Talk:Miami/Archive 0

message: Shouldn't this page be under "Miami (city)" or "Miami, Florida" and the disambiguation page be here?  It just makes more sense to me that way
:When somebody makes a link pointing to "Miami" they are more times than not going to mean the city, so the idea is that it makes sense to take them there. There are other cases where this has been done, see Paris and Ontario for example. Not everybody agree with the practice (nobody agrees completely on anything, fortunately), but it makes sense to do it this way to me: all those people meaning the city when they link to Miami, will be able to type Miami, Florida in an article where otherwise they would have to type Miami, Florida, if you see what I mean. When one use of a word is so much more common than another, I think this way of doing things is sensible.--Camembert
::Perhaps, but let me state for the record that the practice of linking a US city article as Miami, Florida is just plain silly.  Why provide a link to the US state unless the context warrants it?  Taken to its logical conclusion, one might have to construct a series of links looking something like Miami, Dade County, Florida, United States, North America, Earth.  Besides, the idea is to make things easier for the reader, not necessarily the editor.  Thus if extra keystrokes are needed to avoid ambiguity, such is our burden as editors.  -- JeffBillman (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements), this should not have been moved without prior discussion. -- Donald Albury 10:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but the talk page didn't get moved either. Miami should be a redirect to Miami, Florida, with a link to the disambig page at the top, and the talk page should be reunited with the article page. I'll let the editor who created this mess fix it. Horologium (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we might need to get an admin involved to rectify the "bad move", because since the two pages actually exist, they can't easily be moved without deleting one of the articles and then moving them. That's how I've seen it done. El Greco(talk) 00:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am an admin, Donald Albury is an admin, and SmthManly (the editor who moved it) is an admin. We have plenty of admins looking at this article... :) Horologium (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful.  So would one of you admins care to stop congratulating yourselves long enough to fix this bad page move?  Even if it was the right thing to do, y'all stranded a talk page. -- JeffBillman (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, Horologium.  I failed to note that you were also the editor who first noted the stranded talk page above.  I just get frustrated when I see people claiming that something was done correctly simply because an admin did it. -- JeffBillman (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither Donald Albury nor I supported the move; both of us are criticizing the move, not saying it was done correctly. I'm hoping that SmthManly will read this and self-revert, because I don't want to get into an edit war over the move, which was very wrong and out-of-process. Horologium (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the move is a good one. What's the purpose of having "Miami" automatically redirect to "Miami, Florida". When people are searching for "Miami" they're looking for this Miami, the largest Miami with this name. It's a global city and it doesn't need to list what state it's in, it's unnecessary. --Comayagua99 (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Move if you want or disapprove or whatever, i don't mind, still think it's dumb to have Miami redirect to Miami, Florida, but if it's going to cause some dumb bureaucratic smear campaign that will last 2 weeks and go nowhere, then move it back, please.  It's not worth the server space. Also, it's not Smith, it's Smth.  Thanks. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 06:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, I think it's a logical move. Why have it listed as "Miami, Florida" if it redirects to Miami. Plus, when one searches for Miami they're looking for this Miami, not another insignificant population 3 Miami town in the Midwest. --Comayagua99 (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirect ensures that someone typing in "Miami" will get the article about Miami, Florida. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#United States states that articles about U.S. cities will use the City, State format, with the exception of New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia. Even Los Angeles, California follows that convention. I am not outright opposed to the move (Miami shows up on the list of AP cities which don't require the state disambiguation), but it needs to be discussed first, and if it is moved, the talk page needs to be moved with it. That didn't happen last time, and that is a problem. Horologium (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add that the naming convention for U.S. cities, towns and other 'settlements' has been debated and established by consensus. Your arguments have all been made before, but were not adopted in the consensus. New York City has always had that name in Wikipedia, and there were cogent arguments for leaving it there. Chicago was moved to a bare city name before the consensus was established (I don't remember just when Philadelphia was converted). If you want to try to find a new consensus, you can raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). -- Donald Albury 17:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: I think the references I carefully added a while back have been bunged up good, but there is a difference between Metropolitan Statistical Area and Urbanized Area as defined by the Census Bureau. Miami was the fourth most populous Urbanized Area in the U.S. in 2000, after N.Y., L.A. and Chicago. See the table at . -- Donald Albury 23:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the ref prior to when I changed it to the metro area was to a university and use to say fifth for the longest time, until some IP user changed it to forth. So I looked up the table for metro population, changed it to the 7th largest and added a ref. El Greco(talk) 00:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the reference Donald Albury provided, it appears that Miami is the fifth largest urban area, after New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia. Dallas and Houston, which have larger metro populations, have smaller urban populations than Miami. I have updated the article accordingly. Horologium (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urbanized Area 

message: Just a heads up: I've history merged this page to fix *two* cut-and-paste moves back in the early days. If the page is ever moved again from "Miami, Florida" to "Miami", undelete the residual edits at "Miami" because they show records of some old page moves in 2002. Thanks, Graham87 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: this edit probably makes the most sense here, not just because of the edit summary, but because it shows one part of a cut-and-paste move while the other part is in the history of Miami, Florida. No content was changed in the cut-and-paste move so there is no problem with attribution. All the edits that actually changed content are now all in one place though. Graham87 09:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I've just thought of something ... what's needed is that one page should contain *all* the content revisions. The easiest way to achieve this is to take the content edit from Miami to Miami, Florida, so I'll do that now. Therefore there won't be as much need to keep around the revisions at Miami if the page does get moved. Graham87 00:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page's history