Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 18

message: Just a suggestion, for now can we ignore the arguments to completely get rid of this convention or not?  It appears that we are close to reaching a consensus on which cities in the US convention may/should reside at City and rehashing whether or not this convention should be chucked is getting in the way of that consensus. With that in mind, the only issues that I see remaining are whether or not the wording should say "may" or "should" and whether or not using the AP Stylebook is too US centric.--Bobblehead (rants) 15:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point, as long as Serge says he will continue to request, lobby for, and personally move cities to their unqualified name, regardless of what these guidelines say.  I'm still against the convention unless the guideline makes it clear that this is an exception to the general rule, and the general rule still applies unless this or some other specific exception applies.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bobblehead - okay.  Arthur - that's not what I said.  --Serge 16:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it is worth, I am all for using the AP list, I find Arthur's caveat acceptable, and I find Serge's use of the word "should" as acceptable.  ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would it matter if the AP list is too U.S.-centric for a U.S. convention? Skeezix1000 17:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we want a convention that makes things easy for all users of this Wiki, including non-Americans? What seems obvious and useful to us Americans may not be so obvious if you're a Minangkabau schoolchild or a Mongolian bureaucrat; but this Wiki is for them too, if they read English.--Orange Mike 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, that's obvious.  That's not what I was getting at.  If the potentially emerging consensus is to have significant U.S. cities at City, then of course any third party list (such as AP) of significant U.S. cities would likely be U.S.-centric.  Just as any determination of significant Mongolian cities would likely be Mongolian-centric.Skeezix1000 12:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Tagalog Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close to consensus 

message: One of the common issues on settlements being located at the primary topic name is, do they belong there? This is especially true if there are other settlements that also share that name.  This comes up rather often on move requests.
The common objections to moving include:
#the existing settlement is already at the name so why move it
#the existing settlement is the oldest
#the existing settlement is the one that all of the others derive their names from
#the editors of the existing article don't believe it should be moved
#the links to the existing article are mostly for the article currently at this name
What does not get much play is, which article is the primary use.  Frequently there may not be one, especially if the primary name has uses other then settlements.  Item 4 in the list is the built in bias from the way the requested rename process works.  Item 5 is simply an artifact from editors have to clean up links for the other articles that readers and editors expected to find at this name. Item 1 may or may not justify no change.  As for items 2 and 3, they may or may not indicate support for a primary topic.  
I'd like to see the guideline address this in more detail and give support for using a dab page at the primary name when there are reasonable alternatives for the primary name.  I guess I'm thinking that when there are valid points made for moving the current article, locating a dab at the primary name space should be encouraged in the guideline.  The US naming convention avoids many of these naming conflicts, but it does not prevent readers from being linked to the wrong article. Vegaswikian 19:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.   I would support any wording that clarified the primacy of primary use in determining which if any of several different uses of a given name should be at the name.  Note that this issue is not specific to settlements.  --Serge 19:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Serge's point that this issue is in no way limited to settlements is a valid one.  At least from my point of view, the reason why I proposed including a link to WP:DAB#Primary topic is because determining the primary use for any given topic is a subject that goes beyond the scope of this specific naming convention.  ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More use of dab page 

message: Sorry if I missed it, but there seems to be an assumption by some that neighborhoods and communities can be clearly distinguished and treated differently.  How so?  I mean, is La Jolla, a community/neighborhood of San Diego, a neighborhood, or a community?  And what about La Jolla Shores, which is a community/neighborhood of La Jolla?  I think the distinction is artificial at best.  Once again I have to ask: why not use the same tried and true rules for naming neighborhoods and communities that are used to name every other article in Wikipedia?  If there are no dab issues, just use the name.  If there are, then dab with parenthesis, depending on the situation.  --Serge 21:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know, not everyone shares your conviction that "Placename, Statename" is a case of disambiguation. So please don't act as if it's generally agreed that it is. AJD 21:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but even among the comma convention supporters, most seem to realize that "Placename, Statename" is disambiguation and they openly support this "predisambiguation" for a variety of reasons.  Scott Davis is perhaps the most eloquent among them.  That there is some minority that stubbornly insists that it is not disambiguation is hardly relevant.   Besides, whether Chicago, Illinois, for example, is an alternative name for Chicago is moot - since clearly the most common name used to refer to that city is simply Chicago. --Serge 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how you can say that "most" agree that "city, state" is pre-disambiguation. I don't think you should be accusing other editors of stubbornness either.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, let me explain this again. For the sake of understanding, we are using the term "neighborhood" to describe the parts of a city that have a special identity (examples: Upper West Side in New York City, West End in London, Universal City in Los Angeles, Dilworth in Charlotte, Financial District in Boston). There is no doubt these places are a part of the city they are found within. Neighborhoods are usually merged into the city articles, but sometimes there is so much info that seperate articles are created. This is different from communities (a word that has many definitions, but for sake of argument is defined as places seperate or partially seperate from another municipality), which are seperate other places entirely. A community can be any spot on the map that is seperate from any other, meaning they can be unincorporated areas, CDPs, boroughs, villages, towns, cities, consolidated-city counties, whatever it may be (examples: Cullowhee, Welcome, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, or even Chicago, Illinois). Since there is a clear distintion between the two, a seperate convention is needed for neighborhoods. Communities are NOT being argued in the lower sections of this talk page with "neigborhood" in the name. The convention for those currently is "City, State" in the US. Hopefully this clears it up for everyone. --Triadian 01:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neighborhood/Community distinction? 

message: I put this together for when we're ready to create the move request per the above discussions.  This assumes the actual request will be posted on this page under the heading of "Move request". 
* Talk:Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Move request -- to comply with revised U.S. city naming conventions
** Atlanta, Georgia → Atlanta
** Baltimore, Maryland → Baltimore
** Boston, Massachusetts → Boston
** Cincinnati, Ohio → Cincinnati
** Cleveland, Ohio → Cleveland
** Dallas, Texas → Dallas
** Denver, Colorado → Denver
** Detroit, Michigan → Detroit
** Honolulu, Hawaii → Honolulu
** Houston, Texas → Houston
** Indianapolis, Indiana → Indianapolis
** Los Angeles, California → Los Angeles
** Miami, Florida → Miami
** Milwaukee, Wisconsin → Milwaukee
** Minneapolis, Minnesota → Minneapolis
** New Orleans, Louisiana → New Orleans
** Oklahoma City, Oklahoma → Oklahoma City
** Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania → Pittsburgh
** St. Louis, Missouri → St. Louis
** Salt Lake City, Utah → Salt Lake City
** San Antonio, Texas → San Antonio
** San Diego, California → San Diego
** San Francisco, California → San Francisco
** Seattle, Washington → Seattle
--Serge 00:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The moves should be decided on city by city, on the city talk pages.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if there is formal consensus here and the guideline is changed, then these would be listed as uncontested at WP:RM and they can be moved.  If someone wants to contest them they can do so by moving to contested or starting a discussion on the article talk page after moving from uncontested to a full move discussion.  Vegaswikian 00:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Vegaswikian, Bobblehead, Arkyan, etc.  What you're suggesting, Will, sounds like a big mess.  --Serge 00:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at the very least of the proposed moves should be posted to each city talk page. Naming convenions are just guidelines, as Serge has reminded us so often.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. There is a template for that.  I'll help putting them out there.  --Serge 02:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The proposed moves above will be listed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Requested moves. A notice directing editors to that centralized discussion will be placed on the talk pages of each of the articles, as well as at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Other_proposals. Sound OK? Λυδαcιτγ 04:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prep work for the move request

message: New section because nothing's been discussed on this for two days.
I strongly oppose removing the state name for one simple reason: in the United States, all cities are parts of the states wherein they are located.  Forgive me if this has already been stated, but to me it seems like the defining issue.  This is the result of being in the United States: because the states are more than administrative subdivisions, location by state is important.  Would we say "Chicago is a city in Cook County, United States"?  This is different from where the location is given as disambiguation, such as Oakwood, Ohio, since Oakwood can be a municipality in Cuyahoga, Montgomery, or Paulding Counties.
Moreover, it helps to have consistency: it really seems unusual to have just a few big cities in one format, while 99.99% of municipalities nationwide are on a different format.  Nyttend 22:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely. However there are some editors who have strong feelings about this and so we're trying to accommodate both views. so that we can stop wasting time discussing this.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  This is part of a reasonable compromise, in the hopes that most people can be mostly satisfied on this issue :) ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the US cities 

message: I've gone ahead and filed a move request for US cities based on the discussions had previously.  If you haven't already please voice your opinion of the matter over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Requested moves. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move requests 

message: I've made some amendments to the UK section of this page. It reflects consensus, naturally, but it makes clearer some of the finer aspects of the Counties of the United Kingdom which are much more complex and contentious than was previously covered in the naming convention... Jza84 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK counties 

message: There's a discussion at the above location suggesting that this convention should be ignored in the case of Southampton, for no reason I can ascertain!  Additional input there would be appreciated. Waggers (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I made clear on the Southampton talk page, I fail to understand why areas in the city are now being described as Location, Hampshire ahead of Location, Southampton. Why is real world use being overwritten in favour of a Wiki convention? These places are known parts of the city ahead of the county, so why the change? This change means the level of geography by which most of these places are referred to is being ignored. Surely how people refer them in reality carries more weight than internet conventions? Dan K (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The truth is that most of the areas are referred to as both Southampton and Hampshire.  West End, for example, is outside of the Southampton administrative area but often referred to as being part of Southampton - yet it is separated from the city both administratively and physically.  Many areas within the city boundary have a strong local identity, separate to that of the city as a whole.  But the most important thing is that we are consistent across the project, and therefore it's important that we have a convention and that we follow it.  If you're proposing a change, exactly what are you proposing?  Would the change apply to areas within unitary authorities, or suburbs of any larger settlement regardless of administration, or what?  If it's the latter, how do you distinguish between a suburb and a settlement in its own right?  Unless you're willing and able to answer questions like these and justify your answers, there really is no point in continuously moaning.  Please try to be constructive. Waggers (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So what exactly are you proposing?  Should suburbs of Winchester (not a unitary authority) be disambiguated to Place, Winchester instead of Place, Hampshire?  After all, they may well identify more with the city than the county, just as you claim areas of Southampton do.  If that's the case, how do we distinguish between a suburb of the city and any other settlement within the City of Winchester district?  If you're suggesting a change in the convention, we need to know what it is you're proposing and how to implement it across the project, not just in Southampton. Waggers (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The Winchester example is a red herring, as Hampshire is still the authority - the joys of a two tier system - which doesn't apply to unitary authorities hence their name. You keep going on about suburbs and distinguishing them, but as I have said, why not use the authority? Boundaries are te obvious cut off line. Once you get into metropolitan counties where there is only a single tier of government the convention is the same as it is now. The change here only applies to places such as Hampshire, Dorset, East Sussex and a handful of others where part of the county is two tier government (as is the case for Winchester and Hampshire) and part is single tier (Southampton, Portsmouth, Brighton & Hove etc). You are now using all county level descriptions (Metropolitan, Shire and UA), rather than just two. You'd simply giving more credence to the notability of unitary authorities, and giving more accurate geographic descriptions of where places are. Dan K (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's a decent, solid proposal.  The current policy is to use ceremonial counties, and you would like to change it to use administrative counties and unitary authorities.  Have I got that right?  I'm not opposed to this idea in principle, but I'm not too keen on some of the long disambiguators which would result - Bath, Bath and North East Somerset, and also note that some disambiguators would repeat the place name, giving little useful information (apparently only Reading, Reading at the moment, but the trend seems to be towards more large towns in Britain being at disambiguated titles).  Finally, I think that the county/UA split may easily be misunderstood, and that we will see many more articles created in [place, shire district] or [suburb, town] format than are at present. Warofdreams talk 02:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There are quite a few villages that don't have articles yet, so I think there's some more to do.  Whilst I appreciate that you've now come up with a more defined proposal, I still don't think it meets your criteria of reflecting real-world usage.  The Winchester example is not a red herring - there are areas that are suburbs of Winchester, just as there are areas that are suburbs of Southampton; those areas of Winchester may well identify more with the city than the county of Hampshire.  If the justification for a change is to better reflect real-world usage, surely we should make sure any proposal does exactly that?  Otherwise, it's a change for the sake of change. Waggers (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only way to get universal real-world usage is to do everything ad-hoc. While this is not something I have a problem with, I have a strong feeling I'd be in the minority. I'm not saying my proposal is perfect, but it does address problems of areas of cities like Southampton, Portsmouth etc, which the current convention does not. As I've said before, there is no way any one-size-fits-all rule will address all the problems of all the articles, so I think the best thing to do is to get one that addresses as many issues as possible. For places like Winchester's areas and the Metropolitan counties, everything in is nigh on identical to the status quo, if the Winchester issue is something that is against my proposal, it must be against the current convention too. Dan K (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just seems a little odd that an area with strong ties to a city without unitary authority status would be disambiguated to the county, while an area that happens to be within a unitary authority area but has a strong, independent identity (or more ties to the county than the city) would be disambiguated to a nearby city.  But I'm happy to live with that, it's not a dealbreaker. Waggers (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks like you've got (slightly reluctant) agreement, so I'd suggest drafting your change to the convention here and, providing there are no objections, we can go ahead and make the change, renaming the appropriate articles. Warofdreams talk 23:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should make clear that I still disagree with Dan K's proposal, as the time and effort required to rename all the articles and clean up all the backlinks, together with the confusion and inconsistency that would be caused, are in no way justified by the almost negligible benefit of making the change. Waggers (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, I misunderstood your last comment.  In terms of dealing with backlinks, that shouldn't be a deciding issue; there probably won't be too many, and we are likely to be able to get someone to write a bot to do it efficiently if the task seems overwhelming.  In that case, while there wouldn't be any harm in drafting the proposed change, the objections Waggers raises are those which need to be discussed. Warofdreams talk 12:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Southampton#Naming_of_articles_about_city_suburbs]] 

message: Where possible, articles on places in Scotland should go under placename.  Thus Glasgow, not Glasgow, Scotland.  Where disambiguation is needed, articles should go under placename, Scotland. Thus Perth, Scotland, not Perth, Perth and Kinross. Where disambiguation is still needed, articles should go under placename, Council Area x. Thus Abernethy, Highland and Abernethy, Perth and Kinross. If even then it is still needed, then another form of natural and recognisable disambiguation should be sought, such as traditional regions, committee areas, etc, as in Kinnaird, Gowrie and Kinnaird, Atholl, both in Scotland and in Perth and Kinross.
*Support. Entirely common sense proposal, very succinctly constructed and should be adopted word for word. Bill Reid | Talk 19:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that I've never seen anyone create an article on a Scottish settlement with the name "Placename, UK", I think this is not a debate we are likely to see. Of course, there could be people seeking to prove a point, but I doubt there are many people who think that "Placename, UK" would be a natural name for a settlement. Lurker (said · done) 14:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *Lurker, please Assume good faith. At the time I wrote the "existing practice" paragraph, I inspected about half a dozen categories (perhaps a few more), and saw exactly one "placename, Scotland" article, and about 2 dozen "placename, <something smaller than Scotland>" articles. I checked the history of some of those, to ensure there hadn't just been a mass rename, but didn't check them closely. None of the ones I checked had been moved as their last edit, only one that I recall had moves in recent history. If I was wrong, it's OK to point that out with a broader set of statistics, not with sarcasm and an assumption I was pushing my own barrow. --Scott Davis Talk 22:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those are internal to the UK - wikipedia is a worldwide document.  When Pan Am 103 happened it was referred to around the world as "Lockerbie, Scotland" - not "Lockerbie, Dumfires and Galloway" - frankly it was reported as "Lockerbie Scotland" for the 6pm UK news because internal to the UK the vast majority of people in England wouldn't have a clue about Scottish council areas.  Are we trying to help or hinder the reader?  There is only one solution here - and all the other voices say the same thing. SFC9394 (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a totally fair point, but I felt that it was a bite of info worth noting here. Of course there have been suggestions to further disambiguate to former counties, or worse, "traditional" regions (like the non-statutory Highlands). I would hope that should this new system be adopted, we are supporting that the second tier of disambiguation is to council area??? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and the Gazetteer of Scotland uses council areas as the subdivisions of Scotland. Also worth noting for my point against other forms of subdivision for Scotland. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines Deacon added - descending disambiugation

message: In Scotland, disambiguated place names should go under placename, council area. Thus Fort William, Highland, and Clarkston, East Renfrewshire not Fort William, Scotland (which is a redirect page) or Clarkston, Renfrewshire.
(from discussion at Talk:Perth, Scotland):
:The reason for providing a second part to a name is to clearly differentiate the place from other(s) with the same name. The second part of the name should be better known than the first. Beyond this, to me, it matters little what is used, "county" (old or new), region, unitary authority, or nation, so long as it makes it clear where the article is about and differentiates it from other places with the same name. For old "county towns" adding the county or region does little for clarity (as Lincoln, Lincolnshire). Perth, Perth and Kinross repeats infomation, whereas Perth, Scotland adds clarity (provided there is no other Perth, Scotland of similar prominence). Finavon (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no guideline is needed for UK articles.  On occasions where there are multiple instances of the name the best workaround can be found amongst the editors of those articles to find a suitable solution.  To suggest that all placenames of settlements have to go under "placename, council" is ridiculous.  I have commented on this before, and this seems to be a worryingly increasing trend of content decisions affecting thousands of articles being decided unilaterally by a small group of editors who want everything to fit in neat and tidy boxes and come up with "guidelines" which everyone should follow.  I will link to the essay Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep - I think this needs to be clearly accepted in the context of UK place/settlement articles - I am fed up being hemmed in by an unnecessary and useless bureaucracy decided on by a tiny number of editors. SFC9394 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The comments by SFC and MacRusgail are very well put. Not an iota of thought was put into Jza84's attempted guidelines. SFC's suggestion for no guidelines is probably the nearest we can get to the best possible situation, ironic as that seems. Per comments of SFC, the more I find out about the guidelines process the more disturbed I become. Many such guidelines are written by a tiny number of people on obscure pages who push their little coups through with usually no discussion and thereafter attempt to subvert community dialogue by forwarding them as a fait accompli. Thats how we've got most of those monarch names we have, and why so many Scottish places were moved. Little attempted coups like that. Jza84 even had the temerity to cite the text he himself had written a month before as an excuse to move the long established Perth, Scotland to the absurb Perth, Perth and Kinross, writing It is convention to use the style "PLACENAME, COUNCIL AREA" for Scottish places, but the guidelines do permit the excercise of commonsense and rare exceptions., while User:Warofdreams wrote when moving the page in line with guidelines. If you disagree with the guidelines, please discuss them; do not change them unilaterally ... irony, eh? Did we all become idiots overnight that we're expected to buy that kind of thing? I apologize, I'm now sounding rather abrasive, and I must WP:AGF. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have to say I didn't realise the extent of what was going on here.  The current vast amount of moves by User:Warofdreams is completely OTT.  No discussion, no consensus - just "moves per...." - this is a guideline (with virtually no discussion and inserted into the page 2 months ago) not a policy - you really can't be doing that.  Don't bother doing the mass moves on any of the articles I work on or they will get moved straight back.  Totally ridiculous.  SFC9394 (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And he just reinstated it too. Quite unbelievable. I don't think actual consensus matters. Why bother forming it when you can just pretend it exists? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Right.  Please do not remove guidelines which have had consensus simply because you disagree with them.  There is a discussion under way; there are no grounds to cover up the existing consensus.  A link to the ongoing discussion is the ideal compromise.  Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Warofdreams talk 20:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Warofdreams ... this is nonsense. What evidence do you have that this is an "existing consensus"? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  "the existing consensus".  There is no discussion on this page - this has received *NO* discussion amongst a wide body of editors (and unless tucked away on someone's private talk page I can't even find *any* discussion at all).  What is going on here is, quite frankly, breathtaking. SFC9394 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeedie. Warofdreams ... you can presume that no-one here is psychic nor has access to the relevant IRC logs ... so given that absolutely no-one has even bothered defending that ... lol ... "consensus" ... or otherwise provided any evidence of its existence, you might actually be obliged to provide some. It'd certainly help. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am sorry to see that you are continuing to make accusations of bad faith with no evidence.  I am interested in a discussion aimed at building consensus.  Truth be told, I am unconcerned as to the merits of this proposal, but I have been shocked at the way you have attempted to bulldozer your ideas through, by pretending that there has never been any consensus, trying to cover up evidence of it, and making personal attacks.  Why not simply put forward your proposal, with the arguments in favour, and invite discussion? Warofdreams talk 21:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Chatise me for bad faith, fair enough. But don't do that and then say you have attempted to bulldozer your ideas through, by pretending that there has never been any consensus, trying to cover up evidence of it, and making personal attacks, as that is much worse faith, and is simply untrue in any case. I don't need to pretend it doesn't exist. It doesn't, as you should know. And I am not the one "bulldozing" ... my edits to the main page settled at "Under discussion", whereas yours are an attempt at imposing a guideline that has yet to be defended, and is opposed by many people. And "personal attacks"? Where? Utter nonsense. Please participate in the discussion rather than continuing with this stuff. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not interested in replying to your baseless accusations.  I will participate in the discussion below. Warofdreams talk 00:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  "by pretending that there has never been any consensus".  There hasn't - as I have demonstratively shown above (including the fact that your comments in one of those pieces of "consensus" is the diametrical opposite of the page moves you have been making!).  AGF claims work both ways - as your comments above prove - since "attempted to bulldozer your ideas through", "by pretending", "trying to cover up evidence", are all complete failures of AGF. SFC9394 (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to just say (during a period where I'm struggling for editting time) that I didn't add new guidelines as such, I merely elaborated on them. The guidelines stated they were for the United Kingdom but only tackled England. I made this clear in the edit summary and based this on the disambiguation I've seen already established for Scottish settlements inline with WP:BOLD. I don't have a problem with them being revisted and scruntenised, but do have a problem with nasty targetted messages implying I acted in bad faith. I had the articles best interests at heart and don't believe my elaboration was at all bad faith. I stand-by it. It would have been nice to have been invited here to explain my edits. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines User:Jza84 added - council always formula

message: I requested that the article Los Angeles, California be moved to Los Angeles.  You're welcome to voice your opinion at Talk:Los Angeles, California#Requested move #5.  Charles Stewart (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Los Angeles 

message: I have created three userboxes for users to express a position in the endless debate over U.S. city article titles:
*
*
*
Enjoy! szyslak 07:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userboxes 

message: There is no established naming convention on Israeli settlements and localities. A new guideline is being discussed at WikiProject Israel. You are invited to participate. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: The Australia section here mandates that all Australian settlements should be disambiguated, whether there's a need for it or not. I find this utterly stupid. __meco (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia - ridiculous mandatory disambiguation 

message: I've revived the age old discussion over Oklahoma City here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And there's a similar discussion Indianapolis' talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you miss New York? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oklahoma City 

message: I have seen a few redirects from "... District" to "... district" (and/or Division > division) but seen no clear resolution supporting such a policy. I'm in favour of it, despite having a lot to do with United States county names, which seem to be uniformly "... County, ...". If there's a policy statement or discussion, I would like a link to it. Robin Patterson (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the link: WikiProject Indian districts/Naming. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Divisions and districts

message: A user has just moved San Luis Obispo, California to San Luis Obispo after a 12 hour discussion period. The same person aslo put a WP:SPEEDY tag on the redirect at Anaheim with the apparent intent of moving Anaheim, California too, although he hasn't asked for comment there yet. Rklear (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly San Luis Obispo, California's move is not supported by the naming convention and should be reversed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain.  "San Luis Obispo" need no disambiguation.  It is a unique city name.  As such, according to this policy, it should be named San Luis Obispo.  If "San Luis Obispo" warranted disambiguation then this document would have it correctly as San Luis Obispo, California.  —  X  S  G  01:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. city naming guideline has been a contentious issue for years now. There are two extreme view points. One is to have a uniform "city, state" name for any and all U.S. places. The other is to use "city" and disambiguate only as needed. The current guideline to allow for the possiblity of about 20 or so exceptions is a compromise position that resulted after a series of long and heated discussions. The two cities you refer to are not on the list of possible exceptions. --Polaron | Talk 01:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Luis Obispo, Anaheim 

message: I'm not seeing any here or at Talk:Seattle but it was moved anyways. AgneCheese/Wine 04:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. The situation was corrected. AgneCheese/Wine 04:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a move request started at Talk:Seattle,_Washington#Requested_move. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I strongly concur with Dr. Cash's position and I also would support an immediate ban on the user who proposed the move (User:Remember the dot). I also believe that there was insufficient consensus to begin with for adding an exception to the traditional city, state guideline and the users who forced through that exception should also be banned for acting in bad faith.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One would hope you are saying this in jest... anyway, there was consensus for the move. It is also under review at Talk:Seattle. --Ckatzchatspy 09:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus to move [[Seattle]]? 

message: Yet another attempted exception to the City, State convention. Phiwum (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an exemption: "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may be listed at City if they are the primary topic for that name. Cities that meet these criteria are: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle.[1] No other American city should be listed at City." rootology (C)(T) 16:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Boston, MA]] 

message: Hi again,
Just thought of another question. When referring to somebody's place of birth, is it ok to use the name of the city at the time, provided that it is piped link to the modern name? For example:
:"Sunil Gavaskar (born 10 July 1949 in Bombay, India)..."
rather than
:"Sunil Gavaskar (born 10 July 1949 in Mumbai, India)..."
–MDCollins (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I edit an article where the country, rather than the city, is in question, the answer would seem to be Bombay if it redirects to Mumbai or has a sensible article of its own.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Bombay is actually a disambig page, so providing that the link points to the correct article, which says Mumbai formerly known as Bombay (or similar), I can link to Bombay?–MDCollins (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, in that case, I'd use the piped link.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Bombay, India.  Vegaswikian (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to places whose name has changed 

message: I see that User:Born2cycle seems to be managing discussions/votes for a good number of cities to move them from <city,state> to <city>, even as this discussion about a systematic policy change is in progress.  It that appropriate?  Should this editor be asked to hold off for a while?   The cities he is working can be seen at his User page, which seems to be devoted to this effort.  Pzavon (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only individual move discussion that is active right now is for Boston.  The Los Angeles discussion is not about a move, but trying to establish whether there is anything close to a consensus about Los Angeles not being primary usage for the city.  --User:Born2cycle (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which, of course, only matters in determining whether or not to move it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it matters in determining whether Los Angeles belongs on the list of cities to be moved as part of the large move.  --Serge (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

text: As for the question at hand: individual move proposals (for the twenty major cities listed on the guideline page) have always been appropriate, in either direction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Granted I'm biased, but I think the objective thing to do is just do it.  Consensus for Boston was achieved independent of this big move proposal, and should happen regardless of whether the big move happens.  And if the big move happens too, it's one less move to deal with then.  --Serge (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This single-purpose account wouldn't know the objective thing to do if he fell over it. Please learn to shut up when you've made your case, such as it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, no personal attacks.  --Serge (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see: this reasoning is so lame ... is not a personal attack.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excusing your personal attack on another editor by highlighting other examples of this sin?  Just bite your tongue. 58Crash (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, pleading provocation, compounded by hypocrisy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a difference between a personal attack and a critical comment about the content of what someone posts.  From WP:NPA: "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people".  My comment, which you linked above, was referring to the reasoning (content) presented by some in their comments to be "lame".  It was not a comment about any person.  Your comment above, "wouldn't know the objective thing to do if he fell over it" was clearly personal.  Besides, if one person slips and makes a personal attack, that does not justify doing the same in response (this is also from WP:NPA)  I have tried very hard to avoid personally attacking you, for example, and I sincerely hope I have succeeded and you agree.  If you feel you've been provoked, or I'm hypocritical, please explain how, for I try very hard to avoid doing both.  Thanks.  --Serge (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

text: If Serge does not make this into another of the dozen or more pages spent on his interminable crusade on this matter, I shall attempt to forget the previous ones. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Individual City Move proposals Appropriate now? 

message: It appears that there is pretty clear consensus at Talk:Boston, Massachusetts#Requested move to move the article to "Boston" per a move request that began before the above mass move request began, and the survey has had no new opinions or discussion in two days. Building on the above, would it be acceptable to move this page now, before the hypothetical mass move takes place (which could take awhile, given the disagreement about which cities should be exceptions), or would it just be better to wait? Cheers, Rai•me 15:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted I'm biased, but I think the objective thing to do is just do it.  Consensus for Boston was achieved independent of this big move proposal, and should happen regardless of whether the big move happens.  And if the big move happens too, it's one less move to deal with then.  --Serge (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This single-purpose account wouldn't know the objective thing to do if he fell over it. Please learn to shut up when you've made your case, such as it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, no personal attacks.  --Serge (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see: this reasoning is so lame ... is not a personal attack.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excusing your personal attack on another editor by highlighting other examples of this sin?  Just bite your tongue. 58Crash (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, pleading provocation, compounded by hypocrisy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a difference between a personal attack and a critical comment about the content of what someone posts.  From WP:NPA: "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people".  My comment, which you linked above, was referring to the reasoning (content) presented by some in their comments to be "lame".  It was not a comment about any person.  Your comment above, "wouldn't know the objective thing to do if he fell over it" was clearly personal.  Besides, if one person slips and makes a personal attack, that does not justify doing the same in response (this is also from WP:NPA)  I have tried very hard to avoid personally attacking you, for example, and I sincerely hope I have succeeded and you agree.  If you feel you've been provoked, or I'm hypocritical, please explain how, for I try very hard to avoid doing both.  Thanks.  --Serge (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

text: If Serge does not make this into another of the dozen or more pages spent on his interminable crusade on this matter, I shall attempt to forget the previous ones. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Boston

message: If any of the above should not be on the exemption list, it is this one. Cleveland is a common and notable last name, particularly in the case of US President Grover Cleveland. The name is also used by fictional characters. I would have to challenge the notion that the primary use of the word "Cleveland" outside of the United States is for the city. Shereth 18:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, shouldn't we be proposing moving Cleveland (disambiguation) to Cleveland? --Polaron | Talk 18:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, and I would support such a move.  Right now I'm just focused on the current proposal at hand :) Shereth 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: "I would have to challenge the notion that the primary use of the word "Cleveland" outside of the United States is for the city." (emphasis mine) So stipulated, but the point of the naming conventions isn't what slice of the en-Wikipedia readership isn't American.  It's whether a particular name is the overwhelming default of the whole readership.  That there are historical and fictional characters with the name just mean one of those "This article is about the city in Ohio.  For other uses, please see Cleveland (disambiguation)" tags.  Oh, look, there already IS such a page.    RGTraynor  18:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that - my rationale is that the name is only primary in the US, and even then a bit on the shaky side. Just because the disambiguation page exists as such currently does not mean it is the ideal solution. Shereth 18:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with RGTraynor on this issue. Consensus has already determined that the primary usage of "Cleveland" is the city in Ohio, as evidenced by the redirect. The only other Cleveland that could really be compared is Cleveland, England (I doubt that readers would expect to find Grover Cleveland when typing in "Cleveland", just as they would doubt to find George Washington when typing in "Washington", but that is my opinion), a now-abolished county in England, but article traffic statistics indicate that the Ohio city is the clear primary usage of "Cleveland". This situation is probably similar to that of Salisbury. Cheers, Rai•me 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Wellington, etc. I fully agree, "Cleveland" means the city. -- Jao (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleveland

message: Not sure about this one as one would have expected that St. Louis should redirect to the non-abbreviated form Saint Louis. I don't know how common the city usage versus the saint usage is but I'm throwing this out here for a fuller discussion. --Polaron | Talk 18:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that currently, the St. Louis, Missouri article uses the "St." (abbreviated) form, while Saint Louis is a disambiguation page which refers to all possible variations. I would think that the status quo here would imply moving St. Louis, Missouri to St. Louis, which wouldn't have any effect on the disambiguation page at Saint Louis. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The city's own web site is titled "City of St. Louis Community Information Network". If they don't bother spelling out "Saint Louis" themselves, I wonder if Wikipedia should. Rklear (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oppose moving St. Louis. The person is probably most notable. Either St. Louis, Missouri or Saint Louis, Missouri should be the article name for the city.--Appraiser (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't think that the person, Louis IX of France, is the most notable; based solely on traffic statistics, the Catholic saint gets about 13,000 hits per month (a lesser known saint, Louis of Toulouse, gets 400), whereas the city gets 73,500. Based solely on hit counts, it seems pretty clear that St. Louis is the primary topic here for "St. Louis". Cheers, Rai•me 01:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Louis

message: Looking at San Diego (disambiguation), the city is not the primary use, but the name is.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument is patently false. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is patently true.  It may still be incorrect, but we need to reach a consensus at the disambiguation page first.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is so not controversial, that there is not even a talk page at Talk:San Diego (disambiguation) and no comments at Talk:San Diego since 2006.  The undisputed (for years) redirect from San Diego to San Diego, California is in and of itself evidence that consensus has been reached on this point.  That does not mean that the issue cannot be raised, but it needs to be raised there, not here.  --Serge (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As this is English Wikipedia, and not the Spanish version, it seems to me that Saint James is the name that the overwhelming majority of users would seek if referring to the Catholic saint.  No native English-speaker would think San Diego = Santiago = Saint James, indeed, "San Diego" in English usage clearly references the city in California.  Same thing could be said for San Francisco; if an English-speaker was thinking of Saint Francis of Assisi, they would use that name, not the Spanish language equivalent. --Friejose (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the fact that Santiago is the primary usage in Spanish, and even Spanish speakers wouldn't be looking for the saint at San Diego.  I find it hard to accept the argument that any other use of San Diego approaches that of the city in terms of primacy. Shereth 15:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Diego 

message: Looking at San Antonio (disambiguation), the assertion is that the US city is the most commonly used.  That is different then the primary use.  Looking at the list, it would appear that establishing the city as the primary use may not be justified. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument is patently false. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is patently true.  It may still be incorrect, but we need to reach a consensus at the disambiguation page first.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Just as for San Diego, evidence that consensus has been reached on the point that this city of San Antonio in Texas is primary and most common use of San Antonio is the long undisputed redirect from San Antonio to San Antonio, Texas.  Again, if anyone feels that consensus needs to be challenged, then they need to propose changing that redirect.  --Serge (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Antonio 

message: I am aware that Miami is currently a redirect to Miami, Florida, but there are several other prominent subjects which Miami denotes: for example, the Great Miami River and the Miami tribe.  I make the patently true argument that the disambiguation page improperly asserts that "Miami" usually refers to the large city in southeastern Florida.  Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See if you can achieve consensus on this point at Talk:Miami in order to change Miami to redirect to the dab page rather than to Miami, Florida.  --Serge (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent reason why supporting #Review of convention for US cities is not a sound move.  If things need to be reviewed, then they should not be batch nominated.  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't need to be reviewed. There is no serious doubt at all that the city Miami, Florida is the primary meaning for Miami by normal Wikipedia standards. The same with all the other cities on the list. There would not be the slightest argument about it if it weren't for the existence of a zealous band grasping at any arguments they can think of to protect their beloved "always city, state" convention (which is pointless now anyway since several exceptions have already been adopted).--Kotniski (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  If no one has even tried to change the Cityname to Cityname, Statename redirect for a given city to be a dab page, much less achieved consensus to do so, it's reasonable to assume that the consensus is that the primary usage for the name in question is to refer to that city, and that no review is necessary.  --Serge (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in Serge's perfervid imagination. It is far more reasonable to suppose that few have noticed the redirect and no one has bothered to object. This is fundamentally a tempest in a teacup; although that is no reason to throw out the perfectly good cup of tea we now possess. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one has noticed that name1 redirects to name2 (and thus doesn't redirect to name3, name4 or anything else), or they noticed but weren't bothered by it enough to object, then that constitutes consensus by default.   In any case, for the 2 or 3 of who believe that Name should not redirect to a city because usually if not always the city per se is not the primary usage of that Name, nothing prevents you from trying to achieve consensus on that point.  The argument that a given city should not be on the exemption (exempted from the comma convention) because the city is not the primary usage of the name of the city is absurd when the name in question has been a redirect to the article about the city for years, which is the case for every city on the exemption list. --Serge (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that A has been a redirect to B for any length of time is not conclusive "evidence" for the statement that "B must therefore be the primary use of A".  Just because something has been a certain way for a certain time does not make it correct.  Shereth 20:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that when A has been a redirect to B for even a long period of time that that is not conclusive evidence that "B must therefore be the primary use of A", and I never said anything to the contrary.  But it is strong evidence that there is consensus on that issue, and any claim that the subject of B is not the primary usage of A must overcome that burden.  Less than even a handful of people simply declaring that the city is not the primary usage for a given name falls far, far short of meeting that burden, especially when even most of those who oppose moving that city article to Cityname agree Cityname should continue to redirect to the city article, which is the case for every city listed in the guideline, so far as I know.  --Serge (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a consensus that the primary usage of the term "Miami" is for the city in Florida (on which point I would, incidentally, agree with you) then it will emerge in this discussion.  "Silent consensus" achieved by a lack of opposition is a valid point in many arguments, but it does not stand up in this context.  At best you can argue that, in the past, there was a consensus regarding the primary usage of a term based on its existence as a redirect, but consensus can (and does) change.  Current consensus on the matter is determined based upon current discussions, not a status quo. Shereth 19:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we agree.  I'm just saying that, for example, Vegaswikian and PMAnderson, and perhaps one or two others, simply declaring that the city is not the primary usage of Los Angeles does not constitute a change in the apparent historical consensus (again, based on the long-lived redirect) to the contrary.  Similarly, a handful (if that) of people posting that they feel Miami (or Boston) has no primary use does not overcome apparent consensus to the contrary, which is manifested by the existence of a redirect of Miami (or Boston) to an article on a particular subject.  It should and must take more than a handful of posts to change that.  That is, status quo (which is evidence of consensus achieved in the past and must be assumed to reflect current consensus by default) is not decisive or conclusive, but it matters.  Status quo must be overcome by a new clearly established consensus.  What do I mean by clearly established?  Well, for example, the status quo with respect to the list of cities in the guideline is that each be at Cityname, Statename.  But with the proposal/discussion/poll above, it seems to me that consensus has clearly overcome that - the new consensus (soon to become status quo, as is already the case for New York City, Chicago, etc.) is that each be at Cityname. Good discussion, by the way.  Thank you.  --Serge (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because a redirect is in place, does not mean that is the primary usage.  So if you are going to argue that it is, then you need to make the case. Quite often, main space articles or redirects remain where they are since there is no consensus to change.  No consensus to change is not the same as being the primary use.  Worcester clearly is an example of this. I suspect that for many  Plymouth is also ambiguous given the existence of the car brand.  Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miami 

message: *There are many other Bostons in the world. The original is Boston, Lincolnshire in England. See Boston (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The city in Massachusetts is far larger than any of the places on that list. (There are also numerous places named London, Paris, and Berlin, looking at those disambiguation pages.) The 'original' argument has never really worked for me either. Our primary focus should be ease of use for the reader. 95% of our readers, when they search for 'Boston', are looking for the city at the center of a metropolitan area of several million people, not the city that happened to be founded first. AlexiusHoratius 05:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not thinking fourth-dimensionally.  Boston not only refers to the town, but to an extremely successfull band.  I would say maybe 60% are looking for the city, and a good 20-25% are looking for the band.  Does this qualify the city as needing the direct link?  25or6to4 (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that there was already a discussion at Talk:Boston, Massachusetts to move the city that started before this mass move proposal began, and there seems to be pretty clear consensus there that Boston, MA should be moved to Boston. Since consensus has already been individually reached, this probably shouldn't even be listed here. Perhaps a hatnote is warranted for the band, but a dab page is certainly not a good solution here. Cheers, Rai•me 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with 25or6to4.  A lot of people when they think of Boston will think of the rock band as well as the city.  It's kind of like how many people think of Chicago the band or the Chicago Transit Authority when the city of Chicago is mentioned.  So that's why I've always thought that Boston and Chicago should be disambiguation pages. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But again, the current requested move at Talk:Boston, Massachusetts shows clear majority support for moving "Boston, Massachusetts" to "Boston", indicating that there is clear consensus among editors that Boston, MA is the primary usage of "Boston". Of all of those proposed exceptions listed above, this is clearly the one that should be moved above all, as there is already consensus for it to be individually moved on the talk page. But on another note, Boston is no more ambiguous than London, Paris, and Berlin and is much less ambiguous than Worcester, Salisbury, and Plymouth. Unless we plan to turn all of these topics into dab pages, it makes no sense to have much stricter standards for determining primary usage for American cities. Cheers, Rai•me 15:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, when I hear Boston or Chicago (well, maybe not Chicago) and think of the band, I think, "yeah, the band named after the city".  What's next, a dab page for Vida Blue because there is a Vida Blue (band)?  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boston