Talk:Allied Gardens, San Diego

message: :Well, I agree in part and am ambivalent in part. I agree that the "California" at the end of all the titles is unneccessary, although San Diego's only been an "oddball" in that respect for a few months. (See discussion about L.A.'s neighborhoods from earlier this year.) The result of that discussion was to move from "NEIGHBORHOOD, Los Angeles, California" to "NEIGHBORHOOD, Los Angeles" as the convention. Exceptions are made for especially notable neighborhoods such as Hollywood.
:*Alternate proposal. So, keeping in line with neighborhoods in other major cities (Noe Valley, San Francisco, Lowry Hill, Minneapolis, Montlake, Seattle, etc.), I'd propose doing the same for San Diego - lop off all the "California"s, and have "NEIGHBORHOOD, San Diego" as the convention, except for especially notable ones (perhaps La Jolla?). (Note that this proposal would include all S.D. neighborhoods - not just the 40 being currently discussed. Mission Hills, for example, would need to move from Mission Hills, San Diego, California to Mission Hills, San Diego.)
:The ambivalence comes, by the way, from my general agreement with Born2cycle that less disambiguation is better. So I wouldn't be super sad if his proposal is adopted. Or if Born2cycle wants to use San Diego as a launching pad to change naming conventions in L.A., S.F., Seattle, etc., then that's fine, too. But for now, my vote is weak oppose, with my proposal as the alternative. Dohn joe (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I respond to this below at #Proposal comparison.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Will that no speedy decision should be made. This has been discussed many times before and there have been opinions on both sides. We should not rush into anything until a broad consensus has been reached. --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

text: *Huh? Check the times and wording used in the request; it was made before the clarifying changes made in the guideline today and refers to, and is based on, the previous wording that has been in there since March.  Please unhold.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Let's get consensus on the naming convention first.   Will Beback  talk   03:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument for this move is based almost entirely on WP:TITLE, not WP:PLACE.  Prior to March there was no mention of neighborhoods in the U.S. city guideline at WP:PLACE, so it was irrelevant here.  Since then it has said that neighborhoods are disambiguated only when necessary. The only change of substance today was to clarify what to do when disambiguation is necessary, which is also not relevant to this proposal, since no neighborhoods requiring disambiguation are part of this proposal. We can see if there is consensus for that, but I don't understand what that has to do with this proposal.  If anything, this proposal will help us determine whether the current wording in the guideline is consistent with what consensus actually is.  Remember, consensus is determined "out in the fields" where the work is done (at article creations and moves), so to speak, not in the ivory towers of guideline wording.  Guideline should reflect what consensus is, not determine what it is.   --Born2cycle (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, that discussion decided nothing about U.S. neighborhoods.  So the only applicable guidance here is WP:TITLE and WP:D.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Original discussion

message: Move all 40 to NeighborhoodName: 4 support; 1 opposed
Move all 40 to NeighborhoodName, San Diego: 3 support; 1 opposed
Leave all 40 at NeighborhoodName, San Diego, California: 1 support; 2 opposed
--Born2cycle (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary Summary