Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 15

message: There is a new survey to clarify the meaning/applicability of the "use common names" guideline/convention.  See WT:NC#Proposal: clarify meaning of "use most common name" guideline.  --Serge 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New survey to clarify "use common names" guideline/convention 

message: Hi, I'm the co-founder of the project "Subdivisões do Brasil" (Brazilian subdivisions) at Portuguese Wikipedia and the author of more than 5.000 Brazilian location maps (almost all used here).
I propose that we use the same rules for Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo without exception. The Brazilian states aticles must have a higher priority than their respective capitals. Sorry but my capacity to write in English is very limited. What I'm trying to say is: Rio de Janeiro should concerns the State of Rio de Janeiro and Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro (or Rio de Janeiro City) the city.
I really don't understand why this is an exception. I belive that is because this rule was simply based in current practice (check this) without any discussion (I don't find anyone). This convention should not be different from the other countries.
I'm saying this only now because this convention is generating a lot of trouble in Commons.
I hope we will be able to change this as quickly as possible.
Raphael.lorenzeto 14:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was me simply writing down the current practice. I believe both exceptions are a wart; since when you say "Rio de Janeiro" or "São Paulo" it's ambiguous which one you are refering to (and it is usually disambiguated by the context), I believe it would be much more natural for both to be disambiguation pages, and the actual articles to be at (city) and (state). Answering to Talk:Rio de Janeiro (state)#Rename to "Rio de Janeiro", the principle of least surprise would not be violated (in fact, using a disambiguation page is much less surprising when you want information about the other page). --cesarb 00:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd leave these two as they are -- it seems to me that if we are going to bother with a separate rule for primary meanings, then it should apply here. In English, these terms apply to the cities absolutely overwhelmingly. The principle of least surprise certainly applies, in the same way as for any primary usage -- if I enter a term which overwhelmingly has a single meaning, and Wikipedia's not sure what I'm talking about, then I'm pretty likely to be surprised by that. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The naming conventions on the English-language Wikipedia specify that an article is to be named according to the most common form used in English, or, lacking that, in the original language.  Cities in English-speaking countries, and noticeably the examples given in the original message, usually already have it figured out, by having, for instance, "New York City" to distinguish from the state of New York, already incorporated into their names, or at least into the common usage — that is, this is not something we created ourselves, but rather it is reflecting the correct naming of those places.  In the case of a Brazilian city such as Rio de Janeiro, and the state of Rio de Janeiro, there's no such usage in English, since they refer to the city as "Rio de Janeiro", and the same goes for the state.  "Rio de Janeiro City" is not in use in any current form of the English language, so we would be making this up ourselves, which we cannot do.  In cases like this, the regular form of disambiguation is to assign the main name ("Rio de Janeiro") to whichever subject is more commonly associated with it: in this case, the city; and use a disambiguated title for the other: hence "Rio de Janeiro (state)" for the article on the state of Rio de Janeiro. Furthermore, I don't see a need to create a disambiguation page for just two articles each ("Rio de Janeiro" and "São Paulo") . Redux 12:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convention for Brazil 

message: Perhaps we might review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) and the IUPAC naming guidelines for chemical compounds.   
Naming chemical compounds has some similarities to settlement names such as:
#Very few people know about chemical compounds except for people who know about the conventions before coming to Wikipedia (e.g., chemists and others with specific education/training).
#Chemical compounds are governed by several different formal naming conventions.
#A very small portion of chemical compounds are known by true common names (e.g., Dioxin, LSD, Acetic acid), which serve as the article titles for these compounds.
#Other common names such as Baking soda redirect to a more technically correct title.  
#A very large number of compounds have article titles such as Bromotrifluoromethane, Benzo(c)cinnoline, or 1,8-Bis(dimethylamino)naphthalene that are unambiguous yet also meaningless to the vast majority of readers. (See List of organic compounds and List of inorganic compounds for many more examples.)    
#Context and audience are key considerations for the level of specificity.  More specificity is required when the context (a dinner table versus a chemistry lab) requires it.  
#Additional contextual elements (e.g., Chirality) are added when necessary but are often left out of common names (e.g., Glucose).  
One significant difference is that chemical compounds already have a set of accepted international naming conventions (external to Wikipedia).  It is common to give the name of a compound according to several conventions to resolve ambiguity.  Places (settlements) do not have a single convention, and it is not common to list a place name according to multiple conventions.  Another important difference is that compounds do not have multiple namesake compounds (e.g., York, Portland). One last difference is that there is no food fight over chemistry naming conventions at Wikipedia.  ;)
This is also another example of the use of parentheses (and commas) in article titles that is not disambiguation, at least in the Wikipedia sense.
So long as there is a "reasonably" consistent method of disambiguation, it matters little what that method is.  The Wiki preference is to use disambiguation that has more correspondence with "common" usage as possible, and then to deviate when necessary, generally following common usage disambiguation.  Finally, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) specifically references Wikipedia:Deletion policy to state "Don't worry, redirects are cheap."
Maybe we can chew on this instead. --Ishu 16:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other examples:  Chemistry 

message: There is even a place naem wnich uses parentheses without meaning to disambiguate. Bath (Berkeley Springs), West Virginia is a muncipality incorporated as the (apparently unambiguous) Bath, West Virginia, but in which the post office is Berkeley Springs, West Virginia. Wikipedia is inconsistent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another example

message: Looks like Chattanooga, Tennessee is the latest city on the let's move cities to the City drive. --Bobblehead 00:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite?  I can't see any present evidence of a move attempt.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean aside from this? --Bobblehead 07:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No wonder I couldn't find it.  It wasn't properly linked anywhere.  Even if apparent consensus for a move had been achieved, I would have reverted it.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not find proper proceedures for withdrawing a move request, so I deleted it, with is what I have pbserved with other moves that don't meet the criteria. I was not aware that I had to leave "present" evidence of a move. Sorry. Btw, I would have moved it back. - BillCJ 00:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chattanooga, TN 

message: To post something (hopefully) light hearted and interesting about this page . Apparently, I just miss the cut off for the top 10. :p Looking at some of the other naming convention pages is an interesting read as well. Agne 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1001st edit to this page 

message: See Talk:Newark. Please add your thoughts. Whatever they maybe. 205.157.110.11 03:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  City related page move for Newark 

message: no consensus. --Bobblehead 02:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Associated Press 

message: # Support.  I think it would be an excellent idea to use standalone names for all city articles which the AP style book designates as being referred to by standalone name in their newspapers.  --Serge 04:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support standalone city names per AP style book 

message: #Oppose. Ah, another strawpoll. The most important lesson for us in the AP guidebook is the value in listing places with city and state. They choose to refer to only a handful of places by cityname alone, while they refer to the overwhelming majority according to the same convention that we follow. Unlike the AP, we're not writing individual stories. We're creating a reference book, and the value of consistency within defined fields is much greater for an encyclopedia than for wire-service articles. -Will Beback · † · 09:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose standalone city names per AP style book 

message: * Since AP is a US based organization, are you suggesting this for all cities or just US cities? If you're suggesting this for all cities, I have to say that this would introduce a US bias. 70.51.9.114 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Was there a consensus for Bearcat's change to the Canadian guideline? While it is only a few words, it completely changes the expected title for thousands of articles about places in Canada, and tens of categories. Someone could be planning a mass rename based on this new interpretation. --Scott Davis Talk 10:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. He/she inverts the established convention, which is to use the comma form by default, and only to use the plain form for well-known cities; not the reverse, to use the plain form by default and only use the comma form where necessary. --Delirium 10:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The established convention permits the plain form for well-known cities and for lesser-known cities (e.g. Iqaluit) whose name can be shown to be unique and therefore to not require disambiguation. In other words, the comma form is not any kind of "default" as the convention currently stands; the words I added were entirely consistent with the convention as written. If you think otherwise, you're seriously misreading the convention. Bearcat 06:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I also agree. His change also goes against the Vancouver issue since disambiguation would be needed there but they have came up with other reasons to keep it there. I think Bearcat's change should be hammered out here for consensus before being added to the guideline. Agne 19:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, for gawd's sake. It does no such thing, nor was it intended to. I withdraw it entirely, and invite everybody to just plain forget about it. And no, Vancouver does not require disambiguation under the naming convention as written; the "other reasons" Agne is alluding to are direct quotes from the existing convention in the first place. Bearcat 05:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: I believe that the most logical way to go about this issue is by a case-by-case basis. For example, the articles Philadelphia and Chicago were moved by voting on their respective talk pages. I propose that we allow an open forum of discussion on articles talk pages on whether an article should be located at city or city, state without a convention that dictates which is proper overall. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 20:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Case-by-case basis

message: I wanted to bring this up as a separate discussion because it doesn't really lend itself to an argument in favour of or against any particular naming convention, but it is an issue that needs to be raised nonetheless.
No matter what convention is used, people don't always realize that there is a constant need to clean up situations where people link to the wrong targets. People frequently link to undisambiguated location titles even for American topics. For instance, just moments ago, in doing a bit of research, I actually had to clean up links to the undisambiguated Worcester and Springfield in the article Massachusetts itself, a topic where most potential editors know perfectly well that Worcester, MA and Springfield, MA are not at the undisambiguated titles. Then I looked at Worcester, and found at least one example (J. Geils Band) where the article contained links to both Worcester, Massachusetts and the undisambiguated Worcester in different places in the article. The status quo isn't any better or worse for the existence of incorrect links than other conventions are, but what I do want to say is that people rely entirely too much on the assumption that the "predictability" and "consistency" of an invariable "city, state" format eliminates this problem, when in fact it doesn't — instead, it makes people more likely to not realize that there is a problem.
Let's take a look at one example: Justin Timberlake's Justified and Stripped Tour. With the solitary exception of Washington, DC, every concert location in that article is linked to without a state disambiguator, meaning that in numerous cases (San José, Phoenix, Portland, Oregon, St. Louis, Memphis, Orlando, Rosemont, Buffalo, Columbus, Uniondale, Albany, Saint Paul) it's linking to dab pages. And if you check their "what links here" tabs, every last one of those dab pages does have other articles linking to it instead of to the intended American geographic location.
What I would recommend is that the American contingent start compiling a list of topics that need to be monitored for wrong-topic links, similar to the one I started some time ago at the Canadian notice board. Start with the pages I've noted here, and add to the list as needed. This issue does exist no matter what naming convention is used; the "predictability" of the current American convention does not, in fact, prevent it from happening for American topics. Bearcat 06:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other issues relating to naming conventions

message: *Just thought I should notify watcher of this page that three or four individuals on a minor discussion page resulted in one person deciding to trash conventions of disambig pages for initials and letter combinations. 
::See the WP:Tfd for , where 2CC through 5CC have been nominated for deletion as were their categories on CFD. // FrankB 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions bypass of this page 

message: * Question posed: Is 'Settlements', 'Human Settlements' or 'something else' the best collective term to be used in WP for 'cities, towns, villages, and the 'like', such as is currently used in :Category:Settlements and :Category:Settlements by region and their subcategories.  Whatever is decided, there also needs to be an article named 'Settlements', 'Human Settlements' or 'something else' that explains and supports the chosen term.  Thanks Hmains 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Settlements are small, newly created communities, generally on the "fringe of civilization". One wouldn't call New York City or Seoul a "settlement". Communities would be a much better general term. Parsecboy 20:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: While I'm not sure I like using "settlement" as the catchall term, I somewhat grudgingly acknowledge that I don't think any other better term has been suggested (at least not one that didn't have it's own shortcomings). Regarding usage of the term, I might note that the United Nations Human Settlements Programme apparently subsumes the entire range of human habitat. older ≠ wiser 20:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The counts above appear to be for the terms, without regard to the intended semantics, so are essentially useless. "Settlement" appears to have some support as a catchall term outside of Wikipedia so is acceptable. It's also neater than "populated place" which is the term I've usually noticed in gazetteers. To me "community" implies a degree of common interest or friendship not necessarily found in some of the cities included here. --Scott Davis Talk 11:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't like this source as it's usually nicked the info straight from wikipedia itself! SuzanneKn 21:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I do not want to see 'drive-by' votes here. This will not be settled by counting votes. A consensus doesn't work unless everyone buys into it. This means that even if not everyone agrees with the consensus, no one is willing to disrupt it. It is very unlikely that we can reach that stage by voting. -- Donald Albury 03:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this a poll to change the name of this page, to change the text of the page, both, or something else? The parameters are unclear, therefore the voter turnout is low as we don't understand the effect of a decision. It is also suffering from the fact that there have been far too many polls instead of discussions on this page. --Scott Davis Talk 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This discussion arose, in part, because I objected to the definition of 'settlement' given here, which does not agree with any dictionary I've been able to find. I suggested 'populated place' because it is used by the USGS for any entity with a human population that has map coordinates. I realize that this is a US-centric convention, but at least it is an established use, and I thought it was clear, unambiguous and not in conflict with existing definitions. I'll just be happy if we avoid making up new definitions for words that conflict with established dictionaries. -- Donald Albury 00:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settlements 

message: Settlements:
* Answers.com "A newly colonized region. A small community."
:I don't like this source as it's usually nicked the info straight from wikipedia itself! SuzanneKn 21:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some sources

message: ==== In favour of Settlements / Human settlements====
* Settlements is already used on Wiki
* The UN uses the term (though a definition isn't given and is left to interpretation)
* The term is used in some geography books (but a definition hasn't yet been sourced)
====In favour of Communities / Human communities====
* It is the accepted dictionary definition
* It is used in geography books (definition offered here)
* It is the UK definition, as used by the UK government and academic institutes 
====In favour of Populated places / Places====
* It is a term used in atlases
* It is the term used by the United States Geological Survey
====In favour of Human habitats====
* It is a term already used on Wiki
====Against Settlements / Human settlements====
* Settlements is usually understood to be a small or new place so there is some confusion when used for large and/or established places
* It doesn't conform with agreed dictionary definitions
====Against Human communities / Communities====
* It is not currently used on Wiki so changes would need to take place
* The focus of the term may be on the people living together rather than the dwellings and infrastructure
* It does no include areas with only one or two people
====Against Populated places / Places====
* It is mainly an atlas term
* It has no widespread and understood use
* It is not specific to humans
====Against Human habitats====
* It's use here on Wiki appears to be fairly unique
* It has no widespread and understood use
SilkTork 12:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments

message: * It's use here on Wiki appears to be fairly unique
* It has no widespread and understood use
SilkTork 12:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Against Human habitats

message: Given the above evidence it appears that Settlement and Community are the two main terms. Both terms are used. Neither appears to have a clear and established authority over the other. There are problems associated with using either one of them on their own. There is a proposal to use both terms together to avoid future confusions and conflict.
The vote here is to indicate which of the several above terms people feel is the more useful.
====Support Human settlements and communities====
# Support. I feel this combines the benefits of both terms and avoids future doubt. SilkTork 13:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I do not want to see 'drive-by' votes here. This will not be settled by counting votes. A consensus doesn't work unless everyone buys into it. This means that even if not everyone agrees with the consensus, no one is willing to disrupt it. It is very unlikely that we can reach that stage by voting. -- Donald Albury 03:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this a poll to change the name of this page, to change the text of the page, both, or something else? The parameters are unclear, therefore the voter turnout is low as we don't understand the effect of a decision. It is also suffering from the fact that there have been far too many polls instead of discussions on this page. --Scott Davis Talk 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This discussion arose, in part, because I objected to the definition of 'settlement' given here, which does not agree with any dictionary I've been able to find. I suggested 'populated place' because it is used by the USGS for any entity with a human population that has map coordinates. I realize that this is a US-centric convention, but at least it is an established use, and I thought it was clear, unambiguous and not in conflict with existing definitions. I'll just be happy if we avoid making up new definitions for words that conflict with established dictionaries. -- Donald Albury 00:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: # Support. I feel this combines the benefits of both terms and avoids future doubt. SilkTork 13:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support '''Human settlements and communities'''

message: #Support - This describes what they actually are.  "Communities" can mean anything from a faith community to a neighbourhood community. Fishhead64 16:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support '''Human settlements'''

message: *Support Settlements has too many connotations to be right: it implies small, isolated.  Communities doesn't mean co-location; isn't there a Wikipedia community? A Latino community? A Jewish community? etc., etc.  However, what New York City, Tokyo, and Zamora, California all have in common is that they are populated places, which is a neutral term that doesn't have much connotations, unlike settlements and community. Carlossuarez46 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support '''Populated places'''

message: Objection. It is way too early to hold a poll. Voting is not the way to build consensus. I refer you to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Please, let us discuss the merits of different forms first. -- Donald Albury 20:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I do not want to see 'drive-by' votes here. This will not be settled by counting votes. A consensus doesn't work unless everyone buys into it. This means that even if not everyone agrees with the consensus, no one is willing to disrupt it. It is very unlikely that we can reach that stage by voting. -- Donald Albury 03:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this a poll to change the name of this page, to change the text of the page, both, or something else? The parameters are unclear, therefore the voter turnout is low as we don't understand the effect of a decision. It is also suffering from the fact that there have been far too many polls instead of discussions on this page. --Scott Davis Talk 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This discussion arose, in part, because I objected to the definition of 'settlement' given here, which does not agree with any dictionary I've been able to find. I suggested 'populated place' because it is used by the USGS for any entity with a human population that has map coordinates. I realize that this is a US-centric convention, but at least it is an established use, and I thought it was clear, unambiguous and not in conflict with existing definitions. I'll just be happy if we avoid making up new definitions for words that conflict with established dictionaries. -- Donald Albury 00:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: As it seems to me that there is no naming conventions in effect (and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Czech) seems to have discussed hockey rather than history), I suggest that places in Czech Republic and Slovakia that were part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire until 1918 should be treated similar to those in Poland that were part of German, Austrian and Russian Empires until 1918, with a new section:
Czech Republic and Slovakia
:Use the common English (e.g. Prague, Carlsbad) name or in absence thereof, the current Czech Republic or Slovakian name. When mentioned in a historical context, if there is not a common English name for the city in that historical period and context, use the appropriate historical name with the current local name in parentheses (if it is not the same word) the first time the city is mentioned.
The same applies to Bohemia, Moravia, Sudetenland in historical contexts.
Also, I think that other former Austrian areas, mainly South Tyrol in Italy, deserve to be covered with a similar policy. -- Matthead discuß!     O       21:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, what you mean by historical context is to add german names to all czech names. Edit with good faith and keep your nationalism back to your pockets and don't start another thread Danzig/Gdansk. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment: There is already WP:NCGN. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per above, very strong object to this policy fork. WP:NCGN is enough.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree in general with the approach; but please consider how this wording will work elsewhere. We do not want to give all verifiable naming variants for London, for example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Places in Czech Republic and Slowakia should be treated similar to those in Poland 

message: How should different German (and possibly Austrian) municipalities and locations with the same name be disambiguated?
:Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions#Disambiguation covers many of the points below for Germany, at least. Olessi 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinon: I would like to use German names already in use (if they exist) as specifiers. Daranios 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Translating is definitely not a good idea. Ksnow 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The "official" name in German is neither here nor there when writing English. The point is that professional English translators do not convert German prepositions or articles in placenames into English prepositions and articles, since this would not make the names significantly more intelligible. Following French practice, many English translators do' hyphenate such German names, e.g. Frankfurt-an-der-Oder, since this makes clear that they are complete names, not phrases. (The absence of hyphens in this context in German usage reflects the different significance of hyphens in that language.) Tacitus 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a difference between places where the modifier is part of the name, and places where it's not, like resp. Altdorf bei Nürnberg and Altdorf (bei Böblingen) (usually with brackets in de:). The former shouldn't be translated IMO, the latter should follow the rules discussed below. Markussep 09:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend towards using the highest possible administrative division, if there is no distinguishing German name in use. Daranios 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I don't always know what that is when I create a stub.  This could be a project to evaluate existing articles/stubs and rename as needed.  Ksnow 16:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions#Disambiguation recommends using the state because state names are better known, and this English-language practice is familiar in Australia, Canada, the United States and other countries.Tacitus 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ok, I already found one ambiguity. There is a St. Oswald in Lower Austria (Niederösterreich) with exactly that name. In the german Wikipedia, we have it's article at :de:Sankt Oswald (Niederösterreich). --Wirthi 20:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer using the highest unambiguous administrative division (Germany > Bavaria > Middle Franconia > Erlangen-Höchstadt). I'm a bit in doubt about river disambiguation (e.g. Neustadt (Wied)) and places like Ebersbach/Sa., Oelsnitz, Vogtland and Oelsnitz, Erzgebirge. Markussep 09:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neustadt an der Wied is not a case requiring disambiguation by Wikipedia: it has already been disambiguated by the German geographical naming authorities. English-language practice is to spell out such names in full and not to employ German-language abbreviations (parentheses, forward slashes, "a.d.", etc.) which are not understand in English. Hopefully those abbreviations you mention will be untangled in the ongoing Wikipedia cleanup. Tacitus 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As it is the English Wikipedia I guess an English addition would be more appropriate. An additional redirect from e. g. "Haar, Bayern", would be nice in my opinion. Daranios 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  English, since we have the state names in English.  I agree about the redirects from the German form, but with commas or parentheses?  Ksnow 16:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I prefer English names, in line with the related article names. Same goes for the regions of Bavaria IMO, Lower Bavaria instead of Niederbayern. Markussep 09:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This seems mainly to be a matter of taste. I personally prefer brackets, but the comma seems to be somewhat more common throughout the English Wikipedia. I think an agreement on one or the other (set down in naming conventions) would be nice, but trying to establish that might not be worth the effort. Daranios 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that commas make it very English and seem odd in the German redirects.  KsnowKsnow
Current guideline is to use commas. Olessi 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Munich (Bavaria) looks very odd in English running text. If we used it, it would always have to be masked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer commas (conform guideline), but it's no big deal to me. Markussep 09:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the tendency now, at least for U.S. settlements and places, is to use a comma for settlements and parentheses for other places and schools. So: Lake Worth, Florida (a town) and Mount Wilson (California) (a place) or Washington High School (Washington, Iowa). That's a helpful distinction. -Will Beback · † · 09:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The interwiki links in the German wikipedia would have :en:Munich, Bavaria show up as "English" in the German text. It is only visible by editing or clicking on it. Please treat it as a curious item of information, like the link from California to :de:Kalifornien. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German/Austrian municipalities and locations 

message: If there is a German name with a distinguishing addition in use, should that be used, e. g. Garching bei München and Garching an der Alz? Should it be translated, e. g. "Garching near Munich", "Garching at the Alz"?
:My opinon: I would like to use German names already in use (if they exist) as specifiers. Daranios 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Translating is definitely not a good idea. Ksnow 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The "official" name in German is neither here nor there when writing English. The point is that professional English translators do not convert German prepositions or articles in placenames into English prepositions and articles, since this would not make the names significantly more intelligible. Following French practice, many English translators do' hyphenate such German names, e.g. Frankfurt-an-der-Oder, since this makes clear that they are complete names, not phrases. (The absence of hyphens in this context in German usage reflects the different significance of hyphens in that language.) Tacitus 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a difference between places where the modifier is part of the name, and places where it's not, like resp. Altdorf bei Nürnberg and Altdorf (bei Böblingen) (usually with brackets in de:). The former shouldn't be translated IMO, the latter should follow the rules discussed below. Markussep 09:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: German name in use

message: Should the appropriate administrative division or a nearby city be used as specifier in Wikipedia, e. g. Altdorf (Niederbayern) or Altdorf, Böblingen? Should always the highest possible administrative division be used, e. g. Berne, Germany if there is no other location within Germany with the same name? Or should it be something else completely?
:I tend towards using the highest possible administrative division, if there is no distinguishing German name in use. Daranios 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I don't always know what that is when I create a stub.  This could be a project to evaluate existing articles/stubs and rename as needed.  Ksnow 16:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions#Disambiguation recommends using the state because state names are better known, and this English-language practice is familiar in Australia, Canada, the United States and other countries.Tacitus 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ok, I already found one ambiguity. There is a St. Oswald in Lower Austria (Niederösterreich) with exactly that name. In the german Wikipedia, we have it's article at :de:Sankt Oswald (Niederösterreich). --Wirthi 20:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer using the highest unambiguous administrative division (Germany > Bavaria > Middle Franconia > Erlangen-Höchstadt). I'm a bit in doubt about river disambiguation (e.g. Neustadt (Wied)) and places like Ebersbach/Sa., Oelsnitz, Vogtland and Oelsnitz, Erzgebirge. Markussep 09:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neustadt an der Wied is not a case requiring disambiguation by Wikipedia: it has already been disambiguated by the German geographical naming authorities. English-language practice is to spell out such names in full and not to employ German-language abbreviations (parentheses, forward slashes, "a.d.", etc.) which are not understand in English. Hopefully those abbreviations you mention will be untangled in the ongoing Wikipedia cleanup. Tacitus 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Administrative division or nearby city

message: If the appropriate administrative division is used as specifier, should it be used in German or English, e. g. Altdorf (Niederbayern) or Haar, Bavaria?
:As it is the English Wikipedia I guess an English addition would be more appropriate. An additional redirect from e. g. "Haar, Bayern", would be nice in my opinion. Daranios 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  English, since we have the state names in English.  I agree about the redirects from the German form, but with commas or parentheses?  Ksnow 16:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I prefer English names, in line with the related article names. Same goes for the regions of Bavaria IMO, Lower Bavaria instead of Niederbayern. Markussep 09:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: German or English addition to name

message: Should the specifier be added after a comma or should it be placed in parentheses? Should that be left to every author her- or himself?
:This seems mainly to be a matter of taste. I personally prefer brackets, but the comma seems to be somewhat more common throughout the English Wikipedia. I think an agreement on one or the other (set down in naming conventions) would be nice, but trying to establish that might not be worth the effort. Daranios 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that commas make it very English and seem odd in the German redirects.  KsnowKsnow
Current guideline is to use commas. Olessi 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Munich (Bavaria) looks very odd in English running text. If we used it, it would always have to be masked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer commas (conform guideline), but it's no big deal to me. Markussep 09:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the tendency now, at least for U.S. settlements and places, is to use a comma for settlements and parentheses for other places and schools. So: Lake Worth, Florida (a town) and Mount Wilson (California) (a place) or Washington High School (Washington, Iowa). That's a helpful distinction. -Will Beback · † · 09:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The interwiki links in the German wikipedia would have :en:Munich, Bavaria show up as "English" in the German text. It is only visible by editing or clicking on it. Please treat it as a curious item of information, like the link from California to :de:Kalifornien. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comma or parentheses

message: Thank you everyone for the discussion!
A part of what we talked about here already existed here, which I have somehow overlooked - thanks to Tacitus. I have incorporated some more details from this discussion there.
Being rather new to Wikipedia, I have one more question about this thread: Now that the discussion is finished (I think), should it be deleted, archived or just be left as it is?
Daranios 11:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bottom line

message: FYI for everyone. See Talk:Atlanta, Georgia and Talk:Boston, Massachusetts. Another interesting one on WP:RM, somewhat related to this convention, is Talk:Norwich. AgneCheese/Wine 07:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New City Move discussions 

message: Even though polls seem to rarely be helpful on this page, I have opened a poll at Wikipedia talk:Chile-related regional notice board#settlement article naming poll. The convention documented here was established by a few people over December and January, and is now being criticised as not having obtained consensus due to the small numbers involved. --Scott Davis Talk 13:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New naming poll - Chile 

message: Does this naming convention apply to such places listed in the header of this section? If so, how should one disambiguate. I'm planning to standardize names of such places in the U.S. state of Connecticut in the next couple of days. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 15:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neighborhoods/sections of town/unincorporated settlements 

message: Why not just have every city follow the comma clause.  For example London would now be London, England and Paris would now be Paris, France.  This new policy would eliminate any disputes about which cities deserve article with just the city name, and which ones need to follow the comma clause. Black Harry (T|C) 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the issue in dispute, at least for U.S. cities.  Some editors believe the comma clause to be unnecessary, others do not. Skeezix1000 18:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind the comma clause, but I think naming conventions should be the same for all countries.  If this means using the comma clause for all, so be it.  If the AP (or Reuters) list is used to establish which cities don't need to follow the clause (with every other city using it) that's fine.  I just don't like the idea that cites like Boston and Atlanta need to follow the comma clause, while a city like Norwich (UK) doesn't need to follow it, despite not being the most common usage in the US. Black Harry (T|C) 18:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Idea to Solve Problems

message: We would be grateful for some input on the above guideline. The suggestion is that we follow the existing Wikipedia conventions for place names when disambiguating school articles. There are however so many inconsistencies in the existing policies that it is very difficult to decide on a consistent global policy for disambiguated school titles. There seems to be general consensus that schools in America and Canada should be disambiguated as Any High School (Municipality, State/Province). UK schools are currently disambiguated purely by place name, eg, Forest School (Walthamstow). We then however have schools in other countries where there do not seem to be any clear guidelines. For example, there is a New English School in Jubriya, Kuwait and another one in Amman, Jordan. There might well be other schools of the same name in other countries. Should these disambiguated by place name, by country, or by both place name and country. Dahliarose 09:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)]]

message: After a move I made for Paxton Township, Ohio was undone, I raised the topic of requiring the county part of an Ohio township name at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ohio townships#Settlement naming convention, since I prefer the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) guideline of using the simpler form when possible.  Please see that discussion if you are interested. -- JHunterJ 11:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using city, county, state format when disambiguation is not needed. 

message: Another new poll, proposing to repoen this can of worms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Minneapolis, Minnesota]]