Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 10

message: In Israel and in Palestine, most city names are the English name followed by their Hebrew and Arabic counterparts. In some cities, the Hebrew comes before the Arabic, and in others, the Arabic before the Hebrew. 
I don't know if this is the right forum for this, but we need some kind of guideline on how to order the Arabic/Hebrew names because in few cases (Hebron, West Bank) there have been repeated reverts that keep switching the order of the two - some argue Hebrew should be first, others state that Arabic should remain first. There are two schools of thought (and I am presenting the arguments being made about Hebron as an example, regardless of accuracy):
# XXXXX is known worldwide as a Palestinian city and is not part of Israel proper (not legally annexed). 99%-100%  of its residents are Arabic-speaking Palestinians and know it by the Arabic name. In some cases, the city may be of high religious significance to Muslims or Christians. 
# Hebrew appeared in the region prior to Arabic, and therefore the Hebrew name should come first. The original name of XXXXX is in Hebrew, or can be traced to a Hebrew root, or once had a Hebrew name. It doesn't matter what the current inhabitants speak, because the area is disputed, and finally, the city may be of high religious significance to Jews.
Assuming this is the correct forum, could I please have opinions to help formulate a guideline for this issue? We need this guideline so that, before more edit wars start, we can refer POV warriors to the said guidelines. If this is not the correct forum, please advise. Thank you. Ramallite (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not touching this one with a 3.05-meter pole. Kaldari 17:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian-Israeli conflict and names 

message: I'll bring this up here since it remains unanswered yonder:  Is there actually a city called "Washington" in the District of Columbia?  All current official entities use "District of Columbia."  It seems that, at most, the City of Washington is defunct/inactive.  If anyone has any information to the contrary, please post here or at Talk:Washington, D.C.  —  AjaxSmack   02:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is indeed a city of Washington, which is co-extensive with the District of Columbia, as far as I understand it.  Just as there is a Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, which is coextensive with the city of Philadelphia. john k 02:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Washington? DC?

message: *Talk:Houston, Texas for Dallas and San Antonio as well. 
*Talk:Seattle, Washington
The conversation dies here without the desired change and now we're taking this battle to all these different cities? It's just more creating band-aid exceptions instead of a solid constructive consensus. Agne 00:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add Oklahoma City, Oklahoma --Bobblehead 01:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How are we supposed to get a consensus when you and others who are likeminded oppose any change both here and there? john k 03:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not appreciate the use of the Requested Move process to build up new rationales and precedents for future similar moves, which, in the end, amount to a change in a naming convention. If the end goal is to change the naming convention, that broad change should be discussed in a single place (and advertised in relevant articles), not by proposing changes in individual articles. Each individual city has its supporters who may not be aware of the bigger picture. Tinlinkin 04:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes!!  This latest swarm of page moves is a horrible chipping away of standards without reason.  If there should be a change, then let's discuss it once and for all (right, right, once every three months) in a single location! Phiwum 00:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OH NO!!! The common masses are making decisions against the will of the editing elite. How can they be protected from their own stupidity? josh (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Exception Hunting? 

message: * What harm is being done to the project with the current City, State convention? Agne 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other harm that is caused by the City, State convention is expressed on the Talk pages.  For years now, and with no end in sight, well meaning editors look at a given city article title (it could be any city), and wonder why the heck the state is part of the name.  They check for the City name alone and discover that it redirects to that article page anyway, so why the redirect?  Why not use the name alone, they wonder?  Most just wonder and don't do anything about (but it still affects their low impression of Wikipedia per the previous paragraph).  But others inevitably post move requests, of course.  What will cause this to stop?  One one of two things.  Either the elimination of the City, State convention, or the elimination of the common names convention.  Despite lame claims to the contrary, they are fundamentally in contradiction, and editor after editor making move requests, years after year, should prove this to all but those who have buried their heads in the sand entirely.  Except that it would be a blatant violation of WP:POINT, I would propose to elimate WP:NC(CN) based on the existence of the City, State convention. --Serge 22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the presentation with your linking of WP:NC(CN) as if it was the sum and whole of "the naming convention", the "Common Names" convention is on the lower end of the naming totem pole. In fact, your particular usage of of it also contradicts "the other naming conventions". However, I do agree that inconsistency does make Wikipedia look less professional and that is harmful to our mutual goal of creating a quality encyclopedia.Which leads to another question. Agne 22:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While we are talking about the naming totem pole, I would like to point out that WP:NAME, a Policy, specifies that there is no special naming convention for cities. Being a Policy, and not a guideline, this is probably higher on this totem pole of yours. WP:PRECISION is also not as usefull for your argument as you make it out to be. This guideline clearly indicates that if a consensus is impossible to reach on precision use the more popular phrase, and that the best way to resolve conflicts over precision should be through authoritative dictionaries. Look up Chicago or Seattle in one of these authoritative dictionaries and you will find that they are Chicago and Seattle, and not Chicago, Illinois and Seattle, Washington. When it gets down to the it, for the sake of improving articles, we can WP:IGNORE these policies and guidelines.—Asatruer 23:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the lack of a clear, define naming convention for cities is an ill that should be worked on. However,  I don't see where patch work, band-aid solutions can aid that. Sure you can bring up WP:IAR but you need to show precisely where there is a benefit to the project and a particular benefit to the articles they affect. Agne 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you look north (to Canada) for an example that works with much less turmoil and much more professionalism.  And what do they do?  Exactly the "patch work, band-aid" solutions that you fear.  See my answer above for a bit more detail on that.  I don't know about any totem poles of priority, but the fact is that WP:NC(CN) is the single most followed convention in Wikipedia, bar none.  Click on Random article 10, 20, 50 or 100 times in a row and see how few, if any, exceptions to WP:NC(CN) you find, especially if you exclude the parts of the title with disambiguity information in parentheses.  That's my point, and that's why when people see Oklahoma City, Oklahoma they think, WTF?  And that's never going to change, because WP:NC(CN) will always remain the most dominant naming convention by far.  No other naming convention will ever come even close in actual dominance in article space.   --Serge 01:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What is the purpose of an encyclopedia entry title? It is denote what the article is about. Any city article is about a location and the state that any city is located in, has a very profound effect on that city. I know first hand that Kansas City, Missouri is quite different from Kansas City, Kansas despite being neighbors. It is the state citizenship/taxes/laws and general make up that adds to that different. More pointedly is the difference in Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine. The current City, State recognizes this difference and recognizes that the state location is intrinsically tied into the identity and nature of the state. It's also curious to note that this identity is maintained in official documentations and even postal addresses. Agne 00:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: An important component to your proposal is the lack of ambiguousness for a city. Ambiguity with what? Another city location? To which case, nearly every city has similar name city. Then you open up the can of worms "major/world city" which has demonstrated more of a US-bias then most because nearly every relatively large American city seems to think it's a major or world class city. But then we have the larger issue of the fact that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia of locations. If we were, then the AP Dateline guideline would be golden. But on Wikipedia we also have non-location entries on such things as Atlanta, Boston and Boston, Chicago and Chicago and Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Seattle, Philadelphia and so forth. If there was ambiguity there would be no disambig pages for any of these cities. Sure we can talk about notability but those are discussions that relevant to which one gets the redirect or top billing on the disambig page. What we are talking here is to turn the focus naming to a location-oriented one that disregards Wikipedia's coverage of other non-location related things and any ambiguity they might have with those-either now or in the future. Agne 00:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agne, this is a non-issue.  If city redirects to city, state then it is considered established that there is no significant ambiguity issue. If city is a disambiguation page, like Portland or Windsor, no one is proposing it be used for the city article.   Simple.  --Serge 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Incorrect. Primary use of a redirect or top billing on disambig pages is because one item is more notable then the other, not because there is an absence of ambiguity. The redirect and top billing does not assume that there is no other use of the title. Agne 01:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, don't waste our time and Wiki space with straw man arguments.  No one said anything about an "absence of ambiguity" or "there is no other use of the title".  I wrote (and meant) "significant ambiguity issue".  I Italicized the significant the first time, but you still missed it. For minor ambiguity issues the article with the primary usage gets the name for its title, and there is usually a link to the associated (disambiguation) page.  See Boston for an example.  In such a case, when it's a city article, currently the city page redirects to city, state.  Moving city, state to city (and thus creating city, state -> city) is simple and causes no problems.  See Philadelphia.  --Serge 03:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please review Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic.  Could everybody please review Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic?  Please?  This is not a complicated idea. john k 01:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, note Paris, London, Rome, and so forth. john k 01:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent examples and I would support moves to Paris, France, London, United Kingdom, and Rome, Italy because of it. If those countries had more of a "state focus" then the United States, then I would support a City, State convention for them instead of a City, Country convention. Agne 01:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot even begin to imagine the number of infuriated English people an attempt to move London to London, United Kingdom would cause.  Or London, England.  Or anything else other than London.  There aren't as many French or Italians, but I imagine you'd get a lot of pissed off people for those articles as well.  Not going to fucking happen.  Could you please, please, please read Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic, and try to actually think about what it means?  Could you also try to take a look around at the way wikipedia articles on nearly every subject other than US cities are named?  BTW, is it your view that London, Paris, Los Angeles, Chicago, et al. should be disambiguation pages?  john k 01:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reconsider the choice of language you are utilizing here. Obscenities have no place or purpose and are rarely constructive. And no, I don't think the redirect should go to the disambig page. I do think the redirect should go to the most notable usage with a prominent link at the top to the disambig page. Chicago is not the only Chicago which is what a solitary title conveys. It may very be the most dominant usage which is why it is appropriate for the redirect to go there. However, Chicago is the only Chicago, Illinois and that is the most appropriate title for the article. Agne 03:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, please.   If obscenities have no place or purpose, and are rarely constructive (which is perhaps true), schoolmarmish tut-tutting of people for using obscenities has even less place, and purpose, and is even less constructive.  Beyond that, I don't understand your argument here.  So, on the one hand, because "Chicago" is ambiguous, Chicago, Illinois can't go there.  But, on the other hand, because "Chicago" is the primary topic, it should redirect to Chicago, Illinois?  This doesn't make any sense at all.  If "Chicago" is going to "Chicago, Illinois," anyway, then what does the supposed ambiguity matter?  Chicago can, yes, refer to a band, a musical, and a city (the fact that the band and musical being named for the city, and not having surpassed them in importance, and thus clearly being secondary derived usages will be ignored for the moment).  But if Chicago takes you to Chicago, Illinois, you are still left with a disambiguation notice at the top.  Personally, I'd much rather have the article on the city at Chicago and a disambiguation notice saying "For other uses, see Chicago (disambiguation), than to have the article at Chicago, Illinois with a redirect from Chicago and a disambiguation notice saying Chicago]] redirects here.  For other uses, see Chicago (disambiguation).  Why on earth would anyone prefer a more awkward disambiguation notice, which seems to be the only substantive difference between the two situations in terms of disambiguation? john k 03:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 
	Let's turn the thermostat down... I think you have to do something with the right trigger. -- tariqabjotu 03:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But Ange, Football isn't the only football (see American football), Set isn't the only set (see Set (computer science), Set (mythology), among many others), Black isn't the only black (see Black (video game), among many others), Poseidon isn't the only Poseidon (see Poseidon (film)), and Yard is not the only yard (see Yard (land), among others). The singular title does not, as you state, convey that it is the only subject with that title that exists. Instead, as stated in the disambiguation guideline to which john k has linked several times, it merely conveys that it is the most prominent of those with that name. That is certainly true for London, Paris, Tokyo, Flin Flon, Yekaterinburg,  Mashhad, and Recife, even though many could not locate those last few on a map. Likewise, the same also applies to Chicago, Philadelphia, and the rest of the twenty-seven cities mentioned in this proposal. Unfortunately, I do not see your prospective at all here. -- tariqabjotu 03:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What is more simple and natural in a title? Do you mean less letters to type in a a search engine or wiki link? How does the practical applications of redirects not nullify that? When I type in Seattle for the city in Seattle, Washington I am still typing the same 7 letters. Maybe this is a uniquely American things but the US is a compilations of States and the identity with our states is one that is very important to individual and city. I grew up in St. Louis, Missouri and spent some time in Kansas City, Missouri and am a proud Missourian, a title that the folks in the  "other" Kansas City or other "St. Louis" can not claim. It is a very "natural" identity that cities have with their state and one that goes beyond postal addresses. What is then unnatural about a listing like Chicago, Illinois? Agne 01:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agne, the only practical benefit I can think of in changing the convention is to eliminate most of the turmoil surrounding U.S. city article names, just like a similar change accomplished for reducing turmoil regarding Canadian city article names. The current convention has proven to be the cause of much turmoil.  For example, the practical benefit associated with New York City being at New York City rather than New York City, New York or New York, New York is the peace associated with it being at New York City.  I , for one, value the practical benefits of peace.  Do you?  --Serge 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say the humor in the view "We will have peace when you agree with me" is like George Bush saying that we will have peace in Iraq as soon as the Insurgents "see the light" and just agree that we are right. The only turmoil is the one that is caused purposedly by page moves for reasons of overturning a convention in lieu of working to consensus on that convention page. Agne 01:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But again note that many of the requested moves are proposed by people who have never been part of these debates. You're not saying they're causing turmoil are you? Look at Canada. There hasn't been a rash of move requests after the major cities were moved. --Polaron | Talk 01:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I prefer not to spend time analyzing the motivation of other editors. I don't think that will be very constructive for either side but the contribution history of some of the requestors does show a connection to the debate. As for Canada, that is a very week point considering that if the moves didn't go through the first time (like with Seattle) how many weeks would pass before another request? As it is, with the change being so recent I know that many editors are mindful of WP:POINT and the appearence that asking for a reversal move so soon would have. Furthermore, it is the inconsistency in the guideline that open the door to such moves. It is more productive to spend time here to sew up the loop holes and inconsistency before requesting point-driven moves to bring things in line with the convention. Agne 03:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agne, I'm going to ask again: please do not waste time and space with straw man arguments.  My argument, particularly in this section, has been completely objective.  I'm not asking you to agree with me, please do not twist it into that.  I am pointing out that Canada now has peace.  I am pointing out that on pages like New York City where we don't have the State anymore, we have peace.  And the peace has nothing to do with anyone agreeing with me. It has to do with the fact that these pages are no longer inconsistent with the by far most prevalent naming convention in Wikipedia: use the name most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article.  --Serge 03:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions for the proposal supporters 

message: The turmoil that dominates this talk page is entirely about U.S. cities.  But not so long ago it was about Canadian cities as well.  What changed?  Why is there no more turmoil for Canadian cities?  Are they smarter than us?  Apparently.  The guideline for Canada now contains this sentence:
:Places which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name, such as Quebec City or Toronto, can have undisambiguated titles. 
That's all it would take for U.S cities too.  But noooo... let's be morons instead and insist on disambiguated titles for cities that "have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name."  That way we can continue this for weeks, months and years to come.  Editors will come and go but the debate will rage on as long as folks keep insisting on using the City, State format for cities with unique names.  Way to go.  --Serge 04:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling the opposers morons = not necessary. -- tariqabjotu 04:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling the opposers morons is indeed not necessary, and I didn't do it.  I wrote "let's be morons" referring to all of us, not just the opposers.  I did not mean to imply that those who opposed following the Canadian lead are morons.  I intended to say that WE all appear to continue to be morons if we can't find a solution to this that ends the turmoil.  In other words, the turmoil reflects on all of us poorly.  --Serge 04:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * To be fair, you implied initially that behaving like moron was characteristic of those who insist on disambiguating the unambiguous. I agree that doing so is clearly unnecessary and counter to the spirit of Wikipedia's naming conventions. I sympathize with your frustration with those who "strongly oppose" the sensible proposal made above. I think we can be big enough to admit when we've let our civility drop during the fray and focus on where the wise and moronic might share a limited consensus. --Dystopos 04:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To answer the question in this section, Canadians are generally peaceful, unlike Americans.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you're at all serious, that makes no sense. The Canadian editors had anything but peace when operating under a joint U.S/Canada city naming guideline - similar to the turmoil we continue to have for U.S. cities - until they chose to deviate from the U.S. guideline and allow city articles to be named without additional geographical information when it is not needed for disambiguation purposes.  The cause of the turmoil for them was the comma convention, as it is for us.  For the turmoil to end, the comma convention must go (except when required for disambiguation). --Serge 22:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The major concern of the Canadian editors did not appear to be so much about using ", province" as it appeared to be about having been lumped in with the USA with no discussion about whether they wanted the same conventions. --Scott Davis Talk 15:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace in Canada - why? 

message: * Rescinded initial proposal to remerge U.S/Canada guidelines.  Updated proposal is U.S. specific but based on the Canadian guidelines.  By the way, this is a compromise since it allows for city, state naming even when it's not required for disambiguation, which is inconsistent with WP:NC(CN). --Serge 22:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: # Support, but I agree very small cities probably should not be moved. I must, however, add that I'm not very happy that as soon as the AP proposal began to gather some steam, we propose this. I actually prefer this wording better (not that I expected the wording of the previous proposal would have actually stayed like that), but I fear that we will still have debates over whether Los Angeles really means Los Angeles, California and whether Amman might conflict with Philadelphia. However, with the other proposal, which seemed to read to me let's start with these twenty-seven cities and work out the Albuquerques and Nashvilles later, we would at least know what would get moved. Here I'm not so sure. -- tariqabjotu 01:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: # Strongly oppose.  A merge of the Canadian and American conventions is completely inappropriate.  The Canadian convention was split off from the American convention to avoid becoming embroiled in this endless debate.   I'm not even sure that a discussion page that appears to be almost entirely devoted to endless discussion of the American convention (that, as a result, few Wikipedians with an interest in Canada are following) is the appropriate forum to discuss effectively eliminating the Canadian convention.  In any event, from a practical perspective, there is no need to merge the conventions.  Skeezix1000 11:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One additional comment: The proposed merged convention is terribly cumbersome and awkward, because it contains numerous details that are relevant to Canada (what to do with cities in the territories, what to do with cities in Newfoundland and Labrador, what to do with cities with French-language names, etc.) but that have absolutely no relevance to U.S. cities. Putting aside all other objections to the merge, clarity and simplicity would dictate that the conventions remain separate. Skeezix1000 13:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the proposal(s) no longer involved merging the American and Canadian conventions, my oppose vote is no longer relevant.  Skeezix1000 11:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: * My vote is to combine the two countries' city rules as follows:
:#Well-known cities in the United States and Canada should be titled with simply the city unless it deserves equal-topic dis-ambiguation with others of its name.
:#Not-so-well-known cities should be "City, State/Province", even if "City" can never be more than a re-direct. Georgia guy 01:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why it is necessary to merge the two conventions.  Other countries have separate conventions, so why anyone would assume that Canada and U.S. need to be merged is beyond me.  Seeking to change the U.S. convention to be closer to the Canadian convention is fine, and having identical conventions is also not a problem.  I know that the proposal was made in good faith, but frankly I am a little bothered by the suggestion (whether it was intended or not) that somehow Canada does not merit its own convention.  Skeezix1000 12:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Not Yet votes

message: In discussing the above the new proposal, I see some comments that "Well known" cities should be just City while "not so well known" should be City, State. But the question then follows, what is the objective criteria for determining "well known"?
* Is it well known to a native, US born citizen? Of what education level? Well known to a third grader? Sixth grader? High School? College? Someone featured on the Tonight Show's "Jaywalking"? 
* Is it well known to an English speaker native outside of the US?
* Is it well known to a 2nd language English speaker?
I think we all must be aware that our citizenship, experience and level of education give us a frame reference and bias that might not best encompass the level of knowledge and familarity that the mass Wikipedia readership would have. What is so obviously well known to us (such as Nashville, Chicago, Flin Flon or Perth) might not be so well known to middle schooler in South Africa using Wikipedia and so forth. As WP:NC notes the overall principle of a naming convention is "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." and that principle should seemingly exclude using a subjective scale of determining what is "well known". Agne 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how optimizing readers has anything to do with using a subjective scale for what is "well known."  You are advocating that we abandon the entire concept of "Primary topic," which has to be determined in a somewhat subjective way. That is not an appropriate thing to do in the context of this page.  If this is what you want to do, I suggest you take it up at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation.  john k 13:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote above is the main principle of naming conventions and thus, is exceedingly relevant to this topic. Our main consideration in titling the article is for the benefit of the reader. This latest proposal assumes that what is well known to this small segment of Wikipedia editors discussing this matter is going to be well known to the greater Wikipedia readership. That is rather disingenuous of us and assumes an unleveled playing ground between editors and readers who might now have the same systematic bias and familiarity as we do. The context of this page is the titling of articles of Cities (in the US and elsewhere) and I do not think it's unfair to request an objective standard of tilting that promotes stability and excludes any bias and subjective standard of what is "well known". There is no doubt of what an article about Seattle, Washington is about. There is no assumption that Seattle is universally well known among everyone equally and there is more stability in the small likelihood that Seattle or Washington are going to be renamed anytime soon. Agne 21:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what objective standard would you use to classify a city as well-known or major? --Polaron | Talk 21:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no such thing in Wikipedia as the concept of "primary topic" outside the context of resolving a known ambiguity issue.  The idea of whether a given Wikipedia article is a "primary topic" or not, independent of whether there are any other articles with a claim to the same name, is a concept that has been conjured specifically to rationalize the basis for using the comma convention on cities without ambiguity issues.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions. As a friend, I suggest you consider not taking this particular road any further...  --Serge 16:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As john said being well-known is always somewhat subjective. But there are several measures for it, including the AP list that john posted above. It's either we choose one of these measures (like Australia) or leave it vague and let editors decide for themselves (like Canada). --Polaron | Talk 14:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting it is likely that Philadelphia will stop being the primary usage of Philadelphia?  This seems incredibly unlikely.  In any event, while I may be using primary topic status incorrectly above, that doesn't mean that the concept is itself problematic.  We have an example of primary topic.  That is Rome.  Philadelphia is pretty much exactly parallel to this.  It is a textbook case of a primary topic, insofar as there is a textbook. john k 00:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Along these same lines, we should move Steven Spielberg to Steven Spielberg (movie director) and World War II to World War II (war from 1937-1945), just in case Steven Spielberg and World War II stop being the primary usage of those terms as well.--DaveOinSF 01:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, that reply might actually be cute if we were discussing a convention like Seattle (City). :) However, your example falls weak because Steven Spielberg is an article about an individual named Steven Spielberg who just so happens to have a notable career as a Movie Director and so forth.  There is a bit of a difference.  Agne 06:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That is incorrect. If we only followed the basic naming convention there'd be no reason for the numerous special naming conventions like this one. Many large topics use names which are not based on simple popularlity contests. For example, royalty and military airplanes. That's why there are no articles (only redirects) at "Princess Diana", "Queen Elizabeth II", "Spruce Goose", or "Stealth fighter", despite those being more common usage than the actual article titles. You've been informend of that before, so I don't know why you keep pleading ignorance of them. -Will Beback 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting that usually that has to do with issues of formal vs. informal names, rather than purely with common name issues.  Los Angeles, California is no more formal than Los Angeles. john k 00:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The cases within royalty and aircraft where the formal or technical name conventions result in titles that are clearly inconsistent with WP:NC(CN) are extremely rare, probably less than 5% of each respective subject area, if that.  Those are hardly counter-examples, much less an explanation for why cities should be treated inconsistently in this respect.  To contrast, note that any city article that is not at City is inconsistent with WP:NC(CN).  The comparision is not even close.  Serge 09:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't counted them, but there at at least 50 naming conventions. Are you saying that all of them are violations of the overall naming convention? Why even have these specific naming conventions if the sole rule is "use the most common term"? Because naming conventions help provide internal consistency within a topic. -Will Beback 17:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For most of the other categories, the "most common name" for a given article affected by the convention matches the convention, or is not clear.  Look at royalty.  Where the most common name for a given member of royalty is clearly not the formal name dictated by the convention is true for only a tiny fraction of famous royalty.  For most of the others, it's a toss-up, at best.  So, at worst, that convention is clearly inconsistent with WP:NC(CN) for a very small minority of cases in that category.  The same is true for every other category affected by the naming conventions, so far as I know.  Cities are unique in that respect: every single article named according to the convention violates WP:NC(CN).  Can you find me even one more naming convention that even causes violation of WP:NC(CN) in about half the cases, much less in every single case?  A few minor exceptions is one thing, but blatant violation in every single case is something entirely different.  Why should cities be inconsistent in this respect?  --Serge 20:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjective "well known" vs "not so well known" 

message: The only time "well known" vs. "not so well known" is relevant in Wikipedia is when there is an apparent ambiguity issue.  I am unaware of any precedent for expanding the names of unique article names that are consistent with WP:NC(CN) with additional information simply to augment their likelihood of recognition because they are "not so well known".  Why should cities be treated inconsistently with the rest of Wikipedia in this respect?  --Serge 16:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect. If we only followed the basic naming convention there'd be no reason for the numerous special naming conventions like this one. Many large topics use names which are not based on simple popularlity contests. For example, royalty and military airplanes. That's why there are no articles (only redirects) at "Princess Diana", "Queen Elizabeth II", "Spruce Goose", or "Stealth fighter", despite those being more common usage than the actual article titles. You've been informend of that before, so I don't know why you keep pleading ignorance of them. -Will Beback 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting that usually that has to do with issues of formal vs. informal names, rather than purely with common name issues.  Los Angeles, California is no more formal than Los Angeles. john k 00:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The cases within royalty and aircraft where the formal or technical name conventions result in titles that are clearly inconsistent with WP:NC(CN) are extremely rare, probably less than 5% of each respective subject area, if that.  Those are hardly counter-examples, much less an explanation for why cities should be treated inconsistently in this respect.  To contrast, note that any city article that is not at City is inconsistent with WP:NC(CN).  The comparision is not even close.  Serge 09:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't counted them, but there at at least 50 naming conventions. Are you saying that all of them are violations of the overall naming convention? Why even have these specific naming conventions if the sole rule is "use the most common term"? Because naming conventions help provide internal consistency within a topic. -Will Beback 17:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For most of the other categories, the "most common name" for a given article affected by the convention matches the convention, or is not clear.  Look at royalty.  Where the most common name for a given member of royalty is clearly not the formal name dictated by the convention is true for only a tiny fraction of famous royalty.  For most of the others, it's a toss-up, at best.  So, at worst, that convention is clearly inconsistent with WP:NC(CN) for a very small minority of cases in that category.  The same is true for every other category affected by the naming conventions, so far as I know.  Cities are unique in that respect: every single article named according to the convention violates WP:NC(CN).  Can you find me even one more naming convention that even causes violation of WP:NC(CN) in about half the cases, much less in every single case?  A few minor exceptions is one thing, but blatant violation in every single case is something entirely different.  Why should cities be inconsistent in this respect?  --Serge 20:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why should cities be treated inconsistently? 

message: How about…
:The canonical form for cities in the United States is City, State (the "comma convention"). However, if a major city has a unique name or is unquestionably the most significant subject sharing its name, such as Chicago and Philadelphia, it can reside at a disambiguated location, without the state. Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county, borough or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina). Small cities and settlements unknown by the vast majority of the world population, such as Walla Walla, Washington and Garrett Park, Maryland, should remain disambiguated with their respective state names, regardless of the uniqueness of the names of the cities.
:An U.S. city's article, however, should never be titled simply "city, United States" (e.g "Houston, United States"), although it is permissible to create a title of this type as a redirect to the properly titled article. Similarly, a title that uses the state's two-letter postal abbreviation should never be the primary article title, although creating a redirect is permitted.
Additionally, can we agree to move the twenty-seven cities mentioned by john k in his AP-related proposal, as they would abide by the requirements needed for disambiguation.
*Atlanta
*Baltimore
*Boston
*Chicago
*Cincinnati
*Cleveland
*Dallas
*Denver
*Detroit	
*Honolulu
*Houston
*Indianapolis
*Las Vegas
*Los Angeles
*Miami
*Milwaukee
*Minneapolis
*New Orleans	
*New York City
*Oklahoma City
*Philadelphia
*Pittsburgh
*Salt Lake City
*San Antonio
*San Diego
*San Francisco
*Seattle
In my opinion, this would a) create a brief statement for the guideline, b) leave the Canadian guideline alone, c) provide a starting point for moves according to the guideline, d) still leave the possibility of future moves open, and e) make sure very small cities like Garrett Park, Maryland retain the state disambiguation. Comments are, of course, welcome. -- tariqabjotu 21:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Most references to any subject are made among people who are already familiar with the subject.  Why?  Because after the first time someone encounters the subject, he too is familiar with it.  If you were God and could tabulate all references to Garrett Park that were made by all people in, say, September of 2006, don't you think the vast majority would have been made in and around Garret Park itself, and therefore, not clarified with the state?  And, even references outside of the area, like the ones I'm making in this paragraph, don't need the state clarified, because we've already established what we're talking about.  By far, the most common name used to reference any city is just the city name.  Sure, the first time you refer to something you might have to clarify what you're talking about with additional contextual information, and that applies to cities (by specifying which county, state or country it is in), but not only to cities (like specifying who the main star is in a movie you're talking about, or the year in which it was released).  That fact does not make the clarifying information part of the name of the subject.  Most people have probably never heard of the movie, The Seven Samurai.  So if you tell someone you're going to go see it, to someone you know to be unfamiliar with it (just like you might know them to be unfamiliar with Garrett Park), you might say, "I'm going to go see the The Seven Samurai, the classic samurai movie directed by Akira Kurosawa and starring Toshiro Mifune, do you want to go?" But the need for additional clarifying information for those who are unfamiliar with the subject does not make the additional clarifying information part of the name of the article about that subject in Wikipedia, unless that name has a known ambiguity issue.  I ask again: why should names of city articles be treated inconsistently in this respect?    --Serge 23:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I do think the language matter should be left in; the US does have a lot of place names derived from French or Spanish or native languages. Baton Rouge, San Francisco, El Paso, La Crosse, etc. Bearcat 23:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with Serge here.  We don't want to use the proper name of a place as the name of an article unless the name, itself, makes it clear that it is a place.  Garrett Park fails.  (One of the other ideas in the Los Angeles discussions was to suggest that all places have geographic categorization and a typical lat/lon in the first line of the article.  If someone wants to change the umpty-thousand places we have listed to do that, I would have less objection to the naming ambiguities.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, while this is a conversation for another day, why should places or cities be any different than everything else in Wikipedia?  There are tons of articles in Wikipedia where the title of the article is unclear as to what sort of thing the item is.  Can you tell from the title that Boab is a tree, Lunalilo was a person, or that Chiodos is a band?--DaveOinSF 00:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody actually calls French-named places in Canada by translated names, either, but that hasn't stopped some people from trying to move those articles to English titles on the patently false assumption that Wikipedia has some kind of "names must always be in English, no matter what" requirement. Bearcat 02:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, in fact, nobody that I'm aware of has tried to do this on US articles, and, at any rate, the basic naming conventions are plenty of basis for shutting down such nonsense.  The kind of people who do this kind of thing aren't the kind of people who read naming conventions, anyway.  john k 02:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet Another Idea

message: The Regional Municipalities in Canada are many times refered as actual place names .One of them the " Halifax Regional Municipality"( which has 188 places within it) which is a Regional Municipality not a place name like Halifax ( a legal place name and a separate community) according to the Governments of Nova Scotia and Canada is example where the municipality is wrongly refered as a place name . WEhaat is convention for this ?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markhamman (talk • contribs) .
::There are different types of regional municipalities in Canada.  In Ontario, regional municipalities exist as part of what are effectively "federal" municipal structures in certain parts of the province: the upper-tier municipal government (the region) has jurisdiction over matters of a regional nature (i.e. arterial roads, sewer systems, often public transit, etc.), whereas the lower-tier municipalities (the constituent cities, towns and townships that make up the region) handle local issues (e.g. local roads, libraries, etc.).  So, for example, Vaughan, Ontario is a city, but it also forms part of the Regional Municipality of York, Ontario.  York Region in this case is a place, and a level of municipal government, but it isn't a city (it is made up of cities, such as Vaughan).In Nova Scotia, however, the Halifax Regional Municipality is, effectively, a city -- there is no longer a City of Halifax (as I understand it, not being from Nova Scotia), as Halifax was amalgamated with neighbouring municipalities to form the new HRM. So we should treat Halifax Regional Municipality as a city.I can't speak to other provinces, because I have no idea what the case is in, say, Saskatchewan.  I suspect regional municipalities in most other provinces, to the extent they exist, are closer to the Ontario model, but I couldn't say for sure.  Skeezix1000 14:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Skeezix is correct; the Halifax Regional Municipality (and, similarly, the Cape Breton Regional Municipality) are the only level of municipal government that exist within their borders. While Halifax, Dartmouth, Bedford, Cole Harbour, etc., all still exist as communities, they don't have any separate governments; the HRM is the only legal entity that has municipal government authority over them. They're more akin to the role of Don Mills, Scarborough, East York, Cabbagetown and the Junction within Toronto than they are to the role of Vaughan or Bradford or Markham within York Region. Wikipedia does and should reflect both individual communities and their actual governing bodies as "places". Bearcat 17:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That doesn't change the fact that the municipal government is an entity called the Halifax Regional Municipality, which therefore is an existing thing which needs an encyclopedia article of its own. Nobody has proposed merging all the different communities into a single HRM article; every one of them already has its own separate article in addition to the HRM article. So I really don't see what the issue is. Bearcat 23:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Regional Municipalities

message: Just a reminder that the "colored" proposal has been revised and is still active here (note: it has been moved to just below this section). --Serge 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was revised under the discussion, so it's not clear that any comments other than Serge's are valid.  Please close and re-open, if you want the proposal to be taken seriously.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Arthur that the survey should be started over for the sake of accuracy, since we do not want people supporting or opposing the unrevised version.—Asatruer 21:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time the proposal was updated, there was one oppose vote and two support votes.  Mine was one of the two support votes, tariq was the second.  The oppose vote, subsequent to the update, removed his/her objection, and I will clarify that I support the revised proposal.  If tariq clarifies that he/she supports the revised version, there will be no votes from anyone who has not seen the revised proposal.--DaveOinSF 21:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we limit oursleves to one propsoed change survey at a time? The "Modest Proposal" is still open, yet there are two or three other proposals being offered. It's unclear which would even prevail if more than one were approved. -Will Beback 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but the modest proposal never seemed "official", and appeared to not be achieving consensus.  I don't think John even originally intended for people to vote on it.  He didn't set it up that way.  So, there is only one proposal open that proposes an actual change to the written guidelines for U.S. city names.  There should be no confusion. --Serge 23:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it wasn't intended to be voted on then why did you vote? Why did the rest of us vote?  As far as anyone can tell, that was a formal proposal that was being, and is being, voted on in a survey. If it isn't active, then it should be closed. It's confusing and unhelpful to have so many open surveys at once. A survey can't make a consensus, it can only reflect it. -Will Beback 05:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's good that the other surveys have been closed, it'd be best if neutral parties did the closing. -Will Beback 17:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: i totally agree. *g-- ExpImptalkcon 22:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I withdrew my support for the proposal, Serge. You may be roughly on the same side of this debate as I am, but I feel comments like "Let's be reasonable, okay?" are going to turn people off, especially if they are relatively new to this debate, and result in the loss of valuable input. I'm sorry, but I cannot continue to support your proposal unless you begin to make a sincere effort to stop biting those who disagree with you (and even those who agree with you). -- tariqabjotu 21:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to express a bit of frustration.  No offense was intended. --Serge 23:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. city change proposal active and updated 

message: # Support, but would also support another version that changed the US convention to be essentially identical to the Canadian one but did not physically merge the two.--DaveOinSF 21:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes -2

message: #Oppose. This is the same propsoal as we rejected in August. It discards the naming convnetuion now in general use. That convnetion provides consistency and predictability for readers and editors. I have seen no compelling reason for changing that convention. Unlike the "Modest Proposal", this one does not even define which cities are "unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name", vagueness which would undoubtedly lead to many long debates over individual articles. It's a recipe for chaos without any benefit. -Will Beback 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes -2

message: By my count, Serge's proposal is at 8/20/4. This is not consensus. This is never likely to be consensus. Let's close this, and move on to something else. Septentrionalis 03:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I get 14 support and 14 oppose, not including any votes in the not yet section.  Not sure how you got 8/20/4.  What's the 8?  What's the 20?  What's the 4?  But I that's a very a small total number of votes.  By the way, the discussion continues.  --Serge 06:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I see that another proposal has opened.  That's fine.  I'm okay with closing this one.  Canadians proves they're smarter than Americans once again.  --Serge 06:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect the 8 was a miscounted 14 support - the autonumbering had a glitch in the middle and reset partway down (now fixed). The 20 Would be the 14 votes in the "Oppose" section plus 6 "Oppose" votes in the "Not yet" section. 4 Is the remaining 4 "Not yet" votes. So it's not quite as one-sided, but still a long way from consensus to change. --Scott Davis Talk 09:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to close?

message: In looking at all the different naming conventions on the English Encyclopedia, is the US one the "largest" in terms of the number of articles it affects? I don't know if there is a way to prove that but at first assumption it seems like it would be but I don't know for sure in contrast to the number of articles on Indian cities or Canadian cities, etc. Agne 05:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely, since every city, town, township, borough, village, and census-designated place in the US has an article.  I don't see as it terribly matters.  The default form will remain City, State, and each article will have to have an RM to be moved (unless we agree as we change the rule to also move the 27 AP cities, as Tariq has suggested, and as makes sense to me).  All articles will be officially fine at City, State under the proposed change.  Anyone who wants a page moved will have to request it.  john k 11:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Question 

message: I removed the India section. Was only inserted by one User.  Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your removal of content from that page. I think a discussion is needed here. Nichalp is on wikibreak. He would be back middle of Novemeber. We can have a discussion when he returns. -- Ganeshk (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The content could be removed/kept based on the result on our discussion at Talk:Hyderabad, India. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I see you have reverted me. I will stick to 1RR. :) -- Ganeshk (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the same... I'd like to keep that section till the poll closes. Reverting back. --hydkat 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm only requesting the relevant section be kept till the poll closes --hydkat 13:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  India