for contributor convenience and inter-linking, to only disambiguate when necessary. THEPROMENADER 13:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- However the comma form is the most common one for place names, right? Does anyone have actual numbers to prove or disprove my statement? Vegaswikian 19:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- However I wasn't speaking of only placenames - only of all of Wiki. I see sense in "one publication, one method of disambiguation" - don't you? Thankfully none of that discounts anything in my other points : ) THEPROMENADER 00:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree about the one view point. That is why the common form makes sense. You can not have city as the form since there are too many cases where disambiguation would be required. The common form eliminates much of this problem. Secondly, can it what you will, style sheet or disambiguation, but the common format is in common usage around the world as far as I know. So, this is using the common name to describe locations. If you look at it that way, it is either using the common name or a style sheet, it is not disambiguation. Vegaswikian 19:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Remember that the "common form" you speak of is only common to those speaking of another locale within their own country. This habit, for sure, is something more than disambiguation (call it a "locator" for those who know where the states/provinces attached to the name are), but it still qualifies as a form of disambiguation. I also don't think this "local" habit is very flattering to the international media that is supposed to be Wiki. THEPROMENADER 20:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro. WP:NC supports precise names when there can be multiple meanings. Since some locations will need precise names, using this as a style standard would be acceptable and reasonable. Vegaswikian 00:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's a pro for using this style when disambiguation is required, but not for articles for which disambiguation of the most common name is not required. That's not the status quo. --Serge 05:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Inconvenient, inconsistent, out of sync with the rest of the world.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Disputed on all counts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro The exception for New York City is unavoidable: New York, New York can mean New York County = Manhattan; New York City, New York is not English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
AP style sheet as exceptions
Follow the AP style sheet for a list of cities that do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.
- Pro. Limited size list that is clearly defined. Vegaswikian 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Not every city on the list should be renamed since they are not the primary use or because a redirect to a different article should be used or the city name alone should be a dab page. Vegaswikian 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like Vegaswikian stole my thunder. I typed out the exact same pros and cons. The only thing I have to add is examples: Shortening Washington, D.C. to Washington conflicts with the state, Phoenix conflicts with the mythical bird). Others on the list would likely result in a trans-Atlantic dispute (See Talk:Boston and Talk:Boston (disambiguation) for an example) as editors in other countries squabble over if the city should go to City, or if it should remain at City, State.--Bobblehead 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Boston already redirects to Boston, Massachusetts, as do the vast majority of the others on the list. The only clear exceptions are the aforementioned Phoenix and Washington, and perhaps Saint Louis. But a "use the AP list, unless there's serious ambiguity issues," seems like it would be sensible. john k 05:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- ConThe AP style sheet is not an appropriate model because it has the luxury of people knowing from the location and placement of the dateline that this is a place. People seeing a category listing on Wikipedia do not. Gene Nygaard 14:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Cities tend, in general, to be in categories where all the articles in them are places, and where it is clear that it is a place from the category title. The only exception for, for instance, Boston, Massachusetts is the utterly stupid category Category:Articles with unsourced statements, which ought to be a talk page category, anyway, and 1630 establishments, where I think nobody would have any big deal figuring oout that the city is meant. john k 15:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
AP style sheet as exceptions II
Follow the AP style sheet for a list of cities that do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names unless they are not the primary use of the name (i.e., if the city name is on the AP list and the name alone currently redirects to the article about the city, use the city name alone as the title of the article).
- Pro. Limited size list that is clearly defined. Vegaswikian 00:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I think any use of the AP list would have to be more or less limited in this way. Moving Washington, D.C. to Washington is out of the question, for instance. john k 05:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
State capitals
State capitals do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.
- Con Some state capitals are ambiguous like Augusta, Maine & Salem, Oregon Agne 21:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con Somewhat arbitrary to say that only state capitals are eligible; state capitals are not always their respective state's largest, most important or most famous city. (e.g. Springfield, Illinois, Albany, New York.) Bearcat 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. As Bearcat says, this would be silly as the only way for US cities to not use the comma convention. But this would be fine as a supplement, I think, to the AP list, so long as obviously ambiguous names like Salem, Springfield, Frankfort, Olympia, Augusta, and so forth are excluded. I can see little harm, though, for articles at Juneau, Jefferson City, Carson City, Baton Rouge, Des Moines, Boise, and so forth. john k 05:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Settlements would best be treated as a whole with a unique rule. Who says the reader knows the city is a state capital? Should he have to do the extra leg (eye) work to figure this rule out for himself? THEPROMENADER 13:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Many state capitals are ridiculously obscure. For example, when someone says Bismarck, I am more likely to think first of a German politician than a small city in North Dakota. --Coolcaesar 08:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
State capitals II
State capitals do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names, unless there is an ambiguity issue (i.e., if the city is a state capitol and the name alone redirects to the article about the city, use the name alone as the title).
- Pro Simple, clearly defined list. --Serge 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Just less than half of state capitols meet this requirement, thus resulting in confusion as most will have to remain at City, State convention. --Bobblehead 05:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why would those capitals that don't require disambiguation not be disambiguated, and those that require disambiguation be disambiguated, cause "confusion"? It's the wiki way. For the life of me, I cannot understand this argument. --Serge 04:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Because most people aren't aware of which state capital names are unique and which aren't. The same logic applies to most American cities. For example, until recently something like 1/8th of the U.S. population thought that New Mexico was part of Mexico (this was an NSF study reported in National Geographic). Serge, you need to take a wikibreak and and talk to real people to understand how geographic knowledge is such a precious thing. Most people don't have much of it because they're too busy with more important things like earning a living and making babies. The confusion comes from not knowing in advance which names overlap with those of other cities. Rather than have to check out every single city article I'm linking to, just to determine whether I'm linking to a disambiguation page, it's easier to just know that the vast majority of city names are already consistently unique. --Coolcaesar 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why would those capitals that don't require disambiguation not be disambiguated, and those that require disambiguation be disambiguated, cause "confusion"? It's the wiki way. For the life of me, I cannot understand this argument. --Serge 04:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
City size
Cities larger then a certain size do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.
- Con even large cities can be ambiguous and conflict with other cities Portland, Oregon & Portland, Maine. Agne 21:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Selecting a size is choosing an arbitrary number. Is 500,000 any better then 1,000,000? Vegaswikian 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Could require future article moves since the size of a city can change, up or down. Vegaswikian 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro. Adds a clear demarkation. If city is over a certain population it's City convention, otherwise City, State. --Bobblehead 05:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Clearly ambiguous names like Portland would obviously be excluded from any rule like this. I would suggest that metropolitan area size, rather than size of the municipality, is the more important figure, except in cases where this is impossible, like secondary cities of major metropolitan areas, such as Oakland. I think any kind of change ought to require at least some minimum population to not have the state. But this would never be sufficient. john k 05:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con Some quite large cities are not well known outside the USA. By definition, it's hard to identify examples of this. Fort Worth, Texas is over 600,000 and not well known. --Scott Davis Talk 09:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- So what? If the people haven't heard of the place, what does it matter whether the state name is in the article title. Fort Worth is unambiguous, and I'm sure many international travelers, at least, have heard of it, since it's in the name of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, which is the third busiest airport in the world, and the 10th busiest international hub in the United States. I'm not sure I understand what familiarity to the world has to do with it. Personally, I would say that familiarity to other people in the United States is really the key issue, since it is only Americans who would actually be helped very much by disambiguation by state. And Fort Worth certainly has familiarity to Americans from outside the Metroplex. john k 15:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking personally, I thought "Dallas Fort Worth Airport" was like "Melbourne Tullamarine Airport" - that the small place nearest the airport is actually called Fort Worth, but the major city it serves is Dallas, unlike Baltimore-Washington International Airport, or was just a name of the airport like Washington Dulles Airport or Chicago O'Hare Airport. This misunderstanding was due to never having heard of "Fort Worth" before first hearing the name of the airport. I also consider that the state is more important for readers outside the USA — I (and many others) may not be able to list all your states, but I would recognise the names of most of them as US states if I heard/saw them. Remember that ", state" can be seen as a stylistic issue as much as a disambiguation issue. --Scott Davis Talk 10:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Many non-Americans have stated more or less the opposite, at least for the larger cities - i.e., they have heard of Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, and so forth, but couldn't name the state they're in. john k 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking personally, I thought "Dallas Fort Worth Airport" was like "Melbourne Tullamarine Airport" - that the small place nearest the airport is actually called Fort Worth, but the major city it serves is Dallas, unlike Baltimore-Washington International Airport, or was just a name of the airport like Washington Dulles Airport or Chicago O'Hare Airport. This misunderstanding was due to never having heard of "Fort Worth" before first hearing the name of the airport. I also consider that the state is more important for readers outside the USA — I (and many others) may not be able to list all your states, but I would recognise the names of most of them as US states if I heard/saw them. Remember that ", state" can be seen as a stylistic issue as much as a disambiguation issue. --Scott Davis Talk 10:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- So what? If the people haven't heard of the place, what does it matter whether the state name is in the article title. Fort Worth is unambiguous, and I'm sure many international travelers, at least, have heard of it, since it's in the name of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, which is the third busiest airport in the world, and the 10th busiest international hub in the United States. I'm not sure I understand what familiarity to the world has to do with it. Personally, I would say that familiarity to other people in the United States is really the key issue, since it is only Americans who would actually be helped very much by disambiguation by state. And Fort Worth certainly has familiarity to Americans from outside the Metroplex. john k 15:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. The "bigger than thou", "big enough to qualify" and "known enough to qualify" battle would be endless. THEPROMENADER 13:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Whatever city size is chosen as a threshold, there will always be someone who thinks it's too big/small. Plus, this doesn't address the roots of the problem with current disambiguation practices.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Cities with unique names
Cities with globally unique names do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.
- Con. Could require future article moves if the name is no longer unique. Vegaswikian 23:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Editors may not know the correct name to use for an article requiring extra article moves. Vegaswikian 23:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro. Large support base from editors who's city name is unique. Vegaswikian 23:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Could result in odd situations where more widely known city's, like Atlanta, have to stay at City, State convention while only locally know cities, like Issaquah, are at City. --Bobblehead 05:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro. Eliminates disambiguation on articles that do not need it. --Bobblehead 05:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con Some unique names like Issaquah and Assawoman don't serve well in conveying what exactly the subject of the article is -i.e. a city. While the City, State convention of Issaquah, Washington and Assawoman, Virginia convey their subject matter perfectly. Agne 05:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the article name should convey additional location information? Are you suggesting that Issaquah, Washington should be considered as the common name? Is the problem with this alternative that it may not use a place's common name? Vegaswikian 00:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro. My comments below the next question apply here as well. THEPROMENADER 14:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand that comment there. Is this a duplicate of the second "Pro" above, Eliminates disambiguation on articles that do not need it.? --Scott Davis Talk 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con as below. If this is a call for IAR rexceptions, it is redundant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro. To me, at least, this statement seems to be obvious.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Cities as primary use
Places where the city name alone uniquely identifies the place in a non ambiguous way do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.
- Con apparently the level of primary use can be subjective see Vancouver & Vancouver, Washington and the Newark & Cork discussions. The kicker here in the "uniquely" part. If there was more establish guideline for disambiguation where there are other pertinent and important consideration in addition to just the "primary city", then it would be easier to support. Otherwise, this only allows continued subjective arguments, debates and move request. Agne 21:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con Each page move would require an individual discussion on whether or not that a particular city is both A.) The Primary use and B.) substantial enough of a primary over other articles with similar titles to warrant the singular article title instead of a disambig page. As observed in several cases, discussions on individual city pages do pose the risk of "conflicts of interest" with very natural and human bias to view their city or country in higher focus then it maybe in the grand scheme of the encyclopedia. This, unfortunately, adds alot of emotions to these discussions and makes consensus (in any direction) harder to achieve. Ultimately, it needs to be established that articles are written and titled for the benefit of the reader--not the editors and not a particular city's residents. Agne 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro. Primary use has already been largely determined by redirects - when City redirects to City, State, then that particularly city is already considered the primary use for City. Most such redirects have been stable for years, despite occasional disputes. john k 05:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not always true. I tried once to figure out where to move the incoming links to Las Vegas. Most are not about the city and the context frequently did not help at all in choosing the correct redirect. So just because the redirect is there, it does not mean that they are all correctly redirected. This is a risk whenever there are multiple uses. Vegaswikian 06:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Vegas is a particularly odd case. But Las Vegas, Nevada isn't actually any more clear that the municipality, and not the general area, is meant. City of Las Vegas would be the only clear way to do that. john k 15:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Did you happen to notice what that City of Las Vegas link is about? Yea, I was surprised too. Vegaswikian 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that certainly seems wrong. john k 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is analogous to City of New Orleans, which took me by surprise, and several others listed on Category:Named passenger trains of the United States
- Well, that certainly seems wrong. john k 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Did you happen to notice what that City of Las Vegas link is about? Yea, I was surprised too. Vegaswikian 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Vegas is a particularly odd case. But Las Vegas, Nevada isn't actually any more clear that the municipality, and not the general area, is meant. City of Las Vegas would be the only clear way to do that. john k 15:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not always true. I tried once to figure out where to move the incoming links to Las Vegas. Most are not about the city and the context frequently did not help at all in choosing the correct redirect. So just because the redirect is there, it does not mean that they are all correctly redirected. This is a risk whenever there are multiple uses. Vegaswikian 06:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro. At least, I think - the question is not very clear - "uniquely identifies" - do you mean "is not ambiguous"? Let's just say: if there's no need to disambiguate, don't do it. THEPROMENADER 13:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I reworded the description. Does that help? If not, fell free to tweak or create a different option. Vegaswikian 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm - thanks, but it still looks like my reply would be "If it ain't ambiguous, don't disambiguate it". Agreed, I guess. THEPROMENADER 00:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con This would include some very small and obscure places (Loch Arbour, New Jersey, for example). Why should we have to check whether it is unambiguous before we link to it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't one normally do that when making links to articles about non-city topics. Why are cities being subjected to a different rule than the rest of the enyclopedia? There do exist articles on obscure topics that do not have disambiguation and that the average reader might need to read the first sentence to see what the article is about. Obscure cities should be treated no differently than other obscure topics. --Polaron | Talk 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Whilst writing a biography article for example, it is easy to link to Loch Arbour, New Jersey knowing that the title has enough precision to be unique, and the editor need only verify that the link is blue. If the link was made to "Loch Arbour", the editor must check whether this is the article intended, or some other place with the same name, or a dab page, and then follow one or two links to find the right target, before continuing with the primary task of writing that other article. This is wasted time, effort, and bandwidth, especially for dial-up editors or people with a life outside Wikipedia. Many Wikipedia articles have a longer title than the absolute shortest unique identifier for the subject. Sometimes this is for disambiguation purposes, and sometimes it is for stylistic or clarity purposes. This is not about subjecting cities to a "different rule", but about making details of the general rule specific for cities. --Scott Davis Talk 05:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't one normally do that when making links to articles about non-city topics. Why are cities being subjected to a different rule than the rest of the enyclopedia? There do exist articles on obscure topics that do not have disambiguation and that the average reader might need to read the first sentence to see what the article is about. Obscure cities should be treated no differently than other obscure topics. --Polaron | Talk 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- If this statement means "if it is not ambiguous, don't disambiguate it", then I'm all for it (pro).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comma convention only when needed
Use city names alone for articles whenever possible. Only use the comma convention for disambiguation when city name alone has an ambiguity conflict within Wikipedia per WP:NC#Use common names of persons and things, WP:NC(CN) and WP:DAB.
- Pro This is the only logical solution consistent with the idea that category-specific naming conventions should only apply to articles within a given category that require disambiguation; articles for which the most common/best-known name is available should just use that. It's the most consistent option of all with respect to how Wikipedia articles are named. --Serge 21:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con Very vague and subjective. For some Vancouver, British Columbia needs a comma. For others it doesn't. This solution doesn't quell the debates any better then the status quo has. Agne 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- The debates have greatly been reduced with regard to Canadian cities since they relaxed their guideline. Do you have any reason to believe it would be any different for U.S. cities? --Serge 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, your example hold less weight since the flaws in the Canadian convention became apparent with issues like Vancouver, Lethbridge, Gatineau, etc. It is quite easy to foresee similar problems being compounded on if the US went with the vague and subjective "only when needed" clause. Think about Newark. The New Jersey city is obviously bigger but what about the Delaware city or the UK one? I could think of a laundry list of examples in a short time but the truth is there is probably countless more debates and headaches to be had when everyone's own subjective standards are applied. Agne 07:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- The debates have greatly been reduced with regard to Canadian cities since they relaxed their guideline. Do you have any reason to believe it would be any different for U.S. cities? --Serge 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro Very clear and objective. Just like naming any other article in Wikipedia. Cities very likely to be without conflicts are trivial to identify: those where the city name alone already redirects to the article. e.g.: San Francisco → San Francisco, California. Those that turn out to have a conflict in the future can be managed at that time, just like any other article in Wikipedia that may develop a naming conflict in the future. --Serge 00:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro. Appears to be the most common country guideline in use. Vegaswikian 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Raises conflicts when the city name is used elsewhere. Regional and global familiarity with the name can affect editors opinions about what the primary usage is. Also creates conflicts with historical cities and modern cities with the same name. Vegaswikian 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a con. Can you name even one example of a city where the name alone redirects to the city article, and is still subject to this hypothetical type of conflict? These have mostly, if not completely, all been identified. Either the name is a dab or it goes to the U.S. city article. --Serge 00:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there are several and that were listed in the previous discussions about using the AP list. I'm sure that there are more. For this guideline to work, disambiguation should be the alternative when there are multiples places using the same common name. Without this, a significant number of readers can get redirected to the wrong article. That is a problem. Vegaswikian 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which previous discussions you are referring to. If there are several examples of city name alone redirects to city articles where the city name alone is subject to a "conflict", surely you can name one. And, while you're at it, why not just fix it once you identify it. This is a red herring. --Serge 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there are several and that were listed in the previous discussions about using the AP list. I'm sure that there are more. For this guideline to work, disambiguation should be the alternative when there are multiples places using the same common name. Without this, a significant number of readers can get redirected to the wrong article. That is a problem. Vegaswikian 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a con. Can you name even one example of a city where the name alone redirects to the city article, and is still subject to this hypothetical type of conflict? These have mostly, if not completely, all been identified. Either the name is a dab or it goes to the U.S. city article. --Serge 00:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Since an encyclopedia is suppose to have some consistency between articles, this proposal makes the naming of city articles appear random to all but those who understand the convention. Since the articles are for readers, their views should be considered. Vegaswikian 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly Disputed. Consistenting naming throughout the encyclopedia, including using the most common name when possible, is the higher goal, not consistent naming within a category of articles. Disambiguating the most common name when disambiguation is not required is what leads to inconsistency and confusion for readers. --Serge 05:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro. Encyclopedia methods must be a logical aid to comprehension for all before anything else - including "consistency". It is very possible to be consistantly wrong. Still, I find the "use only if necessary" comma question to be loaded: I don't think it should be used at all. Actulally, not using it is even more an answer to the "consistency" question: most all of Wiki uses parentheses for disambiguation, and placenames (disambiguated with names that are not the actual name of the place itself) are one of few exceptions. THEPROMENADER 13:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Confusing for American editors who are generally accustomed to referring to all out-of-state cities by city and state in formal writing. --Coolcaesar 08:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con: as Above; why should anybody have to check whether Loch Arbour, New Jersey is unique to know where the article is? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro, per policy cited in description. --Dystopos 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con The policy cited in description says explicitly "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication"; all guidelines admit exceptions. This is one such exception; there are others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pro. Very clear and objective; the only logical solution, really. I should also note that this exact same convention is working without a glitch with Russia—a country the number of settlements in which is comparable to that of the United States. As for the "why should anybody have to check whether XXX is unique to know where the article is"-like arguments, we should remember that naming conventions are here for the benefit of readers, not editors. A thorough editor is supposed to verify where all the links in the content s/he created point anyway, otherwise his/her job is going to be sloppy at best.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Very strongly disputed. Readers should be able to predict where an article should be. Not the only "logical" solution; the always-disambiguate solution is more logical, and the disambiguate unless world-renowned makes much more sense. I should add here that the present exception for New York City is because of a local problem: New York, New York is not coterminous with NYC, and New York City, New York is unidiomatic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Readers should be able to arrive to the article they are seeking with the least amount of effort and be reasonably sure they found what they were looking for. If I am looking for "Asheville", I don't necessarily know in which state it is located; as a matter of fact, it may be the reason why I am looking for this article in the first place. If there were no redirect at Asheville, I'd be stuck; all because somebody thought that Asheville, North Carolina somehow makes more sense. For the town residents, maybe it does. For readers who look for the information about this town it does not. The other point is that even after being redirected to Asheville, North Carolina (since the redirect is oh so helpfully there), the readers are still left to wonder why the title is disambiguated—perhaps because there is another town by that name?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- If Asheville didn't redirect to the city in North Carolina then it would have redirected to a disambig page which would have helped you find the article that you are looking for with very little effort. Agne 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- My point exactly. A link should either go to an article, or to a disambig; not to an article via a redirect which is there for no good reason at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Redirects are cheap. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I am a newcomer to this discussion, but I am starting to see why it has been going and going and still keeps going... nowhere. People aren't really listening to each other. My point was not that redirects aren't cheap, my point was that a redirect from a title to a disambiguated title is confusing to readers. There are many good uses for redirects, but the one this discussion and proposals related to it deal with is not one of them. A redirect should generally lead from a variation to either the main title or a disambiguation page; it should not lead from the main title to a variation, because such practice is confusing, misleading, and generally serves no useful purpose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Does anyone else agree with this? The chief use for a redirect is to get a reader to the article he wants. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- ...without introducing unnecessary ambiguity, hesitation, or confusion in the process. In other words, a reader should be reasonably sure that the place s/he was redirected to is the place s/he wanted to find.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- And if she types Asheville, and gets to Asheville, North Carolina, what's the problem? It's the only Asheville (as searching on it shows); therefore it is the one she wants. It even has a dab header in case the reader meant one of the Ashvilles (in which case, she is more quickly warned than if we called the main article Asheville. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- That, I guess, is a fundamental difference between people who vote for this proposal vs. those who vote against it. To me, "Asheville, North Carolina" is a red flag showing that there must be another Asheville elsewhere. If this is indeed the only Asheville in the US (or in the world), then adding comma disambiguation (to me at least) is a direct violation of Occam's razor principle, because an extra disambiguator here is nothing more but a redundant entity. It all boils down to logic, and you, as well as other people voting against this proposal, are yet to convince me that the logic of the proposal is faulty. Using your reasoning, why not use "Asheville, North Carolina, United States[, Earth]"? Why not move the article about the state to "North Carolina, United States"? After all, the more disambiguators we cram into the title, the more warnings/confirmations the end reader receives.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ezhiki, you seem to be operating under the assumption that the supporters of the status quo can be persuaded with logic and reason to change their minds. Good luck with that. That fact is, they are simply blind to the wrongness of having any Wikipedia article at a title that is unnecessarily disambiguated. They don't care about the implication that there must be another Asheville, or in the case of San Francisco, California, the implication that there must be some other subject named San Francisco that is sufficiently prominent to keep the famous city from being at that name. They are blind to the inconsistency with the rest of Wikipedia. All they see and seek is "consistency" within the particular category (U.S. cities). They can't see out of that box for nothing. It's very frustrating. Chivo nyet, tavo nyet. --Serge 22:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- That, I guess, is a fundamental difference between people who vote for this proposal vs. those who vote against it. To me, "Asheville, North Carolina" is a red flag showing that there must be another Asheville elsewhere. If this is indeed the only Asheville in the US (or in the world), then adding comma disambiguation (to me at least) is a direct violation of Occam's razor principle, because an extra disambiguator here is nothing more but a redundant entity. It all boils down to logic, and you, as well as other people voting against this proposal, are yet to convince me that the logic of the proposal is faulty. Using your reasoning, why not use "Asheville, North Carolina, United States[, Earth]"? Why not move the article about the state to "North Carolina, United States"? After all, the more disambiguators we cram into the title, the more warnings/confirmations the end reader receives.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- And if she types Asheville, and gets to Asheville, North Carolina, what's the problem? It's the only Asheville (as searching on it shows); therefore it is the one she wants. It even has a dab header in case the reader meant one of the Ashvilles (in which case, she is more quickly warned than if we called the main article Asheville. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- ...without introducing unnecessary ambiguity, hesitation, or confusion in the process. In other words, a reader should be reasonably sure that the place s/he was redirected to is the place s/he wanted to find.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Does anyone else agree with this? The chief use for a redirect is to get a reader to the article he wants. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I am a newcomer to this discussion, but I am starting to see why it has been going and going and still keeps going... nowhere. People aren't really listening to each other. My point was not that redirects aren't cheap, my point was that a redirect from a title to a disambiguated title is confusing to readers. There are many good uses for redirects, but the one this discussion and proposals related to it deal with is not one of them. A redirect should generally lead from a variation to either the main title or a disambiguation page; it should not lead from the main title to a variation, because such practice is confusing, misleading, and generally serves no useful purpose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Redirects are cheap. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- My point exactly. A link should either go to an article, or to a disambig; not to an article via a redirect which is there for no good reason at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- If Asheville didn't redirect to the city in North Carolina then it would have redirected to a disambig page which would have helped you find the article that you are looking for with very little effort. Agne 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Readers should be able to arrive to the article they are seeking with the least amount of effort and be reasonably sure they found what they were looking for. If I am looking for "Asheville", I don't necessarily know in which state it is located; as a matter of fact, it may be the reason why I am looking for this article in the first place. If there were no redirect at Asheville, I'd be stuck; all because somebody thought that Asheville, North Carolina somehow makes more sense. For the town residents, maybe it does. For readers who look for the information about this town it does not. The other point is that even after being redirected to Asheville, North Carolina (since the redirect is oh so helpfully there), the readers are still left to wonder why the title is disambiguated—perhaps because there is another town by that name?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Very strongly disputed. Readers should be able to predict where an article should be. Not the only "logical" solution; the always-disambiguate solution is more logical, and the disambiguate unless world-renowned makes much more sense. I should add here that the present exception for New York City is because of a local problem: New York, New York is not coterminous with NYC, and New York City, New York is unidiomatic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. Produces a biased result, frequently the location that first has an article at a name retains that name. Since a change to rename per WP:RM goes only on the affected page, all editors who might have an interest in renaming may not be aware of the discussion. The only way for this work might be if the guideline was that no other location had the same unprecise name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs)
- Sorry, but I don't see the logic in this reasoning. If the renaming is to be done according to the naming conventions, then there is no need for all interested parties to be aware of the discussion. What are they going to say, anyway? "Even though the renaming is per naming conventions, we are opposed to it because the article to be renamed occupied the spot first?" Somehow I don't think it's going to fly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be at all surprised if they said exactly that; the clause in WP:NAME about defaulting to the usage of the creator of the article is routinely abused. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't see the logic in this reasoning. If the renaming is to be done according to the naming conventions, then there is no need for all interested parties to be aware of the discussion. What are they going to say, anyway? "Even though the renaming is per naming conventions, we are opposed to it because the article to be renamed occupied the spot first?" Somehow I don't think it's going to fly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Largest city
The largest city by population in each state does not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.
- Con. The largest city can change, so over time this would not be much of a standard. Vegaswikian 07:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. While one city may be listed with a population of 8,000 people, other much larger cities would not be exempt from the guideline. Vegaswikian 07:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. This also is a loaded question - how about all cities? Also, deciding what is or isn't a "big city" (or "biggest city" - surface, population wise?) is an endless debate (and will no doubt ire many) - best treat settlements as a unique whole with a unique method. THEPROMENADER 13:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Con. In addition to all of the above, I should point out that sometimes direct comparison between cities in different countries is impossible, because available population data could be for different time periods.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? "State" here means one of the constituent States of the United States; and there have been counts for every American city since 1790. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 1 February 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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, 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 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)