Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 17

message: It is possible, however, that this question is close to the intent of the last poll; if so, it could certainly have been better phrased. Consider a town like Sfax. It doesn't have to be disambiguated; and we have no convention for Tunisia. What do we do as a default, pending a national convention? 
This would not apply to the United States, the United Kingdom, or any other country for which we have a convention. "Disambiguate most" doesn't seem to make much sense hete; by the time we've decided what "most" means in Tunisia, we have a convention. But feel free to add options. !vote for several if you like. 
;Disambiguate
;Don't disambiguate
*If there aren't other similar articles, and the name is unique, then there doesn't seem to be any reason to disambiguate. older ≠ wiser 01:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful that the "pre-disambiguation" that you speak of is not in fact the placename's real, proper and official name. For example, it was said above that "pre-disambiguation" is the norm in "French usage" but this is not true: these names are complete and official. Please see Champigny-sur-Marne for an example and explanation. I believe the Germany follows the same officialised example. THEPROMENADER 17:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, the Governorate needs to be disambiguated from the city, and this is an actually attested method of doing it. So with the other Governorates; this is at least a de facto convention, and if is official (and it probably is; after all, the Tunisian Government has to be able to distinguish the two); so much the better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't have to be disambiguated if it is the official name - and even locals today rely on this official naming system, so it is even "local usage" - but we don't need to go there in this debate, do we? THEPROMENADER 21:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already discussed that official names (search back for "City of Richmond") are not particularly interesting to this discussion. Neither of you have answered what the common name of Sfax Governorate is. I asked as I don't know. --Scott Davis Talk 23:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I just wanted to make clear what was disambiguation and what wasn't. As for the Sfax Governorate, why not ask one of the article contributors? Short of that, the French version of the article is much more complete - and it indicates that the Governorate's capital is Sfax. THEPROMENADER 13:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As one would expect for francophone Tunisia.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default 

message: For the example Sfax, is Sfax Governorate pre-disambiguated, or is that how it is always referred to? All of the articles about Governorates of Tunisia are named this way, but they appear to all be named after cities. Neither the list article nor the navbox use the word "Governate" for each one. I'd also put University of Sfax on the Sfax (disambiguation) page, and possibly Battle of the Tarigo Convoy as it is also known as the "Action off Sfax".  --Scott Davis Talk 16:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful that the "pre-disambiguation" that you speak of is not in fact the placename's real, proper and official name. For example, it was said above that "pre-disambiguation" is the norm in "French usage" but this is not true: these names are complete and official. Please see Champigny-sur-Marne for an example and explanation. I believe the Germany follows the same officialised example. THEPROMENADER 17:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, the Governorate needs to be disambiguated from the city, and this is an actually attested method of doing it. So with the other Governorates; this is at least a de facto convention, and if is official (and it probably is; after all, the Tunisian Government has to be able to distinguish the two); so much the better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't have to be disambiguated if it is the official name - and even locals today rely on this official naming system, so it is even "local usage" - but we don't need to go there in this debate, do we? THEPROMENADER 21:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already discussed that official names (search back for "City of Richmond") are not particularly interesting to this discussion. Neither of you have answered what the common name of Sfax Governorate is. I asked as I don't know. --Scott Davis Talk 23:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I just wanted to make clear what was disambiguation and what wasn't. As for the Sfax Governorate, why not ask one of the article contributors? Short of that, the French version of the article is much more complete - and it indicates that the Governorate's capital is Sfax. THEPROMENADER 13:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As one would expect for francophone Tunisia.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Default discussion

message: # Λυδαcιτγ 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguate only when necessary (1) 

message: # Λυδαcιτγ 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguate most cities, with a few exceptions (2) 

message: #3rd choice. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguate all cities (3) 

message: #This was presumably where we started, with just general WP guidelines (not specifically designed for settlements), and a few one-country project discussions. I could live with a "return" to that state of affairs. Robin Patterson 00:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No general rule (4) 

message: # 1st choice older ≠ wiser 21:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The status quo (5) 

message: Status quo is disambiguate all by state/province in the US, Canada, and Australia with a few exceptions (specified in Canada and Australia, and fought over by Serge in the US), disambiguate only if absolutely necessary in the UK, and disambiguate with local conventions where appropriate in other countries.  The other large English-speaking country, New Zealand, doesn't seem to have a policy yet.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 vs 5 

message: In a discussion about an international convention, I suggest that we divide the debate into four separate questions for clarity:
# method of disambiguation (namely: parenthesis or comma)
# the disambiguator (lowest administrative division, country, second level, etc)
# pre-disambiguation (needed?)
# non-disambiguated placenames (exceptions to the rule)
...these are the issues, non? I think that if we argue each as a separate question we can come to a clearer and quicker conclusion on all. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you appear to hold, and Serge certainly holds, beliefs on the nature of names with which many people cannot agree. End it now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see the relation of the above comment to anything here; is it misplaced? THEPROMENADER 07:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, although I would combine 3 and 4. Λυδαcιτγ 02:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did think the same (3 and 4 are one), but they seem to be two separate issues (at least in this debate); some who would have major placenames with no disambiguation can also subscribe to the "disambiguate all" proposition, or any other - perhaps it would be clearer if first we decide on the rule to use before deciding there can be exceptions to the same. THEPROMENADER 07:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Splitting the question(s) into bite-sized pieces is probably a good idea, but I'm not sure if this is enough/the right questions. This draft set doesn't consider issues of (possibly) needing different rules for large vs small countries, or English- vs non-English-speaking countries. Past attempts have fallen over because of one of these issues. There needs to be at least a fifth question of can we allow some variations to accomodate national or linguistic variations? --Scott Davis Talk 11:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your input. I've thought this through, and thus far I'm persuaded that, in order to make an international standard, we may have to give up "linguistic variations" altogether - by this I mean linguistic local-habit phrasing, not individual words (eg: if the government has an official translation for "oblast", then that should be used). If every country has its placenames located/disambiguated in the "local manner" (like the U.S. ", State") then we'd have... the present system. THEPROMENADER 12:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So when discussing an international convention, there's not much point in going there, is there? Thanks for the support. THEPROMENADER 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if we're not interested in the bed of Procrustes, to which all nations must conform, there's not much point in having an international convention. Why discuss the length of the bed before whether to have one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you're not interested in such a debate, then what can you possibly have to say in it? Please halt your continued disruptions to the same. THEPROMENADER 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate the debate? 

message: # If there are no ambiguity issues with the name of the city, use the name of the city for the title of the article.  Examples: Seattle, Los Angeles.
# If there are ambiguity issues, but the most common use for the name is clearly to refer to the city that is the subject of the article, use the name of the city for the title of the article.  Examples: Paris, Boston, London, San Francisco.
# If the name conflicts with one or more cities, none of which are in the same country as the city that is the subject of the article, then disambiguate by specifying the name of the country in parenthesis.  Example: London (Canada)
# If the name conflicts with one or more cities, some of which are in the same country as the city that is the subject of the article, then disambiguate using the national disambiguation scheme, such as specifying the name of the state/province/district/county with a comma.  Examples: Rothenburg ob der Tauber, Oradour-sur-Glane, London, California, Ōbu, Aichi.
# If the name conflicts with other significant usages (such that rule 2 does not apply) of the name, none of which are cities, then disambiguate with city, in parenthesis, unless the word city is commonly used with the name.  Example:  Cork (city), New York City.
There you have it, five simple rules that can apply consistently to any city in the world, and is already consistent with many current conventions.
--Serge 18:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure San Francisco is a good example of a city without any ambiguity issues. San Francisco (disambiguation) has a pretty lengthy lists of non-US cities by that name that makes it a better fit for 2. Perhaps Seattle would be a better example of a reasonably sized city without any ambiguity issues. Also, why include 3 and 4, why not just keep 4 if there is ambiguity between city names? 3 requires a certain knowledge of a country that most will not know and/or care. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the San Francisco example to Seattle (and Los Angeles).  Thanks.  The point of having 3 and 4 is that whenever the naming of any article is determined in Wikipedia, all other uses of that name are supposed to be considered.  Cities are no different.  The hallmark of Wikipedia article title disambiguation is that how any given title is disambiguated depends on the other uses of that name. --Serge 19:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And remember, this would replace all of the country specific guidelines on this page.  Dozens of rules reduced to five sounds like a huge simplification to me.  --Serge 19:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant what's the point of having both.;) What you're proposing is much simpler than what currently exists, but it is still more complex than it needs to be. Why not just eliminate 3? It seems to needlessly complicate the disambiguation process by requiring one to check if a city is the only city by that name in its country.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see your point.  The reason I include 3 is to convey why the name is being disambiguated.  It's for the same reason that a movie title that conflicts with a book title of the same name is disambiguated with (film) (e.g., The Bridges of Madison County (film), while a movie title that conflicts with another movie with the same name is disambiguated with the year (e.g., Cape Fear (1991 film)).  So the rules of how to disambiguate depend on what we're conflicting with.  This, again, is the hallmark of Wikipedia disambiguation.  One might ask why not disambiguate all films with (year film), and the reason is then you would lose the ability of knowing whether a given film is the one and only with that name, or if there have been others, simply by looking at the article title.  Similarly, I oppose disambiguating all cities with state, because then we wouldn't have the information of knowing whether that is the one and only city in the given country, or if there are others, simply by looking at the article title.  Yes, it's a bit more work at the time the article title is determined, but it pays dividends every time that article title is seen.  Since we're supposed to put the interests of readers above editors, it seems like a no-brainer tradeoff to me.  --Serge 19:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you want to "convey why the name is being disambiguated"? Isn't that just as bad a reason for putting something in the title as you think about putting ", state" which shows it is a city or town? --Scott Davis Talk 05:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering if anyone was going to catch that apparent contradiction.  The answer is no, of course, it's not just as bad.  The only reason to put extra information, besides the name of the subject, in the title of an article is to disambiguate the name from other uses of the same name.  If we adhere to that principle consistently in Wikipedia, then the "why the name is being disambiguated" information is there implicitly.  If we predisambiguate for any other reason, then the principle is violated and the "why the name is being disambiguated" information is lost.  Also, the intro sentence of any article indicates whether a given article is about a town or city.  So encoding that information in the name is redundant.  But the information about why the name is  disambiguated can only be found in the title itself, and then only if the above principle is adhered to consistently.  Make sense?  --Serge 05:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that doesn't make sense to me. If the article title is not precise, the  template at the top tells about other things with the same name. If the article title is longer, it is preferred by WP:D to use a longer name rather than something in parentheses if possible. If it is important to the subject why the article title might have been disambiguated, the article will say something like "...named after the founder's hometown, ..." or "A play and a movie have been named after...". --Scott Davis Talk 09:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Scott, compare Seaside, California to Pacific Grove, California.  Are there any other cities with either name?  How can a reader tell?  With this 1a proposal he would know immediately, because the article titles would be Pacific Grove (not dabbed, so unique) and Seaside, California (dabbed, so not unique).  He might think, "huh, Seaside is disambiguated - I wonder what other Seasides there may be...".  He would also know that Pacific Grove is the one and only.  Thus his Wikipedia experience is enhanced.  With the current convention, there is no reason to wonder, since all cities, whether they are unique or not, are predisambiguated, so the fact that a given name was disambiguated is meaningless.  --Serge 14:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'm surprised there isn't a "Pacific Grove" in Queensland. So under 1a, the article about town of Pacific Grove should be named "Pacific Grove", until other articles are written that could also have that name. Then it gets moved to "Pacific Grove (town)" because there are two other articles that could use the short name. Then an enterprising developer in Queensland, New Zealand or Fiji builds a new holiday resort town, and the article gets another rename to "Pacific Grove (United States of America)". Some time later, another developer does the same thing in Hawaii or Oregon, and the article should get its fourth name under proposal 1a, and get moved to Pacific Grove, California, right back where it started!? --Scott Davis Talk 23:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This silly argument again?  What you describe is theoretically possible, but in practice highly unlikely.  First, how many new towns are created per year worldwide?  2, 5, 10, 100?  Whatever it is, it is certainly a very manageable issue.  Second, the newly developed town would have to be significant enough to warrant knocking out the original usage as not clearly the most common use of the name.  That's unlikely simply since the new usage is likely named after the original one.  The loss to readers of meaningful and useful information about other uses of the same name from the title itself in order to use a naming convention that "protects" editors from having to move one or two names per year (at most) is simply not worth it. It's silly to even suggest it, Scott.  I'm frankly surprised you haven't given this one a rest.  --Serge 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of our municipal articles are on places so small that the average development would be comparable to them; which is all this proposal would require.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Very good. But these are challenges that must be addressed for every single article in Wikipedia, including every city article for any country for which the comma convention is not currently the convention.  I don't understand why you guys seem to think there is a requirement for the naming convention for U.S. city articles to be able to avoid having to resolve challenges like determining whether one usage or some other is the "most common".  As if that's some big insurmountable issue.  Besides, most if not all of these issues are already resolved, as shown by whether Cityname alone is a redirect to the article entitled with Cityname, Statename.  In fact, the comma convention does nothing to alleviate the need to address these issues, since having an article at Cityname, Statename still requires editors to decide what to do with Cityname.  Should it be an article for some other more commonly known subject?  Should it redirect to Cityname, Statename, to Cityname (disambiguation) or to some other disambiguation version of Cityname? The comma convention does not resolve any problem. At most, if moves it from one particular article to a redirect.  --Serge 05:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal preference is that Cityname should be either a disambig page or a redirect if the name really is only used for one thing at present. One day something else (a ship or an event for example) may be named after it. One thing I've noticed is that most of the proponents of City, State are people who have been involved in disambiguating links and fixing links to the wrong pages. I have not noticed any of its opponents doing the same thing (maybe I just haven't paid attention?). --Scott Davis Talk 09:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, "if the name really is only used for one thing at present" can only be determined by the same process that 1a requires.  Your observation about city, state proponents may be accurate, which only goes to show that the primary motivation behind the city, state convention for U.S. cities is to benefit editors over readers (assuming worldwide city naming consistency is a reader benefit).  --Serge 14:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My motivation is to increase and maintain the quality of Wikipedia as a reference work. Links to the wrong article reduce that quality, however they got there. --Scott Davis Talk 23:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence do you have that changing to a naming convention similar to what is already used by the majority of countries would lead to "links to the wrong article".  More silliness, Scott.  --Serge 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Again with Scott's silly argument?  How can the appearance of another Lucas Township come without notice?  Someone would have to notice it, and care enough about creating an article for it.  The first thing he would do is follow the standard Wikipedia article creation process: see if there is already another article with that name.  With the current system, he would find a redirect at Lucas Township.  With 1a, he would find an article.  Either way, changes would be required.  Yes, with 1a there would be more work for this editor, but we are supposed to favor the experience for reader, not the editor.  With the current convention this editor would change the Lucas Township redirect to be an article about the new town (assuming it's in a country which does not predisambiguate).  Wonderful.  That's the problem with not having a standard worldwide guideline.  --Serge 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: **No, it means that the reader will have to know whether  there is a Lucas Township, Queensland or not to get where he wants to go without trouble. Serge's refutation would prove editors will be warned. Considering his claims below to be arguing solely from the PoV of the readership below, I find this disingenuous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 1a

message: :I'm not sure San Francisco is a good example of a city without any ambiguity issues. San Francisco (disambiguation) has a pretty lengthy lists of non-US cities by that name that makes it a better fit for 2. Perhaps Seattle would be a better example of a reasonably sized city without any ambiguity issues. Also, why include 3 and 4, why not just keep 4 if there is ambiguity between city names? 3 requires a certain knowledge of a country that most will not know and/or care. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the San Francisco example to Seattle (and Los Angeles).  Thanks.  The point of having 3 and 4 is that whenever the naming of any article is determined in Wikipedia, all other uses of that name are supposed to be considered.  Cities are no different.  The hallmark of Wikipedia article title disambiguation is that how any given title is disambiguated depends on the other uses of that name. --Serge 19:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And remember, this would replace all of the country specific guidelines on this page.  Dozens of rules reduced to five sounds like a huge simplification to me.  --Serge 19:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant what's the point of having both.;) What you're proposing is much simpler than what currently exists, but it is still more complex than it needs to be. Why not just eliminate 3? It seems to needlessly complicate the disambiguation process by requiring one to check if a city is the only city by that name in its country.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see your point.  The reason I include 3 is to convey why the name is being disambiguated.  It's for the same reason that a movie title that conflicts with a book title of the same name is disambiguated with (film) (e.g., The Bridges of Madison County (film), while a movie title that conflicts with another movie with the same name is disambiguated with the year (e.g., Cape Fear (1991 film)).  So the rules of how to disambiguate depend on what we're conflicting with.  This, again, is the hallmark of Wikipedia disambiguation.  One might ask why not disambiguate all films with (year film), and the reason is then you would lose the ability of knowing whether a given film is the one and only with that name, or if there have been others, simply by looking at the article title.  Similarly, I oppose disambiguating all cities with state, because then we wouldn't have the information of knowing whether that is the one and only city in the given country, or if there are others, simply by looking at the article title.  Yes, it's a bit more work at the time the article title is determined, but it pays dividends every time that article title is seen.  Since we're supposed to put the interests of readers above editors, it seems like a no-brainer tradeoff to me.  --Serge 19:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you want to "convey why the name is being disambiguated"? Isn't that just as bad a reason for putting something in the title as you think about putting ", state" which shows it is a city or town? --Scott Davis Talk 05:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering if anyone was going to catch that apparent contradiction.  The answer is no, of course, it's not just as bad.  The only reason to put extra information, besides the name of the subject, in the title of an article is to disambiguate the name from other uses of the same name.  If we adhere to that principle consistently in Wikipedia, then the "why the name is being disambiguated" information is there implicitly.  If we predisambiguate for any other reason, then the principle is violated and the "why the name is being disambiguated" information is lost.  Also, the intro sentence of any article indicates whether a given article is about a town or city.  So encoding that information in the name is redundant.  But the information about why the name is  disambiguated can only be found in the title itself, and then only if the above principle is adhered to consistently.  Make sense?  --Serge 05:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that doesn't make sense to me. If the article title is not precise, the  template at the top tells about other things with the same name. If the article title is longer, it is preferred by WP:D to use a longer name rather than something in parentheses if possible. If it is important to the subject why the article title might have been disambiguated, the article will say something like "...named after the founder's hometown, ..." or "A play and a movie have been named after...". --Scott Davis Talk 09:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Scott, compare Seaside, California to Pacific Grove, California.  Are there any other cities with either name?  How can a reader tell?  With this 1a proposal he would know immediately, because the article titles would be Pacific Grove (not dabbed, so unique) and Seaside, California (dabbed, so not unique).  He might think, "huh, Seaside is disambiguated - I wonder what other Seasides there may be...".  He would also know that Pacific Grove is the one and only.  Thus his Wikipedia experience is enhanced.  With the current convention, there is no reason to wonder, since all cities, whether they are unique or not, are predisambiguated, so the fact that a given name was disambiguated is meaningless.  --Serge 14:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'm surprised there isn't a "Pacific Grove" in Queensland. So under 1a, the article about town of Pacific Grove should be named "Pacific Grove", until other articles are written that could also have that name. Then it gets moved to "Pacific Grove (town)" because there are two other articles that could use the short name. Then an enterprising developer in Queensland, New Zealand or Fiji builds a new holiday resort town, and the article gets another rename to "Pacific Grove (United States of America)". Some time later, another developer does the same thing in Hawaii or Oregon, and the article should get its fourth name under proposal 1a, and get moved to Pacific Grove, California, right back where it started!? --Scott Davis Talk 23:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This silly argument again?  What you describe is theoretically possible, but in practice highly unlikely.  First, how many new towns are created per year worldwide?  2, 5, 10, 100?  Whatever it is, it is certainly a very manageable issue.  Second, the newly developed town would have to be significant enough to warrant knocking out the original usage as not clearly the most common use of the name.  That's unlikely simply since the new usage is likely named after the original one.  The loss to readers of meaningful and useful information about other uses of the same name from the title itself in order to use a naming convention that "protects" editors from having to move one or two names per year (at most) is simply not worth it. It's silly to even suggest it, Scott.  I'm frankly surprised you haven't given this one a rest.  --Serge 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of our municipal articles are on places so small that the average development would be comparable to them; which is all this proposal would require.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Very good. But these are challenges that must be addressed for every single article in Wikipedia, including every city article for any country for which the comma convention is not currently the convention.  I don't understand why you guys seem to think there is a requirement for the naming convention for U.S. city articles to be able to avoid having to resolve challenges like determining whether one usage or some other is the "most common".  As if that's some big insurmountable issue.  Besides, most if not all of these issues are already resolved, as shown by whether Cityname alone is a redirect to the article entitled with Cityname, Statename.  In fact, the comma convention does nothing to alleviate the need to address these issues, since having an article at Cityname, Statename still requires editors to decide what to do with Cityname.  Should it be an article for some other more commonly known subject?  Should it redirect to Cityname, Statename, to Cityname (disambiguation) or to some other disambiguation version of Cityname? The comma convention does not resolve any problem. At most, if moves it from one particular article to a redirect.  --Serge 05:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal preference is that Cityname should be either a disambig page or a redirect if the name really is only used for one thing at present. One day something else (a ship or an event for example) may be named after it. One thing I've noticed is that most of the proponents of City, State are people who have been involved in disambiguating links and fixing links to the wrong pages. I have not noticed any of its opponents doing the same thing (maybe I just haven't paid attention?). --Scott Davis Talk 09:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, "if the name really is only used for one thing at present" can only be determined by the same process that 1a requires.  Your observation about city, state proponents may be accurate, which only goes to show that the primary motivation behind the city, state convention for U.S. cities is to benefit editors over readers (assuming worldwide city naming consistency is a reader benefit).  --Serge 14:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My motivation is to increase and maintain the quality of Wikipedia as a reference work. Links to the wrong article reduce that quality, however they got there. --Scott Davis Talk 23:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence do you have that changing to a naming convention similar to what is already used by the majority of countries would lead to "links to the wrong article".  More silliness, Scott.  --Serge 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Again with Scott's silly argument?  How can the appearance of another Lucas Township come without notice?  Someone would have to notice it, and care enough about creating an article for it.  The first thing he would do is follow the standard Wikipedia article creation process: see if there is already another article with that name.  With the current system, he would find a redirect at Lucas Township.  With 1a, he would find an article.  Either way, changes would be required.  Yes, with 1a there would be more work for this editor, but we are supposed to favor the experience for reader, not the editor.  With the current convention this editor would change the Lucas Township redirect to be an article about the new town (assuming it's in a country which does not predisambiguate).  Wonderful.  That's the problem with not having a standard worldwide guideline.  --Serge 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: **No, it means that the reader will have to know whether  there is a Lucas Township, Queensland or not to get where he wants to go without trouble. Serge's refutation would prove editors will be warned. Considering his claims below to be arguing solely from the PoV of the readership below, I find this disingenuous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1a Discussion

message: The only difference between 1a and 1b is that #3 from 1a is gone.  This is what I understand Bobblehead to prefer.
# If there are no ambiguity issues with the name of the city, use the name of the city for the title of the article.  Examples: Seattle, Los Angeles.
# If there are ambiguity issues, but the most common use for the name is clearly to refer to the city that is the subject of the article, use the name of the city for the title of the article.  Examples: Paris, Boston, London, San Francisco.
# If the name conflicts with one or more cities, then disambiguate by specifying the name of the state/province/district/county with a comma, as appropriate for the relevant country (if the city is not within an appropriate sub-jurisdiction, use the country itself).  Examples: London, California, Santiago, Chile.
# If the name conflicts with other significant usages (such that rule 2 does not apply) of the name, none of which are cities, then disambiguate with city in parenthesis.  Example:  Cork (city).
--Serge 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this proposal, and I think it's close to what we have presently (except that a lot of North American cities would lose their preemptive disambiguation, which I don't mind). My only concern is how to decide whether there is an "appropriate sub-jurisdiction". Should we use such sub-jurisdictions for countries that self-identify as federations? This is close to what we have: Mora, Maharashtra and Mora, Sweden, for example, but we do have Halle, Belgium, not Halle, Flemish Region (probably because Belgium is a very strange federation) and most, but not all, of the Swiss cities are disambiguated by country rather than by canton. -- Jao 16:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 1b

message: Well, let's say I prefer it to 1a. Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 23:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this proposal, and I think it's close to what we have presently (except that a lot of North American cities would lose their preemptive disambiguation, which I don't mind). My only concern is how to decide whether there is an "appropriate sub-jurisdiction". Should we use such sub-jurisdictions for countries that self-identify as federations? This is close to what we have: Mora, Maharashtra and Mora, Sweden, for example, but we do have Halle, Belgium, not Halle, Flemish Region (probably because Belgium is a very strange federation) and most, but not all, of the Swiss cities are disambiguated by country rather than by canton. -- Jao 16:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1b Discussion

message: The only difference between 1b and 1c is that #4 from 1b (#5 from 1a) is gone.  This would mean Cork (city) would be at Cork, County Cork.
# If there are no ambiguity issues with the name of the city, use the name of the city for the title of the article.  Examples: Seattle, Los Angeles.
# If there are ambiguity issues, but the most common use for the name is clearly to refer to the city that is the subject of the article, use the name of the city for the title of the article.  Examples: Paris, Boston, London, San Francisco.
# If the name conflicts with the name of any other article (such that rule 2 does not apply), then disambiguate by specifying the name of the state/province/district/county with a comma, as appropriate for the relevant country (if the city is not within an appropriate sub-jurisdiction, use the country itself).  Examples: London, California, Santiago, Chile, Cork, County Cork.
--Serge 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 1c

message: Same as 1c with the added requirement that a place must have some kind of "international recognition" to stand alone. (Conditions as to what determines this "international recognition" to be determined later -- let's do this one step at a time).
# If there are no ambiguity issues with the name of the city that is internationally recognized, use the name of the city alone for the title of the article.  Examples: Seattle, Los Angeles, New Orleans.
# If there are ambiguity issues, but the most common use for the name is clearly to refer to an internationally reocgnized city that is the subject of the article, use the name of the city alone for the title of the article.  Examples: Paris, Boston, London, San Francisco. 
# If the name of an internationally recognized city conflicts with the name of any other article (such that rule 2 does not apply), then disambiguate by specifying the name of the state/province/district/county with a comma, as appropriate for the relevant country (if the city is not within an appropriate sub-jurisdiction, use the country itself).  Examples: Santiago, Chile, Cork, County Cork, Newark, New Jersey. For cities that commonly use some other form of disambiguation that is not the comma style, use that instead, e.g. Stratford-upon-Avon.
# If the city is not internationally recognized, use an additional qualifier by specifying the name of the state/province/district/county with a comma, as appropriate for the relevant country (if the city is not within an appropriate sub-jurisdiction, use the country itself). Examples: London, California, Assawoman, Virginia, Pacific Grove, California. For cities that commonly use some other form of disambiguation that is not the comma style, use that instead, e.g. Rothenburg ob der Tauber.
====1d Discussion====
Frankfurt (Oder) is a bad example; English usage (such as it is) remains Frankfurt an der Oder. I have changed it to one where this question does not arise. See WP:GERCON. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 1d

message: Frankfurt (Oder) is a bad example; English usage (such as it is) remains Frankfurt an der Oder. I have changed it to one where this question does not arise. See WP:GERCON. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1d Discussion

message: Follow the main place naming convention. From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.  
So use what is currently the most common form and is actually in use in most countries on a limited basis.  Use the comma convention of (place name), (country, state, province, etc.).  No need to worry about ambiguity, very little need to keep moving articles or even to discuss moves.  This lets editors do things right the first time and establishes a very clear and consistent style sheet convention for city names improving the overall quality of the encyclopedia.  Simple and not subjective. Vegaswikian 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *As far as I can tell, this is simply arguing that the official name of a city is often not the most common name used to refer to that city.  Agreed.  So what?  Anyway, the bottom line is that for any city article in Wikipedia, Proposal 1a specifies one name for the title, while Proposal 2a is very vague and requires per-country clarification for most cities, starting with Paris and San Francisco. --Serge 00:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Serge, we are discussing names of Wikipedia articles about places, not just names of places. These are not quite the same things. Yes, rigorously following a comma convention-style naming convention for all cities would lead to something like Paris, Île-de-France, Paris, Ile-de-France, Paris, Ile de France or Paris, France. The 1a proposal also needs a lot more detail added to it so that if rule one (unique name) fails, there is a single path through the maze to find the name for the an article about the place. --Scott Davis Talk 23:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any examples of articles about cities for which 1a does not clearly specify what the name should be?  Please provide.  --Serge 23:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an example, but it could clearly create additional ambiguities in cases where a state name is the same as the name of country.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless we can come up with a single state or province name that is the same as a country name, this is a moot theoretical point that has no practical significance.  If it's a real practical problem, then we can adjust the rules accordingly, citing a special rule for cities in states with names that conflict with the names of countries that do not have sub-jurisdictions.  Say there is a country named Oregon with no sub-jurisdictions, and a city named Portland.  We could have a rule that says for cities that require disambiguation that are in states with names that conflict with country names, the city would be disambiguated per the following format: Cityname, Statename (countryname)'.  Thus: Portland, Oregon (U.S.A) and Portland (Oregon) (for the city Portland in the country of Oregon).  --Serge 00:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Upon further reflection, I don't think there is even a theoretical conflict.  If both countries have sub-jurisdictions, then the disambiguation would use those.  If one doesn't have a named sub-jurisdiction (e.g., state, province, county), then it would be disambiguated by specifying the country in parenthesis (per 1a(3)), while the city in the country with a sub-jurisdiction would use the comma convention.  So you would have Portland, Oregon and Portland (Oregon) (again, assuming there is a country named Oregon with a city named Portland).  The only potential problem is if a country with no named sub-jurisdiction would have two cities with the same names, but that would be an issue no matter what naming convention we would use. And it's a highly unlikely scenario. Virtually impossible.  --Serge 01:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it is very similar to what is in place for the US and other areas.  But your tone seems to suggest that because of this it is a problem.  The wording of the proposal is totally clear.  If this proposal gets consensus, it will be up to the consensus of the editors on how to apply the guideline to places in France.  For me to be try to dictate the nuisances of every place in the world would be stupid. Exceptions will happen the only question is how they will be decided on based on the consensus for countries or regions.  Likewise the need for per county clarification which would still be needed for either proposal 1 or proposal 2. Vegaswikian 23:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, please provide an example city for which proposal 1a requires further per-country clarification.  If you can't, please stop claiming that it requires it.  Thanks. My point is that 1a does not require per-country clarification, and 2a does, which leaves us right where we currently are.  Thus 2 is not really a single worldwide city guideline, which is what we're supposed to be proposing here.  --Serge 00:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When did "Oregon" become a country? I knew it was  a state and a kind timber, and Oregon (disambiguation) says it is several US cities/towns, too. The state/country ambiguity is clearly about Georgia. --Scott Davis Talk 03:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used Oregon because I couldn't think of an actual example Georgia is better.  Thanks.  --Serge 04:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 2 

message: Use the proper name of the subject of the article as a title, and anything else is (disambiguated) with brackets, just like the rest of Wikipedia (and every other respectable encyclopaedic publication). When disambiguation is necessary for "cityplace", use "city (country)" - in the same reasoning as every other international-oriented publication. If no disambiguation is needed, don't disambiguate. I do understand that some article titles may become longish, but it's all in the interest of a more widespread recognition. I'm not yet sure, but this may also reduce the need to consult a disambiguation page.
*Paris => Paris (Texas, United States) - Paris (France)
*London => London (United Kingdom) - London (Ohio, United States) - London (Ontario, Canada)
Whether there is a "un-disabiguated top dog" locale is a debate I think it simpler to leave for later. THEPROMENADER 10:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the comma instead of brackets (fixed) , but aside from that it's very clear. The US city of Portland would be "Portland (United States)" if disambiguation is needed and "Portland (Oregon, United States)" if even further disambiguation is needed. This would be a naming convention adapted to the rest of Wiki and well-adapted to world-wide use. THEPROMENADER 10:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: A bit advice : to avoid more going around in circles, best try to come up with a convention that satisfies as many Wiki-media demands as possible, and only then start wrangling with "exceptions". The "who gets the no-disambiguation top place" - would Wike ever want to create this sort of exception from a convention - is entirely another debate. THEPROMENADER 10:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not clear to me that it would be Portland (Oregon, United States).  So, is it Paris or Paris (France)?  But it would be Paris (Kenosha County, Wisconsin, United States) and Paris (Grant County, Wisconsin, United States), correct? I added 3b as a clarified version of 3a.  I hope you don't mind.  --Serge 14:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mind, but it needlessly complicates things as, although it is longer, it says exactly the same thing. You would be kind to remove it, or perhaps add a few examples below my proposition. Your above statement is correct, as are the examples. Initially a convention should apply to anything needing disambiguation - but whether there is a "top no-disambiguation" article is another step and another debate. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 14:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually 3b is shorter in that the editorializing in 3a is avoided.  Besides the list of clarifying examples, the only extra words are: "If there is more than one cityplace within the same country, disambiguate further, as appropriate. "  I believe this is necessary as in 3a it is not clear whether it would be Portland (Oregon) or Portland (Oregon, United States).  The "disambiguate further" language clarifies that the country as a minimum is always there (when disambiguation is required).  Without that language this meaning may be clear to you, but it's not to me.  --Serge 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What "editoralising"? It's the proposition that's important, not our contribution of the same. The lower version is also vague - thus an invitation for more wikilawyering. To the point == no fussing about. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "just like the rest of Wikipedia (and every other respectable encyclopaedic publication)" is editorializing.  Such wording should not be in a guideline.  We're supposed to be proposing wording for an actual guideline here.  By the "lower version" do you mean 3b?  How is it also vague?  If so, let's fix it.  --Serge 20:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever are you going on about? I was reasoning, and using the reasoning of other more professional, longstanding and respectable publications (than Wiki) as an example for the same. Yet it's only the reasoning we should maintain - who said anything about putting talk-page discussion into a guidline? THEPROMENADER 20:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was part of the proposal for the guideline.  It wasn't separate.  These are supposed to be specific proposals for actual guidelines, not vague descriptions with mixed in commentary.  The devil is in the details, and that's what we should be trying to work out. --Serge 21:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you seem to be the only one declaring discussion details to be fixed guidelines. Keep discussion simple - and coherent! - please. THEPROMENADER 23:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For every proposal, there is a section to present the guideline being proposed, and section to discuss the guideline being proposed.  Why mix in discussion in the guideline presentation section? If you're proposing a guideline, great, but please do so clearly so we know what we're discussing.  Thanks.  --Serge 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 3a

message: This proposal is unclear.  For example, it does not specify how to title the article about the city of Portland in Oregon. Should the famous Paris be at Paris (France) or at Paris?  This is not specified either.   --Serge 04:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the comma instead of brackets (fixed) , but aside from that it's very clear. The US city of Portland would be "Portland (United States)" if disambiguation is needed and "Portland (Oregon, United States)" if even further disambiguation is needed. This would be a naming convention adapted to the rest of Wiki and well-adapted to world-wide use. THEPROMENADER 10:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: A bit advice : to avoid more going around in circles, best try to come up with a convention that satisfies as many Wiki-media demands as possible, and only then start wrangling with "exceptions". The "who gets the no-disambiguation top place" - would Wike ever want to create this sort of exception from a convention - is entirely another debate. THEPROMENADER 10:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not clear to me that it would be Portland (Oregon, United States).  So, is it Paris or Paris (France)?  But it would be Paris (Kenosha County, Wisconsin, United States) and Paris (Grant County, Wisconsin, United States), correct? I added 3b as a clarified version of 3a.  I hope you don't mind.  --Serge 14:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mind, but it needlessly complicates things as, although it is longer, it says exactly the same thing. You would be kind to remove it, or perhaps add a few examples below my proposition. Your above statement is correct, as are the examples. Initially a convention should apply to anything needing disambiguation - but whether there is a "top no-disambiguation" article is another step and another debate. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 14:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually 3b is shorter in that the editorializing in 3a is avoided.  Besides the list of clarifying examples, the only extra words are: "If there is more than one cityplace within the same country, disambiguate further, as appropriate. "  I believe this is necessary as in 3a it is not clear whether it would be Portland (Oregon) or Portland (Oregon, United States).  The "disambiguate further" language clarifies that the country as a minimum is always there (when disambiguation is required).  Without that language this meaning may be clear to you, but it's not to me.  --Serge 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What "editoralising"? It's the proposition that's important, not our contribution of the same. The lower version is also vague - thus an invitation for more wikilawyering. To the point == no fussing about. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "just like the rest of Wikipedia (and every other respectable encyclopaedic publication)" is editorializing.  Such wording should not be in a guideline.  We're supposed to be proposing wording for an actual guideline here.  By the "lower version" do you mean 3b?  How is it also vague?  If so, let's fix it.  --Serge 20:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever are you going on about? I was reasoning, and using the reasoning of other more professional, longstanding and respectable publications (than Wiki) as an example for the same. Yet it's only the reasoning we should maintain - who said anything about putting talk-page discussion into a guidline? THEPROMENADER 20:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was part of the proposal for the guideline.  It wasn't separate.  These are supposed to be specific proposals for actual guidelines, not vague descriptions with mixed in commentary.  The devil is in the details, and that's what we should be trying to work out. --Serge 21:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you seem to be the only one declaring discussion details to be fixed guidelines. Keep discussion simple - and coherent! - please. THEPROMENADER 23:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For every proposal, there is a section to present the guideline being proposed, and section to discuss the guideline being proposed.  Why mix in discussion in the guideline presentation section? If you're proposing a guideline, great, but please do so clearly so we know what we're discussing.  Thanks.  --Serge 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3a Discussion

message: Same as 3a, except clarified to the best of my understanding.
# Use the proper name of the subject of the article as a title, and specify anything else, if required for disambiguation, with parenthesis.
# When disambiguation is necessary (per normal Wikipedia naming conventions) for "cityplace", use "cityplace (country)".  If there is more than one cityplace within the same country, disambiguate further, as appropriate.  Examples: Paris, London, San Francisco, Pacific Grove, Monterey (California, United States), Santiago (Chile), Cork (city) (because Cork (Ireland) is ambiguous, and there is no sub-jurisdiction to disambiguate further), Paris (Texas, United States), London (Ohio, United States), Paris (Kenosha County, Wisconsin, United States) and Paris (Grant County, Wisconsin, United States).
--Serge 14:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But this does not take into account the international nature of Wiki. To disambiguate with the most "world-known" term first would be the best practice in this direction - and this would be "country". Lesser-known and smaller administrative divisions should only be used with the first, and only as neccessary. Let's get out of this "local that we know" clique. THEPROMENADER 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Toby, see Proposal 3c.  Is that what you're looking for? --Serge 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 3b 

message: May I suggest that this proposal only use as much disambiguation as is necessary to uniquely identify the town being discussed? In other words, I think Paris (Texas, United States) is unnecessary, and that Paris (Texas) is sufficient to disambiguate the city from others with the same name. I'm basing this suggestion on my understanding that article titles need not provide context, since that is the job of the first line of the article.
I think this would result in Paris (Kenosha County) and Paris (Grant County), unless there are other similarly-named towns in other similarly-named counties. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 19:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But this does not take into account the international nature of Wiki. To disambiguate with the most "world-known" term first would be the best practice in this direction - and this would be "country". Lesser-known and smaller administrative divisions should only be used with the first, and only as neccessary. Let's get out of this "local that we know" clique. THEPROMENADER 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Toby, see Proposal 3c.  Is that what you're looking for? --Serge 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3b discussion

message: Same as 3b, except minimizes disambiguation information.  It results in being a combination of 1a and 3b.
# Use the proper name of the subject of the article as a title, and specify anything else, if and only if required for disambiguation, within parenthesis.
#:Examples: Paris, London, San Francisco, Pacific Grove.
#When disambiguation is required, use the highest administrative division possible, starting with the name of the country, that results in a unique title, while also utilizing the least number of divisions possible.
#:Examples: Santiago (Chile), Monterey (California), London (Ohio), Paris (Texas),  Paris (Kenosha County) (not Paris (Kenosha County, Wisconsin) which would be used only if Paris (Kenosha County) was not unique) and Paris (Grant County).
# When no appropriate anministrative division is appropriate, use the word city.
#:Example: Cork (city) (because Cork is a dab page, the city of Cork is not officially part of County Cork, and Cork (Ireland) is ambiguous with the county).
--Serge 23:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Literally tons, I imagine. Most likely the situation will be the same if any new proposition is accepted. THEPROMENADER 09:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That is the inevitable one-time cost (how many articles have to be moved) and part of the benefit (number of links fixed) of going to a consistent worldwide convention.  Hopefully much of it can be done with bots.  But do not think that the primary purpose of going to a single consistent world city (place?) naming convention is to fix broken links.  It's much more than that.  --Serge 16:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Not quite, at least not how it is currently written. But it would be cleaner and more specific if it said that explicitly (and the examples were consistent), and I think that's what Toby had in mind, so I'll revise it accordingly.  --Serge 20:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 3c 

message: How many articles would have to be moved, and how many links fixed, if this proposal is adopted?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Literally tons, I imagine. Most likely the situation will be the same if any new proposition is accepted. THEPROMENADER 09:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That is the inevitable one-time cost (how many articles have to be moved) and part of the benefit (number of links fixed) of going to a consistent worldwide convention.  Hopefully much of it can be done with bots.  But do not think that the primary purpose of going to a single consistent world city (place?) naming convention is to fix broken links.  It's much more than that.  --Serge 16:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Not quite, at least not how it is currently written. But it would be cleaner and more specific if it said that explicitly (and the examples were consistent), and I think that's what Toby had in mind, so I'll revise it accordingly.  --Serge 20:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3c discussion 

message: The status quo. Aside from a handful of vocal malcontents, is there really such a problem that needs to be fixed here? I mean seriously folks, I don't see that there is much of any problem here that need fixing. Despite the lengthy disputations of some, there is NOTHING inherently unencyclopedic about using the place, state convention. And this being a wiki, there is NOTHING very unusual whatsoever that there are some inconsistencies. older ≠ wiser 01:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the best suggestion I've heard yet.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The goal here is to come up with a uniform worldwide city (or, ideally, place) naming convention, so we don't need separate and inconsistent guidelines for each nation. Surely you can appreciate that. --Serge 04:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Whose goal? The goal of some of us is to write an encyclopedia, rather than to debate changes to naming conventions.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whose goal is to debate changes to naming conventions?  Certainly not mine.  My goal is to have a consistent naming convention for all place articles in Wikipedia, but at least for all city articles, that is hopefully consistent with the naming conventions used by other articles in Wikipedia. And to come up with a proposal that achieves that goal is the purpose of this discussion in this section of this talk page.  If you're not interested in participating in an effort to achieve that goal, perhaps you should go do something else?  No offense... I'm just saying...  --Serge 05:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The existing naming convention is working well-enough, and a major change will likely result in disruption. That may not be the goal, but it's likely to be the result. These new proposals appear to address non-existent problems. Now if someone can find a general solution to the problems that do occur, like Gdansk/Danzig, then that woud be time well spent.    ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixing gross inconsistencies is not disruption - it's improving Wikipedia, no matter how much work it will require bots to do. Having a separate guideline for each country on how to name cities is a gross inconsistency that needs to be fixed if it can be.  That's what we're trying to do here.  Will you help, or not?  --Serge 14:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Do you know of any encyclopedia or any professional publication that uses different naming conventions for cities in Germany than cities in the United States?  Please.  --Serge 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: **Yes; I can't think of one off-hand that  doesn't. They disambiguate French and German ambiguities by river, American ambiguities by state, and UK ambiguities by county. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wait wait wait. The fact that the argument is moot (local disambiguations for locals can't be expected to be understood internationally), the French "sur Rhone" or "sur Marne" disambiguation (as you call it) is an integral part of the placename. It is not, in fact, disambiguation. THEPROMENADER 20:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: ***How we disambiguate is a separate question of when we disambiguate. We should of course use a disambiguation method that reflects common usage. However, this still doesn't mean we should pre-disambiguate as a policy. --Polaron | Talk 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: ****Exactly.  I should have asked: do you know of any encyclopedia or professional publication that predabs city names in one country, but doesn't predab city names in another country, as a rule?  --Serge 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: **** I would also agree that disambiguation should only be used where necessary. THEPROMENADER 20:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The "status quo" that you refer to is the U.S. city guideline/convention.  This discussion is about a potential worldwide convention.  --Serge 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is a status quo on non-American places as well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there is a status quo on non-American places as well.  But the status quo that you refer to, in terms of the New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago "exceptions", are all-American.  --Serge 16:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 4 

message: *The reason not to have an international convention of "always disambiguate" is that it works poorly in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Austria.
*The reason not to have an international convention of "disambiguate only when necessary" is that it works poorly in the United States and Australia and is opposed in Chile.
*The reason, so far, not to use a standard of "disambiguate most" is that it will still work poorly in the United Kingdom and no clear standard for which cities are primary usage has been proposed.
*The reason not to adopt a world-wide method of disambiguation is that different countries use different methods and (in general) English follows them. We should not invent names.
These are the bars that must be crossed; any international standard must have reasons enough stronger than these to justify massive moves.  What more needs to be said? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let's cross them. Your list of selective arguments does not at all address the entire concept of an international method, nor the benefits it may bring, and, authorative tone aside, it is certainly not reason enough to abandon all idea of debate on an international method - au contraire, actually. 
The silliest in the your stance is that many of the world's major publications already have an international naming scheme; how can you continue to pretend that no possibility for the same exists? Perhaps you don't want it to, but taste is certainly no subsitute for reason. If you do not want to help find an international method, then there is no reason for your participation in a thread dedicated to this endeavour. THEPROMENADER 17:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Perhaps an example of a single naming convention used by a major world publication would be useful to the debate.  In particular, a link to the specific wording of said convention so that we have something to compare to? ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Larousse in front of me, already - no disambiguation for any name unless neccessary, and then it uses parentheses for a sometimes lengthy and descriptive disambiguation. I'll see if I can find some other examples. THEPROMENADER 18:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please find examples in English. That Larousse differs from American usage on Ameerican cities does not surprise me; how many Springfields does it have? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly - an English langauge example would be appropriate, considering this is the English wikipedia. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I knew you'd say that : ) I don't see your "U.S. usage" point though, as few respectable publications adapt to local usage - name a few yourself! Anyhow, Encyclopedia Britannica uses no disambiguation for placenames (a quick search for Denver and a comma convention for proper names ("Denver, John", "Denver, University of") for alphabetisation - yes, even for its electronic version. Different methods, yes, but consistent across the board in all cases. THEPROMENADER 18:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  ...and while we're being French (in an English encyclopaedia), here's a quick search for Britannica's "Paris". No disambiguation, across the board. To each its own method, but they are always consistent for places the world over. Like any respectable publication! THEPROMENADER 18:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whoop, here's another - section "Par" from "The World Gazeteer" - only placenames, and they use a "Name (Country, region)" disambiguation. These are not cherrypicked, these are pulled from the first places I thought to look! THEPROMENADER 18:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Whoop, here's another online reference - Yahoo encyclopedia - that uses no disambiguation at all whenever possible ("Denver" again); their "Paris"  (example because existing in countries the world over) uses a "Name, description, Country" convention. Consistent across the board, again. Have I made my point clear? Now, can we get some forward motion, please? THEPROMENADER 18:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these based on your observations of a convention or the wording of a convention itself?  ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My meaning was clear. Use the word "method" instead of you so prefer, it changes nothing. I gave you exactly what you asked for - that's a pretty vague reply. THEPROMENADER 20:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go back and re-read what I asked for, and that was the specific wording of the convention in use.  It seems to me you have sampled some references and given us your observation on what naming scheme they seem to use.  I don't care which word you use - method, scheme, convention, etc.  My question was do you have any examples of the actual method itself, and not just an observation thereof? ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really don't see the point of your question - in what way does it refute anything? The method is clear for all to see in the examples I gave - look, and judge for yourself! THEPROMENADER 21:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And I remind Promenader that, unlike most works of reference, we are forced to disambiguate. It might be better to have all the Springfields at separate articles, all called Springfield, but we can't. Printed works can, and some do; but, nowever simple and elegant this may be, it is impossible for us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I know, but that doesn't force us to use local lingo. How about the other examples above - the "World Gazetteer", listing every city on the planet, was a very complete example. Why do you ignore these? THEPROMENADER 20:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  By the way, thanks for taking this discussion totally off-topic. I'm making the last bit of this a thread of its own. THEPROMENADER 21:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The world gazetteer example above appears to use some sort of "always disambiguate", but it's not clear from the examples exactly what their rules are. It appears to always use a country and sometimes use another level of administrative region, but I didn't pick the rule for it. --Scott Davis Talk 14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons we should not have an international convention 

message: Despite the claims of going around in circles, I think the following progress has been made on this talk page recently.
# We have near consensus (Promenader is the only dissenter, I believe) on the notion that Cityname, Statename is a legitimate "name" for a city, at least in the U.S. for some relatively general/broad definitions of "name".  I for one have been convinced it is semantic nonsense and pointless to try to argue otherwise.
# We seem to have achieved some consensus on the notion that U.S. cities are treated differently from other Wikipedia articles.  Scott Davis for example not only recognizes this, but applauds it for specific reasons he has outlined several times, and supports the spreading of this different treatment to other classes of articles within Wikipedia (though it's not yet clear to me if he believes this spreading should be limited to cities/settlements or to go beyond).  Arkyan also recognizes the difference in treatment and explains why he believes this different treatment is justified for U.S. cities.  PMAnderson seems to have backed off from his initial They aren't position and now agrees with Arkyan.
# I've introduced the notion of precise and imprecise classes of articles to the lexicon which helps distinguish the classes of articles for which the most common name is clear and obvious for almost all if not all class members, from those in which this is not the case.  
# My argument that city articles form a precise class and yet U.S. cities are treated as an imprecise class has been presented, with mixed results in terms of comprehension, much less agreement.  The jury is still out, I feel, but at least it's out there.
Anything else?  --Serge 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Progress towards... where? A few of you have made it clear what you want (namely preserving the "city, state" convention for every placename you aren't ignorant about), but I haven't a clue where you're headed with this new "imprecise" and "precice" class... interpretation of... what? Let me remind you that a reader sees none of this wikipedian interpretation. Consistency is both comprehension and credibility for a reference, yet more than a few of you seem to forgo this simple fact in favor of personal per-wiki-re-definitions of the practices you are most comfortable with. Should we just accept, for these trifling narrow-minded local social issues, that Wiki will always be limited in these regards? Those who would say "yes" do not have the reader in mind. THEPROMENADER 22:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone translate this into something intelligible?  I can't.  --Serge 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm, I can't seem to find the "Serge" setting on my intergallactic translator : ) THEPROMENADER 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is inconsistent. That's one of the consequences (it may not even be a cost) of being a wiki.Local consistency is the best we can hope for; local consistency is one of the arguments for "disambiguate all" for the United States. (I don't hold this position, but several do; and for this reason.) On the other hand, "don't disambiguate the 22%" will be an invisible consistency even locally.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PMAnderson, you claim "don't disambiguate the 22%" will be an invisible consistency even locally.  How so?  Most if not all of the big famous cities are in that 22%, and, so, they will all consistently not be dabbed.  And with respect to the not-so-famous within the 22%, yes, they will appear "inconsistent" with other U.S. cities which are dabbed, but so what?  Book articles, film articles, and all other articles within precise classes are inconsistently dabbed.  Why should U.S. cities be any different? --Serge 23:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The big famous cities are (however counted) a dozen or a few dozen. I am prepared to consider something like the Loughborough proposal especially for them. The overwhelming majority of the 22% are places like Assawoman, Virginia and Tinton Falls, New Jersey. It is  those articles which should be consistent with the other towns in the same county; and it is they that will form a confusing and error-prone patchwork.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As I have stated, no one has really pointed out any evidence to believe that this will be problematic for readers.  It is my opinion that this is a largely imagined fear and the liklihood of a reader being confused by the fact that a city is named City, State is slim to none. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beliefs, persuasions and hypotheses do not a coherent system make. Wiki readers take what's given to them; It is only wikipedians that bicker among themselves about the quality of the content. It seems by the above that few in this debate are willing to think outside their "own" little box. THEPROMENADER 23:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Touché.  However, I have never tried to assert that my position was in any absolute fashion a superior position and have always been willing to concede the fact that other people may feel entirely differently than I do.  Sans hard evidence one way or the other, the only things that we do have to go on are beliefs, persuasions, hypotheses and opinions. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oh stop already.  If you have a solution, spit it out. Otherwise, please note that the only way to resolve what you're talking about is to insist on a specific naming format for every class of article within Wikipedia that guarantees uniqueness.  You are, in fact, arguing that every book article title should be suffixed with (book).  Otherwise you have Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Wheels (novel).  Inconsistent!  Why does one end in (novel) and the other doesn't the reader will surely ask.  How do you resolve that?  Regardless, that problem is much broader than naming conventions for cities.  If that's what you're trying to solve, you're on the wrong page.  --Serge 23:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, yes, I am more than persuaded that some sort of coherent disambiguation system is neccessary - organised by subject - one for personna, another for places, etc, just like every respectable reference work - as it is by subject that readers look for disambiguation/article naming patterns. Open any mainstream reference work you like if you need examples of the same. THEPROMENADER 23:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress! 

message: Can we turn on auto archiving of inactive discussions here using one of the bots?  If we did this, I'm thinking that we could use either 14 or 21 days.  Currently this talk page is over 500,000 bytes. Vegaswikian 07:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think its needed. I think 14 days would suffice. AgneCheese/Wine 07:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Please please please. Thank you : ) THEPROMENADER 08:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There ya go.. one autoarchiving set up for 14 days to go to newly created archive 16. Just need to increment the counter when the current archive page fills up, which will probably be right after Miszabot II runs today.--Bobblehead (rants) 18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized, the oldest discussion on this page ended on July 21, so the earliest anything will be archived will be on August 4th or 5th unless someone makes a comment in those sections or lowers the number of days a discussions needs to have been ended before it is archived.--Bobblehead (rants) 18:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does everyone think about 10 days? A week and a half should give any proposal or section a fair shake to have at least someone comment on it.AgneCheese/Wine 18:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan to me. Lately if something isn't responded to within a couple of hours it's a dead discussion. :)--Bobblehead (rants) 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There was an autoarchive on August 1.  So the process has already started.  I suggest leaving the setting at 14 days for a while to see how that works.  This is an active time here and may not represent the historic average activity.  We seem to have spikes of activity and when they finish, activity really drops off.  Vegaswikian 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto archiving 

message: I've submitted a move request to move Split (currently the article on the city in Croatia) to Split (city) to make room for the Split dab page at Split.  A similar recent attempt to move Split to Split, Croatia failed to achieve consensus. I'm nominating Split (city) per suggestions from others in the comments of the previous poll, and to follow the convention set by Cork (city).  Go here for the poll and discussion.  Thanks.  --Serge 06:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split (city in Croatia) move request 

message: Substantial debate on this topic seems to have all but died out.  It doesn't appear to me that we were able to reach any sort of consensus on any of the questions or suggestions made.  Is the relative inactivity of the debate indicative that we've all pretty much given up on the hope of making any real progress and are just going to default to "No Change" and do things the way we've been doing them? ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dahliarose's proposal is new and different, and has the support of both Serge and Anderson (qualified). Can we get some more opinions on that before giving up? Λυδαcιτγ 01:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I wasn't aware that was a proposal per se but more of a question.  For what it is worth I don't really care for the GaWC list as a criteria - it undergoes periodic changes in terms of inclusion criteria itself.  Would we be using the newest list?  An older version?  All of them?  I feel if there is going to be some kind of strict "exception" policy, it needs to be based on something more quantitative than any given arbitrary list. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The newest and any further going forwards, I suppose. A quantitative method would be nice, but there's no quantitative criterion that establishes whether a city is known worldwide. Λυδαcιτγ 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The proposal is this: "for the sake of consistency all cities mentioned in the Global city article should not require any form of disambiguation in their article titles". Λυδαcιτγ 17:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting proposal but there are still some flaws that could have some negative consequences. For one, the 1-6 point cities (Gamma and below) don't have the clear worldwide recognition that "everyone" knows and even major news sources will include the country in articles or AP lines about the city-See Düsseldorf, Warsaw, Jakarta, etc. Secondly, some of these cities conflict with other articles like Santiago, Chile, Washington, D.C. (listed in the article as just Washington), and Luxembourg (city). It looks like the Global City is not the most reliable of sources for finding any consistency. AgneCheese/Wine 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a conflict, then disambiguate. The proposal is not saying the cities in this list *must* be at the stand-alone name, but only saying they *may* be candidates for the stand-alone name. We still have to make sure the city is the primary topic for that name, as with any unqualified Wikiepdia article title. --Polaron | Talk 19:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  Why is this so hard to understand?  It's the same rule under which every article in Wikipedia is named.  Why are the expectations for cities, from Wikipedians like Agne, so different?  Once again, why should cities be treated differently?  --Serge 20:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel obliged to repeat: This is an error of fact. United States cities are one of several large classes of article which quite often have to be disambiguated; the figure above was 77% of the time. Most of these classes have, in guideline or in practice, gone over to disambiguating all of them, because once four out of five  members of a class are disambiguated, it is simpler to disambiguate the fifth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What percentage of films are dabbed with (film)?  Are you suggesting that if some magic percentage (coincidentally 77%?) of any class of articles are dabbed, then all members of the class should be?  Did you realize that over 95% of all John Adams are dabbed, but John Adams is not?  That there are dozens of entries on the Paris dab page, yet Paris is not dabbed?  What difference does it make whether it 27%, 7% or 97%?  That again is pulling a special U.S. city-specific rule out of an area where sunshine is normally unable to reach.  --Serge 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know why you bring this up again, Serge, as it's all been discussed and didn't go anywhere. There are reasons for treating cities the same as other articles, but consensus says that they are not going to be. That argument is no longer persuasive. Λυδαcιτγ 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, right.  They don't call it Philly locally, they call it Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Please.  --Serge 23:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, actually, at the level of formality that would be comparable to an encyclopedia; try proposing a move to Philly and see what happens. I trust Filthadelphia is a redirect.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: However, Richmond is currently a dab page so there has been essentially a stable consensus that the city in Virginia is not the primary usage of the term, which is why I did not include it in the list above. --Polaron | Talk 04:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably !vote to end the row that way; but I predict there will be one, nonetheless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Except Las Vegas is a dab page. The main reason being when someone says "I'm going to Las Vegas" nine times out of ten they actually mean the Las Vegas Strip, not the city. However, I get your point. How about using the AP list that is described in the archives instead of the global cities? There are still going to be some cities on that list that will need to be disambiguated, but it identify cities by their recognizability rather than economic dominance. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AP list makes a lot more sense to me than Global cities.  I would much more readily support using that as a baseline than the GaWC list. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Common informal but inaccurate statements shouldn't be catered to: "I'm going to England. Where? Glasgow." Ah yes, the whole of the UK is often informally called "England" on this side of the pond, as the whole of the Netherlands is often called Holland (technically just two provinces of the country). Las Vegas meaning "The strip" is an informality, and will no doubt be linked from the article of the city. Also geographical names being used as an expression of something associated with them needn't force a disambiguation: "Moscow" (the one is Russia) is used also for the Russian government, I would't move Moscow to a dab page so that we can have the Russian city under Moscow, Russia. etc.  Carlossuarez46 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you might have missed my point.  I wasn't arguing that we must force disambiguations, but rather was saying that if we are to have exceptions, that I find the GaWC list an unacceptable "list of exceptions".  That's all. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I did, but I wanted really don't want the solution to only encompass 30 cities (maybe 28, see below). We need something more comprehensive. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Assuming that we are only interested in clearing this issue up for US cities, I am willing to support a proposal that uses the AP list above for cities that are an exception to the disambiguation rules. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I prefer the AP list for US cities as well, so would support the move of the above to Cityname. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh, the move is obviously a controversial move, Serge. the August 11 move was not appropriate. But then, the end result of this little discussion might result in a move of the article back to Milwaukee. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can hope.  --Serge 21:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus? 

message: Based on the 1999 list (down to gamma level), the U.S. cities that would qualify are
*New York City
*Chicago
*Los Angeles
*San Francisco
*Boston
*Dallas
*Houston
*Atlanta
*Miami
*Minneapolis
If we include the those in the 1-3 points range, we add:
*Philadelphia
*Cleveland
*Detroit
*Seattle
*Baltimore
If we use the 2004 list, we would get:
*New York City
*Los Angeles
*San Francisco
*Boston
*Chicago
*Miami
*Atlanta
*Denver
I am tempted to support the 1-3 points range, on the grounds that we have already moved Philadelphia. If we do that, however, I foresee a flaming row over whether Richmond, Virginia is primary usage — and, yes, Serge, that is also attested as local usage; see the works of James Branch Cabell, a native son. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, Richmond is currently a dab page so there has been essentially a stable consensus that the city in Virginia is not the primary usage of the term, which is why I did not include it in the list above. --Polaron | Talk 04:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably !vote to end the row that way; but I predict there will be one, nonetheless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Except Las Vegas is a dab page. The main reason being when someone says "I'm going to Las Vegas" nine times out of ten they actually mean the Las Vegas Strip, not the city. However, I get your point. How about using the AP list that is described in the archives instead of the global cities? There are still going to be some cities on that list that will need to be disambiguated, but it identify cities by their recognizability rather than economic dominance. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AP list makes a lot more sense to me than Global cities.  I would much more readily support using that as a baseline than the GaWC list. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Common informal but inaccurate statements shouldn't be catered to: "I'm going to England. Where? Glasgow." Ah yes, the whole of the UK is often informally called "England" on this side of the pond, as the whole of the Netherlands is often called Holland (technically just two provinces of the country). Las Vegas meaning "The strip" is an informality, and will no doubt be linked from the article of the city. Also geographical names being used as an expression of something associated with them needn't force a disambiguation: "Moscow" (the one is Russia) is used also for the Russian government, I would't move Moscow to a dab page so that we can have the Russian city under Moscow, Russia. etc.  Carlossuarez46 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you might have missed my point.  I wasn't arguing that we must force disambiguations, but rather was saying that if we are to have exceptions, that I find the GaWC list an unacceptable "list of exceptions".  That's all. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I did, but I wanted really don't want the solution to only encompass 30 cities (maybe 28, see below). We need something more comprehensive. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GaWC city list

message: Here's the list of cities on the AP list. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that we are only interested in clearing this issue up for US cities, I am willing to support a proposal that uses the AP list above for cities that are an exception to the disambiguation rules. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I prefer the AP list for US cities as well, so would support the move of the above to Cityname. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh, the move is obviously a controversial move, Serge. the August 11 move was not appropriate. But then, the end result of this little discussion might result in a move of the article back to Milwaukee. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can hope.  --Serge 21:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AP city list