Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 9

message: How about this proposal: All global cities (including ones with evidence of global city formation) are under the [Cityname] article, regardless of country. Cities requiring further disambiguation will be under [Cityname, State/Province/Etc.] --- Dralwik|Have a Chat  My "Great Project" 19:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  That's because a bot was used to name all the incorporated cities in the U.S. using the city, state format and there is a gang of enforcers that imposes their values of "consistency" and "standards" (contrary to WP:NPOV) above common sense and the Wikipedia convention using the most commonly used/known name, except when there is a conflict, which is followed not only on all global city names, but also for every article name in Wikipedia.  And this gang imposes their will on every single U.S. city article where anyone tries to make an appeal to common sense.  It is a disgrace to Wikipedia, and, arguably, WP:vandalism.  Chicago, Illinois,  Los Angeles, California, ...  These are absurd.  Thankfully, there are enough people from New York City to outnumber the gang on that one page and keep untarnished from their antics, but for all other cities there aren't enough people interested.  --Serge 04:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite possibly, this presents us with a standard that should be more widely followed, than one that should be watered down.  Having said that, I regret that we didn't end up with New York, New York  (boom, boom).  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, quite possibly, the standard should be followed if you're interested in making Wikipedia easier to edit.  However, if you're interested in making Wikipedia be reader-friendly and encyclopedic, then any and all convoluted-for-the-sake-of-standard-naming conventions, like the city, state U.S. city name convention, that dictate article names be different from the most commonly used names (except when there is an ambiguity) should be avoided.  --Serge 05:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Good example.  --Serge 13:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is quite stark. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *To be fair St. Louis would be questionable for St. Louis, Missouri, but not out of the question (Saint Louis would still point to the dab page). --Usgnus 23:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New naming proposal on global cities 

message: #Perfectly rational. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat  My "Great Project" 19:45, 5 February 2006
#Support  I agree ... in so far as it doesn't preclude simpler names for capital and other cities that are not in this somewhat contentious list (e.g., Canberra, Ottawa), which will variably be dealt with through specific conventions for those countries (a separate one to follow for Canada soon!), other overarching Wp naming conventions, or otherwise.  Perhaps the proposal should be extended to include national capitals too?  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Supporting proposal

message: #Oppose. The definition of "Global City" is vague and there is no definitive list. There is no reason to treat certain ctities different than the rest. -Will Beback 18:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposing proposal

message: *Comment. Pretty much the only cities that violate the above proposal are in the U.S. --Usgnus 03:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  That's because a bot was used to name all the incorporated cities in the U.S. using the city, state format and there is a gang of enforcers that imposes their values of "consistency" and "standards" (contrary to WP:NPOV) above common sense and the Wikipedia convention using the most commonly used/known name, except when there is a conflict, which is followed not only on all global city names, but also for every article name in Wikipedia.  And this gang imposes their will on every single U.S. city article where anyone tries to make an appeal to common sense.  It is a disgrace to Wikipedia, and, arguably, WP:vandalism.  Chicago, Illinois,  Los Angeles, California, ...  These are absurd.  Thankfully, there are enough people from New York City to outnumber the gang on that one page and keep untarnished from their antics, but for all other cities there aren't enough people interested.  --Serge 04:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite possibly, this presents us with a standard that should be more widely followed, than one that should be watered down.  Having said that, I regret that we didn't end up with New York, New York  (boom, boom).  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, quite possibly, the standard should be followed if you're interested in making Wikipedia easier to edit.  However, if you're interested in making Wikipedia be reader-friendly and encyclopedic, then any and all convoluted-for-the-sake-of-standard-naming conventions, like the city, state U.S. city name convention, that dictate article names be different from the most commonly used names (except when there is an ambiguity) should be avoided.  --Serge 05:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Good example.  --Serge 13:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is quite stark. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *To be fair St. Louis would be questionable for St. Louis, Missouri, but not out of the question (Saint Louis would still point to the dab page). --Usgnus 23:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: #This proposal is too complex. It should stop at the first line ("All global cities (including ones with evidence of global city formation) are under the [Cityname] article, regardless of country.:).  --Yath 07:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abstentions

message: Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, and Vancouver violate the naming convention.  How shall this be addressed?  Acegikmo1 00:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has there been previous discussion on the talk pages? As with any important pages, they shouldn't be moved without discussion. -Will Beback 10:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there has (e.g., Toronto, and more recently resurged): as above, this is the choice of Canadian editors.  And, arguably, it is the American cities that are in violation of the overarching common naming convention.  There is no apparent consensus (at least it hasn't been demonstrated) to justify the grouping together and similar treatments of Canadian and American cities (q.v., the UK/Ireland?).  Though mildly tardy, I'm working on a proposal to cleave the Canadian cities from the American ones and will place it shortly or I might just go ahead and do it.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur with ScottDavis's analysis.  I do not have any problem with the Canadian Wikipedia editors going differently from American editors on this issue, if that is what they prefer, but such a drastic change should be discussed first.  --Coolcaesar 05:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not necessarily disagree – discussion is always prudent.  Throughout, however, I believe a question that has remained unanswered is the nature of the consensus leading to the current convention for Canadian cities and why it was bundled with the American convention.  At face value, it seems unbalanced.  If it is routed in consensus, it has never been demonstrated.  If it does not exist, discussion regarding the current convention and its applicability might be moot anyway.  In any event, an apt and revamped proposal will stem from this.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some special legal units in Canada which complicate the usual [city, province] arrangement, so it's worth reviewing the issue to see if a more definite, yet still flexible, guideline can be developed. Is there a "Canada" wikiproject that could bring in editors with a broad view? Not to offend to anyone, but I've seen instances where primarily editing just one city article can give editors a narrow view of the issues. These issues cross all the english-speaking countries because so many place names have been re-used. Vancouver is one example which has which has naming repurcussions for the U.S. city as well. -Will Beback 07:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anomalies exist in any jurisdiction, hence conventions judiciously applied and discourse.  As well, the comments above presuppose that the status quo for Canadian cities is routed in consensus – I see no evidence that it actually is; even if it is, I see little reason to maintain/impose an arguably imbalanced convention that lumps Canadian cities with American ones when other apt examples exist (e.g., UK/Ireland).  Moreover, the current convention does not at all accommodate for bilingualism in Canada – e.g., many Quebec locales share the same name, accented, in English and French.  In any event, the imminent proposal will accommodate for this, extraterritorial commonalities (including the overarching common naming convention), et al., and will be noted on the Cdn. Wp noticeboard. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you handle bilingual place names? This being the English Wikipedia I'd have thought that you'd simply use the English version. Are the French versions made into redirects?  -Will Beback 07:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all official place names in Canada are those prescribed by the appropriate jurisdiction (federal, provincial, or territorial) and are generally those that prevail locally.  All of these are maintained by the feds and contained/searchable within the (online) Gazetteer of Canada.  Only very few of the names – those of pan-Canadian significance – have dual bilingual versions.  If the name is French, it is generally rendered that way even in English (e.g., Montréal-Nord, Quebec, not Montreal-Nord).  Other toponymical details are outlined in The Canadian Style, a style guide produced by the federal government.  (Other style guides may vary.)  Of course, sometimes popular usage translates or renders a name with no formal English equivalent (and v.v.) and have varied use (e.g., Montreal is common, whilst 'Montreal-North' is not).  In any event, these are the sorts of things that should/will be embraced in a Canadian naming convention while being cognizant of over-arching ones. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is tricky, no doubt. When I checked the Gazeteer for Montreal the only name they have is "	Montréal". I think that south of the border the USGS and US Post Office have both frowned on accents or punctuation in place names. -Will Beback 09:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violations of the naming convention 

message: The city name Hyderabad is common to both India and Pakistan. The dab CITYNAME, COUNTRY is too similar to the US convention of naming international cities. We prefer the dab style CITY (COUNTRY). This dab style applies to only Indian cities with share similiar names with other international cities. We hope to put this into policy by this week. Thanks and regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is no opposition to this. I will put it up on the project page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It is unreasonable to announce without reason that a 2½ - month old proposal reached the "wrong" conclusion, and remove the result from the guidelines page without opening a new discussion. Nichalp waited ten days for discussion - you waited 7 minutes. --Scott Davis Talk 00:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dab international city names 

message: Mikka suggested a sensible set of rules which in the absence of WP:Dick-like behavior would have been enough already (plus a separate issue on the translit system but let's not throw everything together). However, just to make this clear to all:
1. First, we are discussing only the article titles here, right? Not an in article usage or the names listed in the first line following the article's name. Let's be clear that this is about titles only and discuss those other two issues separately. So we are discussing the article titles only.
2. The issue still consists of two subissues. Which name name we choose and which transliteration system we choose if there is no established English usage. If there is an established English usage, the issue of transliteration is moot. If there is none, we transliterate from the Belarusian name according to the transliteration rules discussed separately (please discuss them separately and not at the same time)
3. Exceptions always exist, as Mikka says. As long as there is good faith and old feuds are put aside, they can be discussed case by case.
Let's discuss the details (like what constitutes an established English usage, what transliteration system we use, etc.) separately. If we just agree on these points, some articles can already be sorted out. --Irpen 05:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with Belarusian names is that I feel we have a Kiev/Kyiv scenario for ALL titles, the only difference is that the official Minsk is not attempting to have the latter installed. That means we have to look at this realisitically. Do we title Kazan or Qazan? No because the Tatar name is not widespread. That is why we have to respect the use of names in English language. --Kuban Cossack  13:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Shall we continue here Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Proposal for Belarusian. I have proposed to remove Lacinka from wiki altogether. It is just archaic and compleately unsuitable for wikipedian use. There are other many Belarusian translit systems, we need to identify which one is more widespread and use it (presentely ALL are more widespread than Lacinka). --Kuban Cossack  13:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither Russian nor any other languge should be a medium for Belarusian names. Original source should be used firstly. By the way Belarusian language has Łacinka script based on the Latin alphabet, with some diacritic signs, which has deep history, established rules and spreading sphere of usage. If official regime of Łukašenka doesn't applies it, this cannot be a reason for denying it in wikipedia. --Zlobny 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spreading usage has to take place before it can be used in Wikipedia, President Lukashenko has nothing to do with this. Wikipedia shall not be a platform to encourage Lacinka's spread. The admin board will back this point. --Kuban Cossack  14:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I propose to use the official transliteration system applied by State Cartography Committee. It is not exactly Lacinka (although it has most features of it) and is actually used on maps. The official transliteration should be in the article's name - all other former and Russian names shall be redirects. We have Mumbai as the article's name - and not Bombay, don't we? Even if Bombay used to be the traditional and most widespread English name for the city. So, I think, it would be logical--Czalex  12:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose we stick not to official or unofficial titles but to the names that have the most common English version - by checking the ones sources like encarta, Columbia and Britanica use. NONE of which have anything to do with Lacinka and all are BGN/PCGN. --Kuban Cossack  14:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Belarus Article titles

message: I see three articles in :Category:Cities in Turkey have a non-standard form of ", Turkey" instead of the usual disambiguation "(Turkey)" so it might make sense to add a sentence or two about Turkey. Ah, and since it's Eurasian/mainly Asian in its geography, put the new sub-heading under "Asia"? Any thoughts?--Mereda 10:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities in Turkey 

message: While not wanting to reopen a recurrent topic, the edit on 17 June by Bearcat appears to have been intended to add Toronto as a Canadian exception to a convention that covered both Canada and USA cities. This seems to have had a perhaps unintended effect of changing the semantics of the documented convention for USA cities. Does anyone object to separating the two national conventions into separate subsections, so they could (if required) develop separately, and restore the USA to the pre June 17 version? --Scott Davis Talk 07:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection.  --Coolcaesar 09:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. There's no reason that Canada and the United States should be treated together. Due to the complexites and variations among municipal and town districts we almost need to have state/province-specific guidelines. -Will Beback 10:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I agree. I'd rather we just ditch the stupid American convention altogether.  But at the very least we shouldn't force the Canadians to abide by our stupidity. john k 11:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Firstly, I don't think I've ever seen any notion that the American convention is to go with a strict "city, state" at all times with no exceptions under any circumstances whatsoever. And even if that is the convention, New York City is still out of sync with it. But other than that, I have no objection to splitting Canada and the United States into separate conventions — I agree entirely with Will Beback above. Bearcat, away from home and not logged in 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you weren't here when we had to fight tooth and nail to prevent New York City from being at New York, New York to accord with the convention.  When, on the basis of that silliness, some of us tried to work out a more flexible convention for US cities so that major ones like Los Angeles, Chicago, and such like could also be listed without state name, we got pretty much nowhere. john k 19:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spilt Canada and USA conventions 

message: # ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Supporting proposal

message: # Oppose.--Serge 19:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposing proposal

message: Following on from the last discussion, this is a separate but related issue, and once again, it is an opportune time to think about it before more headway is made on completing all the Italian comune.  As one can see from this link, this Italian word translates pretty accurately as "municipality", and that is what we started using for our categories in the Sicily Wikiproject.  But someone alerted me to the fact that "commune" is a legitimate English word to describe this.  In the Sicily Wikiproject we had initially discounted its use because of its hippy meaning.  I note it is used to describe all the French communes.  So this isn't a suggestion, because I really don't know which way to go, but I am looking for a show of hands of the best word to use to translate Italian comune:  commune or municipality?  Obviously, I do not ask this just for Sicily Wikiproject, but rather, to be applied to all Italian towns and cities.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do Italian government English-version websites and documentation translate "comune" as ? THEPROMENADER 17:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English form of the Italian word ''[[comune]]''

message: Trying to get consensus on wording for naming convention. It's not too different from the new (July 23) split-out version: Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians%27 notice board/discussion#City naming convention poll 2 --Usgnus 17:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we adopt for Canadian cities the same convention that applies to Australian cities?: that is, all town/city/suburb articles are at Town, Province no matter what their status of ambiguity, except for capital cities, which may be unclaused where no ambiguity exists.--cj | talk 05:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason to not adopt any fixed-format convention for any country is because having a standard for the sake of having a standard is a lousy reason for imposing a standard.  In particular, imposing an arbitrary standard on any article name should never override the main Wikipedia naming convention: to use the best known or most recognized name.  --Serge 20:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A much better system is one where cities are placed at their name alone when they're the best-known city with that name. It works for the rest of Wikipedia, and it works for cities too, where it's allowed. And frankly, it's surprising sometimes when a well-known city ends up at some long disambiguating name (e.g., Chicago, Illinois). It makes one immediately wonder: what, there's some other well-known entity named "Chicago"? Oh, no there isn't, how mysterious. In that case, the encyclopedia deviates from the reader's expectation, but for no good reason, apparently, other than some editors' exaggerated fear of squabbles in a few cases (when the most prominent entity with a certain name isn't obvious). --Yath 21:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Australian political geography is different than that in Canada. In Australia, each state has one major city that dwarfs all the others in population, and that city is also always the state capital (and if I'm not mistaken, the 6 largest cities are the 5 mainland capitals plus the federal capital of Canberra). It's not that cut-and-dry in Canada. The 2nd, 3rd and 5th largest metro areas in the country aren't even capitals of their own provinces (the 4th isn't either, but it's the national capital). Meanwhile, the largest city and capital of PEI is smaller than 30-40 cities in Ontario. The question then becomes, where do you draw the line? It's a lot more ambiguous here. Kirjtc2 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: Anyone able to explain why Canada is allowed to have cities with no province suffix in their title besides Quebec City but the United States doesn't besides New York City?? Please make sure you know what difference there is between the two countries so that it can be understood. Georgia guy 22:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no objective reason, of course.  The real reason is pathetic: there is a gang of editors that favors the city, state format for American cities, because they care more about ease of use for editors than Wikipedia being encyclopedic or reader friendly, or abiding by the Wikipedia naming policy to favor the most used/recognized name, that is large enough in number to force or outvote any effort to stop them on any given city, except for New York City (but believe me, they've tried there too - it's the only place they failed).  This is blatant violation of WP:NPOV, but for any given city but one, there aren't enough people who care. --Serge 23:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: gang of editors? Cool down. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Serge. The forced <city, state> titling does not reflect what the city is actually called. At a minimum, it should only be used when disambiguation is necessary. Furthermore, the use of a comma does not even make it easier for editors as opposed to the use of parentheses since the latter are amenable to the use of the pipe trick. It is much easier to type  rather than City to create a wikilink for "City". --Polaron | Talk 23:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: gang of editors? Cool down. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities in the United States whose titles have no state suffix 

message: moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (toponyms) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: naming conventions (toponyms)

message: should this be called settlements? including village, towns, cities ... Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was Move.  New name seems a little cheesy to me.  Hopefully folks can find a better alternative but, if everyone is satisfied with this new one for now...  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  settlements 

message: -- moved back to  Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places) since this question addresses a statement on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), not Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names).--Serge 15:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When do certain place names always have a disambiguating term? 

message: --------
copy from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)
Not all populated places are disambiguated with a comma - which not? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not all populated places are dabed with comma 

message: There have been quite a few debates on how to name communities within a city. Recent examples include  Hollywood, La Jolla, and Anaheim Hills. There is a new poll on naming communities within cities at Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll. Participants on this page should add their votes and comments to the discussion so that hopefully there will be a clear consensus and that will then stop most of the interminable debates on this issue. BlankVerse 11:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming communities withing cities 

message: :Anaheim Hills (Anaheim, California); La Jolla (San Diego, California); Hollywood (Los Angeles, California)....etc...... How about Community (City, State)? Does Anyone like that set up? It still defines the community independently, but tells you the city and state on the side. Sounds like a good compromise to me!! Ericsaindon2 03:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. I do think it looks a little odd. BUT, there would be no exceptions under this (so no more arguements). All I want is to end these silly arguements on the community pages, and the only way that can happen is finding a compromise. It is rather practical in identification, and I do think, that while people let it sink in, it will be a winner choice. I do not like the (community, city, state) set up, but I would go along with it per consensus. I dont really like any of the choices all that much, and thus far, nothing really has come about that would be a compromise. I believe that Community (City, State) would allow for the most common middle ground. Since, it is clear, that the choices people like are Choice 3 and Choice 1, those are the two that need to be compromised to reach a consensus. Now, the people voting for choice 3 argue that a community is referred to as just Community for simplicity. But, Choice 1 supporters think that this would be the most precise way to name the communities from an outside point of view. Community (City, State) takes into account both views. It would allow the Choice 3 people to say that the communities are still being refered to in their most common form (Since just Community outside the parenthasis would indicate the common name), and the people who think City and State should be included would still have that there as well. If it were up to me, I would not include city anywhere in the title, but it is not up to me. We need a compromise, and this would provide a compromise. Obviously, if the community name is outside the parenthasis, that would indicate what people  refer to the place as, however, with the city and state being in parenthasis, it gives a little more information and precision to point out the fact that it is just a community. I think it is the perfect compromise, and I think it will satisfy everyone. Plus, it would also eliminate exceptions. Places like Queens could still have Queens in their title, but it would be Queens (New York, New York) or Bayside (New York, New York). It allows Wikipedia to indicate the community, the city, and the state, while still enforcing the most common name outside the parenthasis. Ericsaindon2 20:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Some examples might be Hollywood (Los Angeles, California), Westchester (Los Angeles, California), La Jolla (San Diego, California), Anaheim Hills (Anaheim, California), Harlem (New York, New York)....etc. Ericsaindon2 20:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion does not address the issue of disambiguating when there are no ambiguity issues.  You're still suggesting "predisambiguation", which is inconsistent with fundamental Wikipedia naming conventions, and problematic for at least some of us.  --Serge 00:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Community (City, State)''' Setup

message: The guideline on this project page says "Comma Country" for cities in Africa, but :Category:Towns in South Africa is a mish-mash between "Comma South Africa" and "Comma Province". Does anyone have any arguments against standardising on Comma Province (for South African cities, not the whole of the African continent) and amending this project page accordingly? Bolivian Unicyclist 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do.  To be consistent with the fundamental Wikipedia naming conventions, the standard should be to specify only the name of the subject (city or town) in the title, not any other information, including location information like  province or country.  That information belongs in the text of the article, not in the title.  If there is a name collision, then the name should be disambiguated, preferably with a standard parenthetic remark containing whatever information is appropriate for disambiguation given the nature of the particular name collision.  --Serge 03:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I was insufficiently clear. I meant as a disambiguation method, only when disambiguation is necessary: preferring the format Douglas, Northern Cape, over Aberdeen, South Africa. Johannesburg would stay where it is. Bolivian Unicyclist 15:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I support "Comma Province" for South African cities and towns. You should seek confirmation on a South African noticeboard or wikiproject, as the people there are most likely to have an opinion on usage, and are the editors most immediately affected. --Scott Davis Talk 04:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip. There's an African noticeboard, but I don't know of a South African one. Bolivian Unicyclist 15:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: South Africa

message: When a city is referred to as city, state, like San Francisco, California, Denver, Colorado, or Dallas, Texas, what exactly is it referring to?
 a) The name of the city.
 b) An alternative name of the city.
 c) The location of the city.
 d) The name and location of the city.
 e) Something else (please specify).
Choose all that apply.
--Serge 04:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Also, the point of saying city, state is to indicate that the place with such a city name is located in a particular sovereign state.  This is because of the unique federal nature of the United States, where the states and the people of each state are the plenary sovereigns, while the federal government is one of limited powers.  --Coolcaesar 06:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What IS city, state? 

message: * What is this supposed to accomplish? -- tariqabjotu 04:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Also, the point of saying city, state is to indicate that the place with such a city name is located in a particular sovereign state.  This is because of the unique federal nature of the United States, where the states and the people of each state are the plenary sovereigns, while the federal government is one of limited powers.  --Coolcaesar 06:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The broader question is: what does the title define for any encyclopedia article?  Every article has a subject.  The title of the article is the "name" of that subject.  Is this not self-evident?  The text of the article covers the subject, including that which is related to it.  The article on John F. Kennedy is not limited in scope to talk only about him - it also discusses people, issues and topics related to him and his life.  Similarly, a city article should be an article about that city, including whatever is relevant to say about that city.  If that includes the suburbs, so be it.  Am I missing something?  --Serge 18:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, Serge, there is no broader question. "What is a city name in reference" is pretty clear. THEPROMENADER 18:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree. Serge, you are attempting to read too much into what the title of an article signifies. older ≠ wiser 20:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Too much?  I'd be happy with just about any reasonable explanation at this point.  I can only come up with one, and nobody else can come up with an alternative.  That's "too much"?   Your argument seems to be that even asking the question is "too much".  That leaves "anything goes".  Q.E.D.   --Serge 21:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're being disingenuous. The title of an article is simply brief representation of the content of the article. older ≠ wiser 21:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is related to the major topic of the article, but it does not specify anything other than "the title of the article". --Scott Davis Talk 23:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Go ahead. Everyone else does it. --Scott Davis Talk 23:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand why you thought my original answer was irrelevant to your question.  The article on John F. Kennedy is not limited in scope to talk only about him - it also discusses people, issues and topics related to him and his life.  Similarly, a city article should be an article about that city, including whatever is relevant to say about that city.  If that includes the suburbs, so be it.  Am I missing something?  Clearly, the article about Las Vegas should include all of what is commonly referred to as Las Vegas, and not be restricted to only what happens to be within the political and largely irrelevant political/municipal borders.  This is another reason it should be called Las Vegas, and not Las Vegas, Nevada.  --Serge 21:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you are missing something - rather, missing it in looking at it through the perspective of your own question. We need not complicate simple questions needlessly. Sorry to move you once again. THEPROMENADER 23:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one looking at my answer through the perspective of my other positions.  What part of a city article should be an article about that city, including whatever is relevant to say about that city and [should] not be restricted to only what happens to be within the political and largely irrelevant political/municipal borders is not an answer to your question or has anything to do with the naming controversy?  --Serge 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Now you're referring to a subsequent question of yours when I answered Vegaswikian's earlier question, and made which question I was answering clear in my answer.  But this still doesn't answer why you thought my original post did not address your original question that started the above section, and which you moved into this newly created section on the supposed grounds that it was irrelevant.  Your original question wasn't about lists, but about articles, and scope, and that's what I addressed.  --Serge 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to answer an earlier comment , then insert your reply below it and not at the end of the discussion. This way all will understand. THEPROMENADER 23:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time I answered it, there was Vegaswikian's question, coolcaesar's answer, and your follow-up question, each indented one level deeper.  I didn't want to insert my answer above coolcaesars, since he answered first.  I also didn't want to insert my answer between his and your follow-up, because that would make it look like you're responding to my question.  So, I indented my answer to be even with coolcaesar's, to indicate it was in response to the same question from Vegaswikian, and even rephrased Vegaswikian's question in my answer to clarify which question I was answering.  Then you indented my comment in two levels and made it look like I was answering your follow-up question .  Please don't do that. --Serge 00:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But your outdenting your comment at the end of the discussion made things even less clear. I wouldn't have done what I did out of pure spite, you know : ) THEPROMENADER 00:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a reply to my earlier comment... THEPROMENADER 08:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't outdent, I indented to the same level as another response to the same question to which I was responding.  The purpose of indenting is precisely to make clear which response goes with which previous comment, in case you have multiple comments from different people responding to the same earlier comment, mixed in with multiple responses to those.  It's helpful if all participants understand this in these discussions. I've reverted your incorrect indenting.  Look at in now and see if it makes sense to you yet.  --Serge 01:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And this is my reply to yours. THEPROMENADER 08:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the scope of an article, in particular a city article?

message: I'm sorry but I think this talk page is getting out of control.  If someone wants to actually get an organized change made to the U.S. policy, I suggest they make a separate sub-page for a poll and another separate sub-page for discussion, etc., etc.  There are so many discussions and surveys and sub-surveys going on here simultaneously that nothing is going to get accomplished IMHO.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Among other things, the original poll is like 100 KB back in this page and is almost completely obscured now.  Someone please archive this at the very least...  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes this whole page has become a single debate. Perhaps a special page? I just asked a question of my own and I doubt that many will make it all the waaaaaaay down here to answer. Unless of course someone sets up a couple rest stops along the way. THEPROMENADER 18:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I created two subpages: /One international convention is for discussion of the idea of one international convention and /U.S. convention change (August 2006) is in regards to changing the U.S. convention specifically. -- tariqabjotu 20:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of control 

message: I've never been active in this discussion before, but I always thought changes like this were supposed to be discussed to consensus here first? Agne 04:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "it's striking how ignorant Serge and his crew are" -- it would be helpful if you could review Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  Thanks. Skeezix1000 00:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: All of those raise issues, but it seems that the community commenting on the talk pages is willing to deal with this on a one on one basis.  It does not matter that the change may or may not conform to a guideline.  Personally I believe we need to adjust the policy.  It is clear that the curent policy is losing consensus.  The US and Canada having different policies when they share city names is also somewhat confusing to many.  Vegaswikian 05:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what the confusion is.  Different countries, different policies.  Skeezix1000 00:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, Vegaswikian, it appears to me like the community is split on whether to deal with this one-by-one or at the same time here. The support !voters, for obvious reasons, seem to be okay with the one-by-one approach, while the oppose !voters, for the most part, seem to prefer coming up with a consensus here. In fact, it seems like several of the oppose !voters are going oppose for that reason alone – that the forum, and not necessarily the move rationale, is incorrect. How is the article for Flin Flon, Manitoba, population 6,267, less than twenty-four hours away from being moved, but the article move for global city San Francisco, California is being shot down? It simply does not make sense; a convention is no substitute for taking a close look at individual situations. -- tariqabjotu 01:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if the policies for the US and Canada were reversed, where would the Talk:Vancouver (disambiguation) discussion be going?  My point is that the different policies are not the best solution.  A policy granting use of a name in one country but not another leads to conflict.  This is compounded by the way we request moves.  The notice goes in the article that is going to be moved, but not in the article that may have a stronger claim on the name space.  This is the normal case since most editors avoid the larger problems by moving to a dab in the main name space.  These names are frequently not unique to one country and when the locations are not well know world wide it is hard to say which would be at the undabd name.  Right now it is policy based which generally gives US locations the second string dabed location. Vegaswikian 18:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I finally understand your point.  What you're saying is that under the current conventions, a tiny village in Ethiopa, or in any country that allows city when there is no name collision, could claim Boston because the U.S. has Boston, Massachusetts.  Good point. --Serge 22:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Name Changes going on with individual cities

message: I am trying to work on a large City Strawpoll to end the feuding about larger cities in the United States. Please visit the page, User:Ericsaindon2/Sandbox and leave comments on the talk page, but dont edit the actual page. After it has been modified to satisfy the community, I will go ahead and open it. But, please review it and comment, to avoid controversy over its structure. I hope to open it in a few days after discussion, so please be timely in making your comments. Thanks. --Ericsaindon2 05:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Large City Strawpoll Construction

message: I know all you guys love a good naming convention debate. Here's a discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) about the Japanese city naming style. It will probably end up similar to the current debate here along the usual lines. =) --Polaron | Talk 07:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese cities naming debate 

message: :The canonical form for titles of United States city articles that require disambiguation is City, State (the "comma convention").  Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina).  Examples:  Portland, Oregon, Portland, Maine.
:The canonical form for titles of United States city articles that do not require disambiguation is to use the most common name used to reference that city (usually, if not always, City), per WP:NC(CN).  Examples:  New York City, Chicago.
:A United States city's article should never be titled simply "city, country" (e.g "Detroit, United States").
Change Log
* Apply suggestions from tariqabjotu: Reorder first two paragraphs.  Clarify meaning of "require disambiguation" by Wikifying disambiguation (if dab is required per that page, then its required per this meaning). --Serge 22:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed version

message: Please vote "YES" or "NOT YET".  If you vote NOT YET, please indicate why you are not satisifed with this proposed rewording.
* YES. --Serge 18:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I was hoping we could achieve consensus on this change without all that.  But, apparently not.  --Serge 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *:Your proposed convention results in Chula Vista.  I could be persuaded that this is a good idea, but I've seen no evidence that people who are voting against moves of Seattle and New Orleans would do so. john k 18:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *But most of the people that voted against the moves of Seattle and New Orleans cited the current guidelines as the reason.  So that's one of the reasons to change the guidelines.  Please reconsider your vote.  --Serge 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your command of human psychology is very limited, Serge.  The vast majority surely voted that way because they approve of the current policy.  john k 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't explain why you are not in support of this particular change.  --Serge 21:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not in support because I think it is completely unlikely that this will go through. john k 07:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So for you it's a horse race?  You don't decide whether to support or oppose a proposal on its merits, but, rather, on whether you think others will or will not support it?  If so, that's what some would call a self-fulfilling prophecy.  --Serge 16:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: * I've added the success criteria.  Please reconsider your vote.  Is some notion of "majorness" required for you to approve of a change, regardless of what you think is required for others to approve it? --Serge 21:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: **Majorness is of secondary importance to me but adding it would make the proposal have wider appeal and have a better chance of success. --Polaron | Talk 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *John, is your "preference" to not have Chula Vista, California moved to Chula Vista, or your lack of "relish" for the prospect of every nonambiguous city article being made consistent with WP:NC(CN) just a whim, or it based on reasons that have something to do with improving or maintaining Wikipedia quality?  --Serge 15:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *:I think a title Chula Vista is close to meaningless.  Chula Vista, California is obviously more useful, as it not only indicates that Chula Vista is a city in California, but also that it is a city at all.  I see no particular good that would come of removing the pseudo-disambiguation in cases like this, and some harm. Now will you stop bothering me about this? john k 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Since a major contention to the current convention relates to an application of the Common Names guideline that conflicts with other guidelines, I think clarification should be made to that guideline to alleviate some of this conflict and better shed light on how it relates to this convention. All views are welcomed in the discussion on the guideline's talk page. Agne 19:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the interpretation of how to apply a CN guideline that conflicts with other guidelines is terribly important here.  Perhaps Serge disagrees, but I don't think most of us disagree with the idea that the common names principle can be superseded by other considerations.  Ths issue is more that the current construction of the US city names policy is bad.  That it arguably conflicts in some ways with the common names principle is an argument on this, but the issue is more that common names is a principle we should strive towards when other considerations don't argue against it, and that in many cases, there is no good reason for the current US city policy to run counter to a more basic "common names" principle.  That there have to be more complicated naming conventions than simply "common names" is certainly true, because of issues of ambiguity and consistency.  But in this case neither of those principles is really in place.  The current policy is specifically not about ambiguity, in that it explicitly applies to cities whose names are not ambiguous.  In terms of consistency, this is somewhat more serious, but I think the main issue that exercises most of us about US city names is, in fact, also the issue of consistency - we don't think the naming policies for US cities should be completely different from those for just about every country in the world.  Is any other city outside the United States so important as Los Angeles pre-emptively disambiguated despite a complete lack of ambiguity? So, it seems to me that if we view all naming conventions as being based around finding a rough compromise among four sometimes competing principles - common name, accuracy, precision/ambiguity, and consistency, I think the current US naming policy signaling fails to qualify as a good one.  On common name, an alternative policy that allows for Los Angeles and Seattle would be far superior.  The two are equivalent on accuracy.  The precision/ambiguity issue, which arises with many, but not all, American cities, does not need to be dealt with by a one size fits all policy.  And on consistency, a broader view shows that the supposedly "consistent" US naming policy is, in fact, entirely inconsistent with naming policies for most other places in the world.  It's not simply the "common names" issue.  It's that the reasons provided so far provide no compelling reason to depart from it. john k 12:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo!  On this second encounter of your argument, it's getting more compelling.  --Serge 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just remembered tonight which major corporation consistently prefers full disambiguation of place names in its databases.  In the Microsoft MapPoint engine that is used in Microsoft Streets and Trips, among others, place names are always given as neighborhood, city, state, country.  The fact that the global leader in consumer and corporate software prefers full disambiguation of place names is itself quite compelling.  For example, when I run the search string "Los Angeles", the top item on the result list is "Los Angeles, California, United States" followed by "Los Angeles, Region del Biobio, Chile" and then all the other places named Los Angeles. --Coolcaesar 07:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related guideline discussion