Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)

Vancouver

I was clicking a like looking for Vancouver, Washington and was expecting a DAB page but much to my surprise it the Canadian city alone. I found that very odd considering the ambiguous nature with the Washington city and Vancouver Island not to mention the other items on Vancouver (disambiguation). Surely even the "City name" only crowd will think that a page move is warranted? Agne 07:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, here you're just tapping into the "most known" debate. I'm sure that Canada's city of "Vancouver" is the much better known "Vancouver" worldwide (jk - and I'm sure many Canadians won't agree with such a move). There's a DAB line under the title and that is just fine. THEPROMENADER 08:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the Canadian city is "sufficiently more famous" to make it sensible. We don't move Paris to Paris, France or Paris (France) after all, and that is arguably actually less clear-cut than Vancouver since Paris (mythology) is also very well known. --Delirium 08:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This was a WP:RM discussion a while ago. The consensus was clear that it should be left the way it is. Vegaswikian 08:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh if that ain't a head slapper. It is not a matter of most well known like it is some kind of competition but rather if there are other items that well known in there own right that reasonable people would be searching for. Vancouver is ambiguous. Agne 08:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So is Paris. THEPROMENADER 11:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that Vancouver is more so because of the present tense ambiguity. The mythological Paris has a finite sense of ambiguity in that it relates to a historical figure and is confined to one particular realm of knowledge--i.e. European mythology. A similar example would be to compare ambiguity issues between Vancouver and George Vancouver. Vancouver, Island and Vancouver, WA offer more ambiguity by their nature of being current and populated locations. The reasons to search or link for them is immensely more relevant then it would be to link to a mythological figure. Hence, more ambiguity considerations. Agne 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation is disambiguation, no matter the tense or place of the original or compared-to term. If the Roman Paris of myth was better-known to the world than the European city, then the city would be disambiguated. Consensus has made this the standard in Wiki thus far.THEPROMENADER 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver/Naming_conventions#Vancouver for a list of past discussions about this topic. Mkdw^talk 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Google Stuff

Now I don't doubt that Vancouver, BC is the most well known and would overall get the most google but I think there is evidence that there is enough ambiguity with Vancouver, Washington and Vancouver Island to warrant disambiguation consideration.
Searches with quote marks

• 1,270,000 for "Vancouver , WA"
• 1,140,000 for "Vancouver , Washington"
• 1,810,000 for "Vancouver Island"
  • 12.300.000 for "Vancouver, B.C." --THEPROMENADER 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Searches without quote marks

• 2,990,000 for Vancouver + WA
• 30,600,000 for Vancouver + Washington
• 16,600,000 for Vancouver + Portland
  • 16,200,000 for Vancouver + USA
  • 9,400,000 for Vancouver + united states
  • 37,100,000 for Vancouver + B.C.
  • 84,300,000 for Vancouver + Canada --THEPROMENADER 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    

I think it is of ill consideration to our readers to assume that the only Vancouver they are looking for will be the Canadian city. When there are reasonable concerns about ambiguity, a disambiguation should be employed. Why else do we have Cork at a disambig or the logical reasons for keeping Newark at it disambig. Agne 08:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cork is a dab because when most people think of cork, they probably think of wine! The situation you have with Newark is a better argument. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You neglected to mention that "Vancouver, B.C." turns up 12,000,000 results. This "google reasoning" is biased to the "majority" in the extreme - find a more objective argument that doesn't argue for one country in particular. Are you suggesting that we give more weight to US cities because a majority of English speakers (and Wiki users) are American? I don't really get your point. THEPROMENADER 11:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I said that I don't doubt that the Canadian city would get the most google hits but rather that the other Vancouvers are prominent enough to warrant disambiguation consideration. It not matter of giving weight to anybody but rather elemental fairness in that Vancouver should redirect to a disambiguation page. There is a sizable consideration in interest for the other Vancouvers and that is being blatantly ignored right now. Under the US convention, that wouldn't be the case. This situation showscases a major flaw in the "Canadian convention" (disambig if no ambiguity) because it lets "native pride" override common sense to the loss of the reader. Agne 20:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you're arguing for. How much more "well known" does a place have to be than the ten to one Google gives you in order to "deserve" non-disambiguation? I agree that the system is flawed, but this is no way to argue for or against it. The theory that Vancouver is non-disambiguated because of "Canadian pride" is a baseless one, so thanks for saving that sort of rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that all conventions are a matter of "national pride", as every country imposes its own commonplace practices for Wiki articles concerning itself - and it is this that is fundementally wrong.

If anything, "Canadian pride" would be adding the province or even country name to the article title - "Vancouver" alone is not this. Anyhow your Google search example is biased - as most "proof" this sort usually is - because you neglected to search for the essential, which of course only helped to make your own case (although I still can't see what it is). If you want real results, you're going to have to do a search for "Vancouver" alone and count how many articles speak of Vancouver, Canada against other places and countries. In my opinion, sir, the odds are stacked against you.

Yet even my "proving" that little bit solves nothing. The fact of the matter is that non-disambiguation against a convention calling for global disambiguation is a flawed method, as is unneeded disambiguation motivated out of some other desire than a real need for disambiguation; both methods can find a few arguments to support themselves - and all the more if everyone continues to cherrypick and argue in the details - but in looking at them objectively and entirely, neither help the system that is Wiki as a whole.

In short, best spend your energy elsewhere than individual examples that bother you (for whatever reason). If you really want to change things, you're going to have to argue at a higher level than here - or call a broader attention to your argument. THEPROMENADER 21:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe Agne's point was not about whether Vancouver, British Columbia is the most prominent "Vancouver", but simply that there are other significant Vancouvers with a significant body of online documentation about them. As I did most of the link updates when Bath became a disambig page (and a couple of hundred for Cork), I have no inclination to initiate another major city page move for a while yet, despite generally agreeing with the principal. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I get you. The argument wasn't very clear though - "degrees of prominence" is not a very clear concept. Either allow the "top dog needs no disambiguation" rule, or get rid of it all together. Anything between is just shades of grey. THEPROMENADER 23:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, the island is always referred to as Vancouver Island, never just as "Vancouver", so that one's not a valid argument for a dab page. So the matter really does come down to the Canadian Vancouver vs. the American Vancouver, and as things stand the convention does allow for orders of prominence to be taken into account. Whether it should or not, you might want to debate, but as policy currently stands, the Canadian Vancouver getting the undisambiguated title is consistent with policy as it's undeniably much larger and more internationally famous than the American one. Agne also should be aware that the Google searches without quotation marks may well be returning a significant number of results pertaining to the Canadian Vancouver (e.g. [1]), and thus can't be taken into account without that footnote. Bearcat 01:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'll wager that most Americans think that Vancouver is on Vancouver Island. Vegaswikian 07:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That is an awfully good wager to make. I live less then 3 hours from Vancouver, BC and there are quite a few folks even here who think that. Agne 07:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Vancouver Olympics. I think that should settle the question as to why Vancouver BC is primary. If not, the population of Greater Vancouver BC is also another argument in favor. International notability given to Olympic host cities is significant. Further Vansterdam is known in the US for drugs and sex, so it also has notariety. (see magazines such as FHM). 70.51.9.114 05:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually that gives some more ambiguity to the type of Vancouver articles that a reader would be searching for. Especially over the next few years, a disambig page will become more and more useful for our readership. Agne 07:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how, since Vancouver BC is currently most popular, it is the site of a coming Olympics, it's the one with the largest population, FHM and other men's magazines extoll its virtues. 70.51.9.52 21:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's very nice that you "locals" can discuss this between you. Unfortunately, for most all of the world outside of your neigbourhood (and this coming from a "Torontontarioan"), "Vancouver" is a city before an island. In fact, most aren't even aware that Vancouver is an island. THEPROMENADER 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Most people would think of Vancouver, BC when someone refers to "Vancouver". Furthermore, the Google argument described above could be used for almost any debate. What matters is not the number of results for an alternate city, but the ratio between the two. I mean, "London, Ontario" got 1.3M results, and London + Ontario got 40.2M, but I don't think too many people will argue that London should be a disambig. If anyone's interested, the results for the "other" London got the following:

• "London, England" - 14.8M
• London + England - 142M
• "London, UK" - 42.6M
• London + UK - 335M

DB (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the world thinks of Vancouver as the Canadian one. The google stuff shows. Adding a dab page will result in an extra annoying page load for most users. Majority wins here! Canadianshoper 04:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well according to WP:NOT<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">, Wikipedia is not a democracy. However, its a place to bring up a point in the general concensus of Wikipedia that many cities such as London, Paris, and Toronto do not use the naming conventions where province or state is included in the article title. I would say from the conversation that its an overwhelming majority in support of having Vancouver follow the same intentions as was decided by those other examples, in that its by far the most notable place that uses that name and a separate disabig page, which already exists, should be the differ. Mkdw^talk 08:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On a side note this conversation has a WP:SNOW chance in hell of going somewhere where the previous discussions have not. It's simple, Vancouver will be the most searched and is the most known Vancouver-related articles on the English Wikipedia. A disabig page does exist for anyone who wants to look for other articles pertaining to Vancouver. It's no different than other famous cities, ex. Toronto] etc. etc. etc. Mkdw^talk 08:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it seems the snowball clause applies here, I'm not expecting my comments to resolve this matter, but here's my two cents worth anyway. Personally, I don't see what the harm would be in adding "British Columbia" to the name. I was led to this discussion during my research on naming conventions (I'm still fairly new at this...learning as I go) after a conflict with the name for the Downtown Eastside article (I believe Vancouver should appear in that name). The Naming convention general rule states that "Articles about cities and towns in some countries should be "pre-disambiguated", by having the article named as if there is a name conflict." Clearly there is a conflict here! However, further down that same page, under the Canada heading it states "Places which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name, such as Quebec City or Toronto, can have undisambiguated titles." One rule contradicts the other, so I guess either is correct. Does that make me a fence sitter? No, if the matter were put to a vote, I would choose Vancouver, British Columbia. Lainyg 23:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually your point is which guideline should carry more weight in a case like this. I would argue that one that avoids a conflict should be the one used. Another way of looking at that might be that country specific guidelines are fine, however if they cause any naming issues with articles from other countries, then the general guideline should apply. Vegaswikian 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Associated Press

The following is a closed discussion 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 proposal was no consensus. --Bobblehead 02:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Associated Press Stylebook lists the following cities within the United States that stand alone in datelines (i.e. do not need the state listed with them):

Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington.

It continues with stating that these cities were selected on the basis of the population of the city, the population of the metropolitan region, frequency of the city's appearance in the news, uniqueness of the name and how synonymous the city's name with the state that it is located in. All other U.S. cities/locations use the state with the name of the city/town.

The Associated press lists the following cities/locations outside of the United States that stand alone in datelines:

Beijing, Berlin, Djibouti, Geneva, Gibraltar, Guatemala City, Havana, Hong Kong, Jerusalem, Kuwait, London, Luxembourg, Macau, Mexico City, Monaco, Montreal, Moscow, Ottawa, Paris, Quebec, Rome, San Marino, Singapore, Tokyo, Toronto and Vatican City.

While this may or may not help settle the naming convention debate, I figured it was worthwhile mentioning these locations and how the Associated Press refers to them. Mellon123 03:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Support standalone city names per AP style book

1. 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)
2. Support and a similar discussion is taking place here − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support for United States cities only; AP should not be the definitive standard for cities in Canada, Germany, Mexico, Russia, France, England, etc. Bearcat 07:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support in general, although I think a case-by-case determination of notability and most-notable-of-that-name is the most prudent way to go, on a consistent global basis rather than these strange per-country guidelines. --Delirium 10:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Again.--DaveOinSF 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support --Yath 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support, except in cases where there is ambiguity with non-places (like Phoenix). john k 05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. If we're going to have a convention for the U.S. that's different from other countries, then we might as well base it on an existing authority rather than making something up ourselves.--Atemperman 20:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Support, but for U.S. cities only. Eco84 | Talk 01:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose standalone city names per AP style book

1. 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)
2. Oppose I thought we had a vote about exactly this proposal months ago. Ah, there it is. In the Archives (p. 10) under "A Modest Proposal". The same doggone poll. Why again? Will this happen every few months until the outcome is the "right" one? Phiwum 11:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Adamantly opposed. per Will and Phiwum, and my previous arguments to similar proposals, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. ^BlankVerse 12:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose yet another poll started by the same person. I agree with Will above. Also not all of those words are clearly the name of a particular American city, as discussed a month or two ago. Let's keep and expand a consistent and useful naming convention instead of trying to fragment it further. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose yet another poll for now. I don't think the discussion has settled down yet. I think 6 months would be a good time to wait (one month for each poll created by User:Serge while another poll was open?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
   • The issue was raised by User:Mellon123. I just chose to throw in my voice of support to his suggestion in a manner that encourages other to respond as well. It worked. His post was out there for weeks while any one of you could have simply pointed out that this was already voted on (frankly, I forgot). --Serge 18:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

     (Strikeout personal attack above, sorry.) It's still too soon; I suspect most of the arguments have been presented, but, as this would require renaming a number of articles and modifying their infoboxes (see the automated time zone task mentioned elsewhere). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose per arguments raised at the last poll. Is this going to go anywhere? Maybe its best to just speedy close it. As it looks the original author didn't set up a poll, just threw out an idea that he probably didn't realize was already discussed. Serge then formatted a poll out of this. I would think that he would be aware that this has already been discussed. Agne 20:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
   • The issue is controversial. As the voting here once again illustrates, there is no consensus in favor of any particular way to resolve it, including staying with the status quo. I think you can expect continued proposals on how to resolve it until consensus is achieved, one way or the other. --Serge 21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   • I agree that it is controversial but this stalemate won't be broken by recycling the same polls and the same arguments.Agne 21:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose How many times do we have to go through this? I think pushing one poll after another is disruptive. Please, no one open another poll until there is consensus here that it is time for a poll. -- Donald Albury 01:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose this perennially rehashed and recycled proposal, complete with already rejected ideas. My previous objections to needlessly changing this proposal still stands. Sorry to be rude, but please, please come up with more convincing reasons to change this convention. I'm willing to be persuaded, but isn't repeated the same rejected idea a bit too...um, what's the word...exhaustive?--²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose This has already been discussed enough. - Itsfullofstars 02:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose Concur. One day I will have to count up all the straw polls that Serge has launched on this issue and bring him to the attention of ArbCom as Wikipedia's version of a vexatious litigant. He just keeps beating this dead horse, as we say in America. --Coolcaesar 07:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose per above. Who died and made AP god? It is an American news agency, and thus reflects the perspective of a single country and culture. Fishhead64 06:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The current convention itself is peculiar to American cities. If you don't think Wikipedia's conventions should be country-specific, then that's an argument against the current convention rather than bringing the current convention for American cities more in line with the rest of the world.--Atemperman 20:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose -- redirects are happy. Redirects make users happy. Redirects are sufficient. Use Them. Making otherwise non-standard names is simply a waste of our time. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Coolcaesar. Serge made this discussion, which could have been
   • decent idea, but remember St Louis and others are ambiguous.
   • There's no consensus to change, link to Poll on Tariq's proposal
   • Do you have new arguments?

   into this redundant poll. I believe this borders on disruptiveness, and am willing to sign an RFC on the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

   Eh...I don't know how disruptive this really was. It seemed like most were ignoring it till some of the folks who disagreed with the UTC page move discussion came here to start the discussion back up. Then everyone sort of had to chim in to prevent some "faux consensus" from being proclaim. It was redundant and pretty pointless for Serge to turn this into a poll but there are a lot more disruptive things that could have been done that would be more deserving of a RfC. Agne 03:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose - again and again --Orange Mike 15:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose - WP:NOT a newspaper. FCYTravis 20:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)

• Does the AP "standard" apply to articles written for newspapers outside of North America, or is it a standard about US cities for US newspapers? --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• The reason nobody responded to the original comment is because we knew it had already been discussed and there was nothing new to say. We have to respond to a poll or Serge will claim there was consensus to support his view when we are all just too busy in real life to respond. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Canada

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please note a requested move in progress, the main discussion of which is taking place at the Current Local City Time Wikiproject talk page. The move would result in a de facto change of policy on Canadian names, requiring that even "most prominent" cities like Toronto and Montreal include the province in the article name. -Joshuapaquin 04:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy discussion

I don't see mention here that there is a naming policy discussion taking place in Village_pump_(policy) [2] (SEWilco 05:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

Interesting discussion but I don't see how it directly relates to this page? Agne 05:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives for establishing possible changes to the US comma guideline

Rather then try another poll on this, can we get some discussions started on possible options and see if there is any support one way or another? I'm adding some of the options I'm aware of to start the discussion. Please try to remain civil and try to use these discussions as a means to reach some consensus on this topic. If I missed any options, feel free to add more sections. Please don't try to turn this into a vote, it is not. Let's limit the discussion to the pros and cons of the various options. Vegaswikian 21:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Status quo

Leave the comma convention in place either with no exceptions or only the long standing exception for New York City.

• Comment The status quo would include the exceptions of Philadelphia and Chicago as well as New York City. No matter what the guidelines say, there can always be exceptions. --Serge 21:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro. Most US cities already conform. Vegaswikian 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. If kept, would the rename requests and endless discussions ever end, especially if open ended exceptions are allowed? Vegaswikian 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Not supported by a consensus. Never has been, probably never will. --Serge 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • disputed Was originally supported by consensus, continued to be for a long time. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It was originally implemented by a bot. When some editors saw that it was bad, another group of editors rose up to defend it. I'm not aware of any time it was supported by consensus. --Yath 16:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Inconsistent with Wikipedia's most prominent naming convention/guideline: use the most common name of an article subject as the title unless disambiguation is required per WP:D. --Serge 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Most prominent naming convention is a subjective interpretation when WP:NC(CN) nutshell definition establishes that when common names convention conflicts with other naming conventions the other naming convention is to be used. --Bobblehead 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  Regardless of what the guideline verbiage states, the use-the-most-common name convention is the most widely followed naming convention in Wikipedia. Disgree? Which convention is more widely followed then? --Serge 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what metric you would like to use, but I think WP:NC, WP:NC:CITY, WP:NCP and WP:UE would all be candidates, along with WP:DAB. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Con. Inconsistent with primary practice in place for almost the entire rest of the world. Bearcat 04:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro Greater consistency for a greater number of settlement related articles. Consistent format will also be of aid in categorization and other article enhancements. Simply put, we can all get back to the work of improving our articles. Agne 05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro Removing subjective "exception creation" will enhance the stability of the convention. Agne 05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro. Commonly used outside of Wikipedia. --Bobblehead 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro. Avoids conflicts between same named cities over which city is more notable, ie Portland, Dorset, Portland, Oregon or Portland, Maine, or if the other city is the preeminent usage, ie Vancouver, British Columbia vs. Vancouver, Washington. --Bobblehead 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This proposal, being US only, would not address the cross country problem. That is a different problem. Vegaswikian 07:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Does this convention simply stem from a distrust of other editors? You should know that naming conflicts are handled all the time in Wikipedia. We're actually quite good at it. --Yath 16:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro. Adds another layer of location identification for lesser known, but unique city names, ie Sequim could be anywhere, but Sequim, Washington is clearly identified as being in Washington.--Bobblehead 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This often means that reading articles such as biographies, the link title contains enough information for the reader, even if they have never heard of the town. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Does not resolve the issue that it's intended to solve anywhere near as well as people think it does; people still quite regularly link to "City" alone, and hence frequently to dab pages or wrong topics, for American cities in spite of the supposed "predictability" of the current American naming convention. Bearcat 06:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Unfortunately with the encyclopedia that anyone can edit you will always have "newbie" mistakes such as incorrect linking to DAB pages, forgetting to sign your talk page post or even adding unsourced materials to articles. With most newbie mistakes, experience and observing others is the best teacher. Agne 07:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Pro It is much easier to identify and fix bad links to the plain city name if the "good" links are to a unique name. This assists resolving both present and future ambiguity. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro Supported by Wikipedia:Naming conventions: Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see how WP:NC would be violated by articles at Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Honolulu, and so forth. john k 15:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. (This would be pro were the comma disambiguation method the most-used on Wiki). The comma convention is not only an exception: it owes its existence to the "convenience of habit" practices of one speaking of another locale in his own country. Were there a Wiki for every country this would be fine, but the inhabitants of one country rarely refer to the settlements of another in the same fashion as its "locals". I find this practice to be rather segregationist - and it is better, especially for contributor convenience and inter-linking, to only disambiguate when necessary. THEPROMENADER 13:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • However the comma form is the most common one for place names, right? Does anyone have actual numbers to prove or disprove my statement? Vegaswikian 19:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • However I wasn't speaking of only placenames - only of all of Wiki. I see sense in "one publication, one method of disambiguation" - don't you? Thankfully none of that discounts anything in my other points : ) THEPROMENADER 00:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree about the one view point. That is why the common form makes sense. You can not have city as the form since there are too many cases where disambiguation would be required. The common form eliminates much of this problem. Secondly, can it what you will, style sheet or disambiguation, but the common format is in common usage around the world as far as I know. So, this is using the common name to describe locations. If you look at it that way, it is either using the common name or a style sheet, it is not disambiguation. Vegaswikian 19:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Remember that the "common form" you speak of is only common to those speaking of another locale within their own country. This habit, for sure, is something more than disambiguation (call it a "locator" for those who know where the states/provinces attached to the name are), but it still qualifies as a form of disambiguation. I also don't think this "local" habit is very flattering to the international media that is supposed to be Wiki. THEPROMENADER 20:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro. WP:NC supports precise names when there can be multiple meanings. Since some locations will need precise names, using this as a style standard would be acceptable and reasonable. Vegaswikian 00:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a pro for using this style when disambiguation is required, but not for articles for which disambiguation of the most common name is not required. That's not the status quo. --Serge 05:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Inconvenient, inconsistent, out of sync with the rest of the world.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Disputed on all counts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro The exception for New York City is unavoidable: New York, New York can mean New York County = Manhattan; New York City, New York is not English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Pro US municipalities do change name from time to time; for instance, the change, approved last November, of Dover Township, New Jersey to Toms River, New Jersey. This permits other towns of these names to stay where they are, without worrying whether Toms River is now ambiguous, or a solitary Dover Township now unambiguous. Stability is good for readers and editors alike. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, when someone spots a name change, it's that person's responsibility to make sure all appropriate links and relations (new and old) are changed to preserve integrity. As an editor who deals with this kind of work almost daily, I assure you it's not that huge of a burden.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, the links to the places in New Jersey, and the dab page, should be adjusted (and they have been).
    • But why uproot Dover Township, Minnesota because of a vote in New Jersey? (This is a hypothetical; actually, it's still ambiguous - but suppose it weren't). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The reason why Dover Township, Minnesota should be uprooted in this hypothetical case is because it would no longer conform to the naming convention (it would no longer be ambiguous, hence no disambiguator would be needed). Again, since the editor making the change would undoubtedly check the pre-change disambiguation page anyway, it is not that much work to move two articles instead of two. Such procedure is already being done in many other areas of Wikipedia, and I don't see anyone complaining that it's too difficult to do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, if we adhered to that naming convention, we would move it. But moving it is a cost to Wikipedia in drudge work of link repair. Yhis additional unnecessary cost is a reason why changing conventions is a bad idea, unless moving it would be a good thing independent of convention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
          • OK, now that we have pros and cons neatly laid out (for a change), let's see what others have to say. I somehow don't think that just two of us can decide something on this scale even if we find a mutual consensus :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Pro Conventions are most important where there are reasonable justifications for more than one way of doing things. Otherwise we end up waisting time rearguing the same questions over and over, article by article. --agr 14:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Disputed. That's true in general, but, because exceptions are always allowed, when conventions go too far, like this one, requiring disambiguation even when referring to the subject of a given article is clearly the only usage, or unquestionably the most dominant usage, of the most common name used for that subject, the "wasting time rearguing the same questions over and over" is actually increased. Evidence of this is the reduction in such arguments in countries where the naming conventions are not so strict (e.g., Canada and Russia). --Serge 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I notice Serge didn't use Australia as an example - the guideline for articles on Australian city and town articles is as strong as the USA one, with no disputes in the last two years. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • That's incorrect. Australia has a relief valve, if you will, in that it allows, even prefers, capital cities to be at city name only. This is particularly significant in Australia where the best known and largest cities tend to be the capitals. In other words, there is no city in Australia the size and significance of Chicago, for example, which is not a capital. So while the guideline specifically calls for capitals to be at city name only, the practical effect is that all large/well-known Australian cities are at city name only. That's why there are no disputes. See Adelaide, Sydney, Canberra, etc. I would certainly support a guideline with a similar effect in the U.S. --Serge 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Perhaps Serge is right that the Australian convention has a relief valve. It was voted before I joined Wikipedia. Considerations for a similar relief valve for US city articles must be:
          1. The list must be short enough for regular editors to keep in their head (there are 6 for Australia)
          2. The list must be defined objectively and unambiguously
          3. With no context, that city must be the first and only concept to come to mind instantly for the word
        • I don't know if there is any criteria for point 2 that will yield a list satisfying point 3. The top of the list at Global city might go close. New York City satisfies them, but I don't believe Philadelphia and Chicago do. The rest of my list might look like Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, Las Vegas, Pittsburgh. Are there other major city names that instantly bring only that city to mind given the name without even the context that it's a placename? Note that Australia has many places named after local or indigenous words that are likely to remain unique, but follow the naming convention. Washington, D.C. does, but only with the "D.C.". Perhaps we should add a section here for "Status quo but exceptions for Alpha and Beta world cities" and see how it stacks up. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Australia is a unique situation in that it's most commonly known cities are it's capitals, so I'm not sure how applicable the "relief valve" comment is. It could be that the reason why the Australian convention is stable is because the other cities in the country just aren't that well known and need the additional location information. That isn't applicable to the US as the state capitals are often one of the least known cities in that state. Seattle is far more well known than Olympia, Portland, Oregon is better known than Salem, Oregon, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego are better known than Sacramento.
          • Putting up Global cities would be a good idea, but I can think of a couple of cons, the most prominent being that the list of Global cities isn't very commonly accepted outside of the tourism departments of the cities on that list and what qualifies as a global city is still being defined.[3] --Bobblehead 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Pro (but without exceptions). Having "comma consistency" is a sure way to have one rule and one rule only: all cities/villiages/burbs/ect. get a state after them. If there is more than one habitable place with the same name, make a disambig page. Many, many US cities are named after OTHER cities, be they foreign or domestic (see this external link. That's the key reason for needing commas: No one wants to get the wrong Franklin out of 36 U.S. places. As for New York, that should also be comma-ified, as someone can say "I'm from New York" and be well over 300 miles from the eponymous city. —ScouterSig 15:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

AP style sheet as exceptions

Follow the AP style sheet for a list of cities that do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.

• Pro. Limited size list that is clearly defined. Vegaswikian 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Not every city on the list should be renamed since they are not the primary use or because a redirect to a different article should be used or the city name alone should be a dab page. Vegaswikian 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  Looks like Vegaswikian stole my thunder. I typed out the exact same pros and cons. The only thing I have to add is examples: Shortening Washington, D.C. to Washington conflicts with the state, Phoenix conflicts with the mythical bird). Others on the list would likely result in a trans-Atlantic dispute (See Talk:Boston and Talk:Boston (disambiguation) for an example) as editors in other countries squabble over if the city should go to City, or if it should remain at City, State.--Bobblehead 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  Boston already redirects to Boston, Massachusetts, as do the vast majority of the others on the list. The only clear exceptions are the aforementioned Phoenix and Washington, and perhaps Saint Louis. But a "use the AP list, unless there's serious ambiguity issues," seems like it would be sensible. john k 05:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• ConThe AP style sheet is not an appropriate model because it has the luxury of people knowing from the location and placement of the dateline that this is a place. People seeing a category listing on Wikipedia do not. Gene Nygaard 14:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Cities tend, in general, to be in categories where all the articles in them are places, and where it is clear that it is a place from the category title. The only exception for, for instance, Boston, Massachusetts is the utterly stupid category Category:Articles with unsourced statements, which ought to be a talk page category, anyway, and 1630 establishments, where I think nobody would have any big deal figuring oout that the city is meant. john k 15:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

AP style sheet as exceptions II

Follow the AP style sheet for a list of cities that do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names unless they are not the primary use of the name (i.e., if the city name is on the AP list and the name alone currently redirects to the article about the city, use the city name alone as the title of the article).

• Pro. Limited size list that is clearly defined. Vegaswikian 00:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I think any use of the AP list would have to be more or less limited in this way. Moving Washington, D.C. to Washington is out of the question, for instance. john k 05:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

State capitals

State capitals do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.

• Con Some state capitals are ambiguous like Augusta, Maine & Salem, Oregon Agne 21:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con Somewhat arbitrary to say that only state capitals are eligible; state capitals are not always their respective state's largest, most important or most famous city. (e.g. Springfield, Illinois, Albany, New York.) Bearcat 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. As Bearcat says, this would be silly as the only way for US cities to not use the comma convention. But this would be fine as a supplement, I think, to the AP list, so long as obviously ambiguous names like Salem, Springfield, Frankfort, Olympia, Augusta, and so forth are excluded. I can see little harm, though, for articles at Juneau, Jefferson City, Carson City, Baton Rouge, Des Moines, Boise, and so forth. john k 05:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Settlements would best be treated as a whole with a unique rule. Who says the reader knows the city is a state capital? Should he have to do the extra leg (eye) work to figure this rule out for himself? THEPROMENADER 13:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Many state capitals are ridiculously obscure. For example, when someone says Bismarck, I am more likely to think first of a German politician than a small city in North Dakota. --Coolcaesar 08:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con - per Bearcat and Coolcaesar if it's the only one adopted. DB (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

State capitals II

State capitals do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names, unless there is an ambiguity issue (i.e., if the city is a state capitol and the name alone redirects to the article about the city, use the name alone as the title).

• Pro Simple, clearly defined list. --Serge 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Just less than half of state capitols meet this requirement, thus resulting in confusion as most will have to remain at City, State convention. --Bobblehead 05:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why would those capitals that don't require disambiguation not be disambiguated, and those that require disambiguation be disambiguated, cause "confusion"? It's the wiki way. For the life of me, I cannot understand this argument. --Serge 04:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Because most people aren't aware of which state capital names are unique and which aren't. The same logic applies to most American cities. For example, until recently something like 1/8th of the U.S. population thought that New Mexico was part of Mexico (this was an NSF study reported in National Geographic). Serge, you need to take a wikibreak and and talk to real people to understand how geographic knowledge is such a precious thing. Most people don't have much of it because they're too busy with more important things like earning a living and making babies. The confusion comes from not knowing in advance which names overlap with those of other cities. Rather than have to check out every single city article I'm linking to, just to determine whether I'm linking to a disambiguation page, it's easier to just know that the vast majority of city names are already consistently unique. --Coolcaesar 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • While I agree that the state capital convention isn't a great idea, do we really need to cater to the Americans who are so ignorant that they don't even know what's part of the US? DB (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

City size

Cities larger then a certain size do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.

• Con even large cities can be ambiguous and conflict with other cities Portland, Oregon & Portland, Maine. Agne 21:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Selecting a size is choosing an arbitrary number. Is 500,000 any better then 1,000,000? Vegaswikian 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Could require future article moves since the size of a city can change, up or down. Vegaswikian 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro. Adds a clear demarkation. If city is over a certain population it's City convention, otherwise City, State. --Bobblehead 05:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Clearly ambiguous names like Portland would obviously be excluded from any rule like this. I would suggest that metropolitan area size, rather than size of the municipality, is the more important figure, except in cases where this is impossible, like secondary cities of major metropolitan areas, such as Oakland. I think any kind of change ought to require at least some minimum population to not have the state. But this would never be sufficient. john k 05:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con Some quite large cities are not well known outside the USA. By definition, it's hard to identify examples of this. Fort Worth, Texas is over 600,000 and not well known. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So what? If the people haven't heard of the place, what does it matter whether the state name is in the article title. Fort Worth is unambiguous, and I'm sure many international travelers, at least, have heard of it, since it's in the name of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, which is the third busiest airport in the world, and the 10th busiest international hub in the United States. I'm not sure I understand what familiarity to the world has to do with it. Personally, I would say that familiarity to other people in the United States is really the key issue, since it is only Americans who would actually be helped very much by disambiguation by state. And Fort Worth certainly has familiarity to Americans from outside the Metroplex. john k 15:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Speaking personally, I thought "Dallas Fort Worth Airport" was like "Melbourne Tullamarine Airport" - that the small place nearest the airport is actually called Fort Worth, but the major city it serves is Dallas, unlike Baltimore-Washington International Airport, or was just a name of the airport like Washington Dulles Airport or Chicago O'Hare Airport. This misunderstanding was due to never having heard of "Fort Worth" before first hearing the name of the airport. I also consider that the state is more important for readers outside the USA — I (and many others) may not be able to list all your states, but I would recognise the names of most of them as US states if I heard/saw them. Remember that ", state" can be seen as a stylistic issue as much as a disambiguation issue. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Many non-Americans have stated more or less the opposite, at least for the larger cities - i.e., they have heard of Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, and so forth, but couldn't name the state they're in. john k 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. The "bigger than thou", "big enough to qualify" and "known enough to qualify" battle would be endless. THEPROMENADER 13:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Whatever city size is chosen as a threshold, there will always be someone who thinks it's too big/small. Plus, this doesn't address the roots of the problem with current disambiguation practices.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con - per Agne27. Some large cities would still need disambiguation. In general, it would just be too arbitrary. DB (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Cities with unique names

Cities with globally unique names do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.

• Con. Could require future article moves if the name is no longer unique. Vegaswikian 23:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Editors may not know the correct name to use for an article requiring extra article moves. Vegaswikian 23:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro. Large support base from editors who's city name is unique. Vegaswikian 23:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Could result in odd situations where more widely known city's, like Atlanta, have to stay at City, State convention while only locally know cities, like Issaquah, are at City. --Bobblehead 05:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro. Eliminates disambiguation on articles that do not need it. --Bobblehead 05:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con Some unique names like Issaquah and Assawoman don't serve well in conveying what exactly the subject of the article is -i.e. a city. While the City, State convention of Issaquah, Washington and Assawoman, Virginia convey their subject matter perfectly. Agne 05:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that the article name should convey additional location information? Are you suggesting that Issaquah, Washington should be considered as the common name? Is the problem with this alternative that it may not use a place's common name? Vegaswikian 00:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro. My comments below the next question apply here as well. THEPROMENADER 14:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand that comment there. Is this a duplicate of the second "Pro" above, Eliminates disambiguation on articles that do not need it.? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con as below. If this is a call for IAR rexceptions, it is redundant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro. To me, at least, this statement seems to be obvious.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro - If there's no other city with that name, then there's clearly no need to disambiguate. DB (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Cities as primary use

Places where the city name alone uniquely identifies the place in a non ambiguous way do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.

• Con apparently the level of primary use can be subjective see Vancouver & Vancouver, Washington and the Newark & Cork discussions. The kicker here in the "uniquely" part. If there was more establish guideline for disambiguation where there are other pertinent and important consideration in addition to just the "primary city", then it would be easier to support. Otherwise, this only allows continued subjective arguments, debates and move request. Agne 21:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con Each page move would require an individual discussion on whether or not that a particular city is both A.) The Primary use and B.) substantial enough of a primary over other articles with similar titles to warrant the singular article title instead of a disambig page. As observed in several cases, discussions on individual city pages do pose the risk of "conflicts of interest" with very natural and human bias to view their city or country in higher focus then it maybe in the grand scheme of the encyclopedia. This, unfortunately, adds alot of emotions to these discussions and makes consensus (in any direction) harder to achieve. Ultimately, it needs to be established that articles are written and titled for the benefit of the reader--not the editors and not a particular city's residents. Agne 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro. Primary use has already been largely determined by redirects - when City redirects to City, State, then that particularly city is already considered the primary use for City. Most such redirects have been stable for years, despite occasional disputes. john k 05:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not always true. I tried once to figure out where to move the incoming links to Las Vegas. Most are not about the city and the context frequently did not help at all in choosing the correct redirect. So just because the redirect is there, it does not mean that they are all correctly redirected. This is a risk whenever there are multiple uses. Vegaswikian 06:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Vegas is a particularly odd case. But Las Vegas, Nevada isn't actually any more clear that the municipality, and not the general area, is meant. City of Las Vegas would be the only clear way to do that. john k 15:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Did you happen to notice what that City of Las Vegas link is about? Yea, I was surprised too. Vegaswikian 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, that certainly seems wrong. john k 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
          • It is analogous to City of New Orleans, which took me by surprise, and several others listed on Category:Named passenger trains of the United States
• Pro. At least, I think - the question is not very clear - "uniquely identifies" - do you mean "is not ambiguous"? Let's just say: if there's no need to disambiguate, don't do it. THEPROMENADER 13:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I reworded the description. Does that help? If not, fell free to tweak or create a different option. Vegaswikian 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmmm - thanks, but it still looks like my reply would be "If it ain't ambiguous, don't disambiguate it". Agreed, I guess. THEPROMENADER 00:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con This would include some very small and obscure places (Loch Arbour, New Jersey, for example). Why should we have to check whether it is unambiguous before we link to it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Doesn't one normally do that when making links to articles about non-city topics. Why are cities being subjected to a different rule than the rest of the enyclopedia? There do exist articles on obscure topics that do not have disambiguation and that the average reader might need to read the first sentence to see what the article is about. Obscure cities should be treated no differently than other obscure topics. --Polaron | Talk 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Whilst writing a biography article for example, it is easy to link to Loch Arbour, New Jersey knowing that the title has enough precision to be unique, and the editor need only verify that the link is blue. If the link was made to "Loch Arbour", the editor must check whether this is the article intended, or some other place with the same name, or a dab page, and then follow one or two links to find the right target, before continuing with the primary task of writing that other article. This is wasted time, effort, and bandwidth, especially for dial-up editors or people with a life outside Wikipedia. Many Wikipedia articles have a longer title than the absolute shortest unique identifier for the subject. Sometimes this is for disambiguation purposes, and sometimes it is for stylistic or clarity purposes. This is not about subjecting cities to a "different rule", but about making details of the general rule specific for cities. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• If this statement means "if it is not ambiguous, don't disambiguate it", then I'm all for it (pro).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro - if it's a well-known, unambiguous city name (such as L.A., San Fran, Houston, Phila, Boston, etc.), then it makes sense to just write the city, since that's how it's often referred to anyway. DB (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comma convention only when needed

Use city names alone for articles whenever possible. Only use the comma convention for disambiguation when city name alone has an ambiguity conflict within Wikipedia per WP:NC#Use common names of persons and things, WP:NC(CN) and WP:DAB.

• Pro This is the only logical solution consistent with the idea that category-specific naming conventions should only apply to articles within a given category that require disambiguation; articles for which the most common/best-known name is available should just use that. It's the most consistent option of all with respect to how Wikipedia articles are named. --Serge 21:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con Very vague and subjective. For some Vancouver, British Columbia needs a comma. For others it doesn't. This solution doesn't quell the debates any better then the status quo has. Agne 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The debates have greatly been reduced with regard to Canadian cities since they relaxed their guideline. Do you have any reason to believe it would be any different for U.S. cities? --Serge 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, your example hold less weight since the flaws in the Canadian convention became apparent with issues like Vancouver, Lethbridge, Gatineau, etc. It is quite easy to foresee similar problems being compounded on if the US went with the vague and subjective "only when needed" clause. Think about Newark. The New Jersey city is obviously bigger but what about the Delaware city or the UK one? I could think of a laundry list of examples in a short time but the truth is there is probably countless more debates and headaches to be had when everyone's own subjective standards are applied. Agne 07:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro Very clear and objective. Just like naming any other article in Wikipedia. Cities very likely to be without conflicts are trivial to identify: those where the city name alone already redirects to the article. e.g.: San Francisco → San Francisco, California. Those that turn out to have a conflict in the future can be managed at that time, just like any other article in Wikipedia that may develop a naming conflict in the future. --Serge 00:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro. Appears to be the most common country guideline in use. Vegaswikian 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Raises conflicts when the city name is used elsewhere. Regional and global familiarity with the name can affect editors opinions about what the primary usage is. Also creates conflicts with historical cities and modern cities with the same name. Vegaswikian 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a con. Can you name even one example of a city where the name alone redirects to the city article, and is still subject to this hypothetical type of conflict? These have mostly, if not completely, all been identified. Either the name is a dab or it goes to the U.S. city article. --Serge 00:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, there are several and that were listed in the previous discussions about using the AP list. I'm sure that there are more. For this guideline to work, disambiguation should be the alternative when there are multiples places using the same common name. Without this, a significant number of readers can get redirected to the wrong article. That is a problem. Vegaswikian 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure which previous discussions you are referring to. If there are several examples of city name alone redirects to city articles where the city name alone is subject to a "conflict", surely you can name one. And, while you're at it, why not just fix it once you identify it. This is a red herring. --Serge 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Since an encyclopedia is suppose to have some consistency between articles, this proposal makes the naming of city articles appear random to all but those who understand the convention. Since the articles are for readers, their views should be considered. Vegaswikian 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly Disputed. Consistenting naming throughout the encyclopedia, including using the most common name when possible, is the higher goal, not consistent naming within a category of articles. Disambiguating the most common name when disambiguation is not required is what leads to inconsistency and confusion for readers. --Serge 05:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro. Encyclopedia methods must be a logical aid to comprehension for all before anything else - including "consistency". It is very possible to be consistantly wrong. Still, I find the "use only if necessary" comma question to be loaded: I don't think it should be used at all. Actulally, not using it is even more an answer to the "consistency" question: most all of Wiki uses parentheses for disambiguation, and placenames (disambiguated with names that are not the actual name of the place itself) are one of few exceptions. THEPROMENADER 13:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Confusing for American editors who are generally accustomed to referring to all out-of-state cities by city and state in formal writing. --Coolcaesar 08:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is bit circular, isn't it? Surely anyone who constantly uses a comma convention would rather see it used everywhere. --Yath 13:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What kind of formal writing? What are you talking about? john k 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What formal writing does this refer to? When I write something that involves a city name, if it's a major city that requires no disambiguation, I just use the city name. I've never written "San Francisco, California", or "Houston, Texas". It would just be "San Francisco" or "Houston". DB (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Con: as Above; why should anybody have to check whether Loch Arbour, New Jersey is unique to know where the article is? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro, per policy cited in description. --Dystopos 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Con The policy cited in description says explicitly "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication"; all guidelines admit exceptions. This is one such exception; there are others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pro. Very clear and objective; the only logical solution, really. I should also note that this exact same convention is working without a glitch with Russia—a country the number of settlements in which is comparable to that of the United States. As for the "why should anybody have to check whether XXX is unique to know where the article is"-like arguments, we should remember that naming conventions are here for the benefit of readers, not editors. A thorough editor is supposed to verify where all the links in the content s/he created point anyway, otherwise his/her job is going to be sloppy at best.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Very strongly disputed. Readers should be able to predict where an article should be. Not the only "logical" solution; the always-disambiguate solution is more logical, and the disambiguate unless world-renowned makes much more sense. I should add here that the present exception for New York City is because of a local problem: New York, New York is not coterminous with NYC, and New York City, New York is unidiomatic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Readers should be able to arrive to the article they are seeking with the least amount of effort and be reasonably sure they found what they were looking for. If I am looking for "Asheville", I don't necessarily know in which state it is located; as a matter of fact, it may be the reason why I am looking for this article in the first place. If there were no redirect at Asheville, I'd be stuck; all because somebody thought that Asheville, North Carolina somehow makes more sense. For the town residents, maybe it does. For readers who look for the information about this town it does not. The other point is that even after being redirected to Asheville, North Carolina (since the redirect is oh so helpfully there), the readers are still left to wonder why the title is disambiguated—perhaps because there is another town by that name?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • If Asheville didn't redirect to the city in North Carolina then it would have redirected to a disambig page which would have helped you find the article that you are looking for with very little effort. Agne 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • My point exactly. A link should either go to an article, or to a disambig; not to an article via a redirect which is there for no good reason at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Redirects are cheap. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry, I am a newcomer to this discussion, but I am starting to see why it has been going and going and still keeps going... nowhere. People aren't really listening to each other. My point was not that redirects aren't cheap, my point was that a redirect from a title to a disambiguated title is confusing to readers. There are many good uses for redirects, but the one this discussion and proposals related to it deal with is not one of them. A redirect should generally lead from a variation to either the main title or a disambiguation page; it should not lead from the main title to a variation, because such practice is confusing, misleading, and generally serves no useful purpose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Does anyone else agree with this? The chief use for a redirect is to get a reader to the article he wants. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
                • ...without introducing unnecessary ambiguity, hesitation, or confusion in the process. In other words, a reader should be reasonably sure that the place s/he was redirected to is the place s/he wanted to find.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • And if she types Asheville, and gets to Asheville, North Carolina, what's the problem? It's the only Asheville (as searching on it shows); therefore it is the one she wants. It even has a dab header in case the reader meant one of the Ashvilles (in which case, she is more quickly warned than if we called the main article Asheville. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
                    • That, I guess, is a fundamental difference between people who vote for this proposal vs. those who vote against it. To me, "Asheville, North Carolina" is a red flag showing that there must be another Asheville elsewhere. If this is indeed the only Asheville in the US (or in the world), then adding comma disambiguation (to me at least) is a direct violation of Occam's razor principle, because an extra disambiguator here is nothing more but a redundant entity. It all boils down to logic, and you, as well as other people voting against this proposal, are yet to convince me that the logic of the proposal is faulty. Using your reasoning, why not use "Asheville, North Carolina, United States[, Earth]"? Why not move the article about the state to "North Carolina, United States"? After all, the more disambiguators we cram into the title, the more warnings/confirmations the end reader receives.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
                      • Ezhiki, you seem to be operating under the assumption that the supporters of the status quo can be persuaded with logic and reason to change their minds. Good luck with that. That fact is, they are simply blind to the wrongness of having any Wikipedia article at a title that is unnecessarily disambiguated. They don't care about the implication that there must be another Asheville, or in the case of San Francisco, California, the implication that there must be some other subject named San Francisco that is sufficiently prominent to keep the famous city from being at that name. They are blind to the inconsistency with the rest of Wikipedia. All they see and seek is "consistency" within the particular category (U.S. cities). They can't see out of that box for nothing. It's very frustrating. Chivo nyet, tavo nyet. --Serge 22:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
                        • I replied to Serge on his talk.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
                        • That's because it's neither wrong nor inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. There is no such implication. We use Asheville, North Carolina for the same reasons we use Louis XIV of France; because it's clear, straightforward - and, despite Serge's protests, idiomatic - American English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
                          • Louis XIV of France is an exception, and a questionable one at that (in fact, now that you've brought it to our attention, I'm questioning it at the talk page). But, the point is, if there is no good specific reason to have that article disambiguated with of France, then it too should be moved (to Louis XIV, which redirects to it already) to be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. The implication is that there is some other (significant) Louis XIV and that either Louis XIV of France is either relatively insignificant, and there is some other primary use of Louis XIV, or Louis XIV is a dab page. --Serge 00:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
                            • How about we handle one problem at a time? Judging from the banner at the top of this talk page, jumping from one topic onto another is precisely what stalled the discussions in the past. Also, Septentrionalis didn't seem to address any of my concerns I raised immediately before first Serge's comment in this thread. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • (move left); Serge, Wikipedia is inconsistent; the single rule you would impose everywhere is a good thing; but it is not the only good thing; that's why we don't universally adhere to it.
  • Ezhiki, I was waiting for someone else to agree with you; I don't see any such red flag and I don't know anyone who does. This is in part because Portland, Oregon and Trenton, New Jersey are idiomatic American English, pace Serge; often used when there is no need of disambiguation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, I guess your first point is a good one—let's see what others have to say. I still, however, disagree regarding sticking to idiomatic usage. No one, of course, would argue with the fact that the usage is indeed idiomatic. Yet, Wikipedia seems to be the only encyclopedia out there that adheres to this usage. If other encyclopedias can ignore "idiomatic usage" with no apparent harm to readers ([4], [5], [6]), why can't we? The very least that doing away with pre-disambiguation can accomplish is bring the US cities naming conventions in line with those used in Wikipedia for the rest of the countries (consistency=good thing). The downsides? I don't see any. If we can root out confusion (or potential confusion, if you wish) with no losses, how is that a bad thing?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Because Asheville, North Carolina is, by nature, less confusing; it contains more information. The only confusion is the implication that Ezhiki imports, and it is clear to any reader of this convention, and will rapidly become clear to any browser of WP, that we make no such implication; for instance, they need only look at Category:Cities in North Carolina. In fact, what would be confusing is to ambiguate only when necessary; then that same cat would include Burlington, North Carolina, but Asheville, for no obvious reason. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • But this does suggest a proposal; how about Category:Uniquely named places in the United States, which would contain the information that there is only one Asheville, for those who care? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but it looks like we start going in circles here. I already explained my position regarding these same arguments: while Asheville, North Carolina contains more information, "Asheville, North Carolina, United States" contains even more of it. I also disagree with the statement that it "will rapidly become clear to any browser of WP, that [the redundant disambiguator is not meant to imply existing ambiguity]". If a reader was browsing articles about settlements in other countries, those in which redundant disambiguators are not utilized (which seems to be an overwhelming majority), it seems to me that the confusion is pretty much guaranteed once that reader ends up in a pre-disambiguated article about a US city. As for "ambiguating only when necessary" being confusing, I beg to differ. Take a look at Category:Cities and towns in Moscow Oblast, for example—it's populated in precisely the same way that you believe would be confusing to readers. So far there haven't been any single complaint, and the system is working flawlessly (also note that each and every ambiguated article contains a dablink leading to the disambiguation page, whih helps dealing with potential confusion quite nicely). Finally, regarding introducing Category:Uniquely named places in the United States. To me, again, this is a violation of Occam's razor principle—why introduce a new entity and complicate things when that same result could be achieved via far simpler means (that is, by abandoning the practice of pre-disambiguation)?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Asheville, North Carolina, United States is not idiom, and would therefore violate WP:UE. Furthermore, it is redundant to anyone who has heard of North Carolina, which includes most native speakers of English. (This is presumably why it is not idiom.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Category:Cities and towns in Moscow Oblast illlustrates both another problem with this idea; it is disambiguated inconsistently. It also displays a difference between the United States and Russia; disambiguated names there are rare; in much of the United States, it is unambiguous names which are rare.
            • As for Category:Uniquely named places in the United States: including that bit of information is the only merit I can see to this proposal. If it does not interest you, I do not see asny merit to it at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Umm, judging by your edit summary, I see that you intended to close this (admittedly ovegrown) thread. I do, however, have another thing to say, if you forgive me for dragging this dead horse even further. When you speak of "idiomatic usage", you seem to imply that there is only one usage that is both idiomatic and policy-compliant (in other words, "correct"). The policy's intent, however, is not to determine a single set of idiomatic patterns and carve it in stone, but rather make sure that no unnatural constructs are utilized. It's true that "Asheville, North Carolina" is both idiomatic and correct in American English, but so is just "Asheville". Neither version is gramatically incorrect or awkward, as the three examples I used above ([7], [8], [9]) attest. Both are considered standard (American) English usage. Your argument does not seem to hold water.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Then I have not conveyed the argument. If I had meant correct. I would have said so. Yes, both Asheville and Asheville, North Carolina are idiomatic; but use of the latter does not imply ambiguity; use of the former does not imply uniqueness; merely that the speaker and hearer agree which of the conceivable Ashevilles they are speaking of. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • Sorry for misunderstanding. Yet, if in most of the rest of Wikipedia the usage of a disambiguator implies that ambiguity exists, then the usage of a disambiguator next to a name of the US city logically implies the same thing. It does not matter whether such usage is idiomatic or introduced artificially—it's still ambiguous and confusing. And if we can replace one idiomatic usage with another getting rid of confusion in the process, then why not?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
              • As for Category:Cities and towns in Moscow Oblast being "disambiguated inconsistently", that is also untrue. Places that need to be disambiguated are disambiguated using the same pattern, while places that do not need to be disambiguated are, well, not disambiguated. Just the way it should be, in my opinion. You are, however, right about the names of the US cities being overall less unique than those in Russia (although Russia also has its share of bland generic names). I still don't see it as a problem, however.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
                • What? If I count correctly, there are three entries disambiguated (town), two disambiguated (city) and seven disambiguated ", Moscow Oblast". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • I see what you mean. To explain: city and town are different things, location disambiguator ("Moscow Oblast") is used when another settlement of this name exists elsewhere in Russia, and type disambiguator (city, town) is used when the settlement name is unique but conflicts with another concept. To illustrate: Roshal (town) is the only settlement by this name in Russia (and for all I know, in the world), but it conflicts with Leonid Roshal, who is well known by his last name alone. Krasnoarmeysk, Moscow Oblast, on the other hand, is disambiguated by located to distinguish it from different settlements by this name. Logical?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
                    • Sorry to butt in again, but I just want to point out that the naming system you're discussing (which I favor), the result of which PManderson mischaracterizes as "disambiguated inconsistently", is standard Wikipedia. Rather than disambiguating everything in a given category with the same format, I think it makes much better sense and is much more useful to consider each name independently, and to disambiguate based on what the "competition" is for the name. It's the wiki way. It is, for example, why the city in Ireland is at Cork (city). We don't want to disambiguate independent of why the name requires disambiguation. The fact that Cork is at Cork (city) informs the user that there is no other city named cork, and that it is disambiguated to differentiate from the topic(s) named cork that are not cities. If, on the other hand, there was another notable city named Cork, then the appropriate name for this article would be Cork, Ireland, to differentiate it from Cork, England, or whatever. It is a very logical, useful and wonderful naming system used successfully throughout Wikipedia. I cannot for the life of me understand why so many of you believe U.S. cities should be an exception to using it. --Serge 23:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
                      • Cork (city) is not a good example - it received that name after a long discussion of several names, and appears to be a unique situation: Cork, Ireland is ambiguous with County Cork, but Cork, County Cork or Cork, Cork appeared to be technically wrong as several Irish editors said that the city is not in County Cork, but as a city has equal legal status to a county, and is surrounded by County Cork. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Con. Produces a biased result, frequently the location that first has an article at a name retains that name. Since a change to rename per WP:RM goes only on the affected page, all editors who might have an interest in renaming may not be aware of the discussion. The only way for this work might be if the guideline was that no other location had the same unprecise name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs)

  Sorry, but I don't see the logic in this reasoning. If the renaming is to be done according to the naming conventions, then there is no need for all interested parties to be aware of the discussion. What are they going to say, anyway? "Even though the renaming is per naming conventions, we are opposed to it because the article to be renamed occupied the spot first?" Somehow I don't think it's going to fly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  I wouldn't be at all surprised if they said exactly that; the clause in WP:NAME about defaulting to the usage of the creator of the article is routinely abused. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  I guess you have not looked at the history of city naming issues. Cork was one example, Syracuse, and also here, was another. Primary use is very subjective and the perspective of editors can be very different. I almost think that for cities, we might be better off to just say if there are two cites that claim to be the primary use, the main page by default should be a dab page. Might work better in reducing the intensity of the discussions on no consensus surveys. However I don't think it would gain any traction. Vegaswikian 00:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  For the life of me, I can not figure out the aversion to disambiguation pages. They are exquisitely useful to a reader looking for a topic and by far easier to maintain if things are linked improperly. I can only imagine how many headaches that could be avoided if we were more active in encouraging competing "city names" to default to a disambig page--especially among cities in different countries and states where editors loyalties and biases can affect judgment. It would encourage more neutrality and less emotion, which could only benefit the project. Agne 08:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  I would support adding this to the guideline. Where two cities in different countries are different in character, no meaningful comparison can be made. Windsor, Ontario is huge compared with Windsor, Berkshire, but what weight do you give to a thousand years of history? CarolGray 08:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  The following has recently been added to the guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation :

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title ...

CarolGray 11:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Con Disambiguation will in fact be done incoherently and inconsistently, as it is Category:Cities and towns in Moscow Oblast; this will in practice be another difficulty in reaching and linking to articles.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)\
• Pro - brings the convention in line with all other countries. DB (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Modified pro -- the United States should not be the only country without undisambiguated cities. I wouldn't be against using the comma convention worldwide -- London to London, England, for example -- but ISTR that there was a rather emotional response to that proposal. --Trovatore 08:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • comment OK, here's my "modification" -- while Asheville, NC, is an absolutely lovely town, I have to agree with Septentrionalis that it shouldn't be at just Asheville. The standard for world cities appears to be something like whether the city is internationally understood from the stand-alone name. That's a problematic standard, but if it's to be the standard for London, it should also apply to Los Angeles.
  • So what cities in the US should be at their stand-alone names? The big three are an easy call: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago. After that it gets trickier. Not Houston, I think. I'd say San Fransisco, yes, for sure, in spite of its relatively small population, because of its international recognition and representation in literature; similarly for Boston and Las Vegas. Possibly Miami and Dallas; TV shows of sufficient international success were set there that the names probably ring a bell most places. --Trovatore 08:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguate depending on ambiguity conflict, and only when needed

Use city names alone for articles whenever possible. Disambiguate with a type qualifier of (city) or (town) when the conflict is with a subject that is not a settlement. Only use the comma convention for disambiguation when city name alone conflicts with another U.S. city name.

• Pro This is consistent with the naming used by the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, including the majority of city articles of other countries. For examples, see Paris, Cork (city) and Category:Cities and towns in Moscow Oblast --Serge 23:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Con Makes the location of articles absolutely unpredictable for reader and editor alike, as the explanation given above for the three (!) different disambiguators in that category should make clear.
  • Strongly disputed. Neither readers nor editors need to "predict" where they will most likely find the article they seek. All thy need to do is to plug the name into the search box, and be directed either straight to their destination or to the disambiguation page listing all possible variants. No crystal ball needed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly disputed per Ezhiki. --Serge 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Con Offers enormous scope for confusion and simple error in naming and moving articles.
  • Strongly disputed. This is how all articles in Wikipedia are named - it works. --Serge 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Con Ignores the consistent and historic system by which the speakers of American English actually disambiguate their settlements.
  • Strongly disputed, since it uses the comma convention to disambiguate those U.S. cities with names that are shared by other U.S. cities (e.g., Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine would stay where they are, but San Francisco, California would be moved to San Francisco). --Serge 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Con Involves an arbitrary, and in many states unregulated, choice of disambiguators. In California, every municipality, however small or rural, is a "city"; in other states this is not so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly disputed. First, regardless of what the guidelines say, all naming in Wikpedia is regulated by consensus and convention. You make it sound like this would allow Portland, Oregon to be at something completely arbitrary like Portland (any bullshit). There is no basis to believe that would be the case, since, again, all articles in Wikipedia are subject to the same abuse, and there is no reason to believe that category specific guidelines reduce the incidence of absurd names and totally inappropriate vandalized names. --Serge 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Pro for the reasons I voiced in the section above this one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Largest city

The largest city by population in each state does not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.

• Con. The largest city can change, so over time this would not be much of a standard. Vegaswikian 07:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. While one city may be listed with a population of 8,000 people, other much larger cities would not be exempt from the guideline. Vegaswikian 07:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. This also is a loaded question - how about all cities? Also, deciding what is or isn't a "big city" (or "biggest city" - surface, population wise?) is an endless debate (and will no doubt ire many) - best treat settlements as a unique whole with a unique method. THEPROMENADER 13:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Con. In addition to all of the above, I should point out that sometimes direct comparison between cities in different countries is impossible, because available population data could be for different time periods.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? "State" here means one of the constituent States of the United States; and there have been counts for every American city since 1790. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I was not referring to situations when ambiguity exists only between US cities. I was referring to situations when the name of a US city conflict with the names of cities in other countries. If you have 2000 Census data for a US city and the Census data from another year for, say, an Australian city, then direct comparison would not be valid, especially when the delta is low. All in all, using population thresholds to define naming conventions is generally a bad idea in any case.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • But that's not what this proposal is about; although I agree it's a bad idea. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
        • The proposal was not really clear on this point, which is why I posted my comment in the first place. I guess the case is closed then.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Con - Per Vegaswikian. Plus in small states, the largest city may not be nearly as notable as 2nd cities in other states. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 08:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Con - As per Bethling, the largest city by population is often based on city boundaries. For example, the Miami, Orlando, and Tampa Bay metropolitan areas are much larger than Jacksonville, Florida, yet Jacksonville ranks as the largest city in the state due to its city boundaries encompassing all of Duval County, whilst Miami, located in a metropolitan area of 5 Million, the largest in the state and region, would rank lowest of all as only 300,000 of those people live within its official boundaries, thus, this method would allow for Jacksonville to have the comma removed, but Miami, Orlando, and Tampa would keep it regardless of greater importance in the state. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Con - if none of the other suggestions are applied, this would mean a city like Cheyenne would be standalone but Cleveland wouldn't. DB (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What to do next?

• Should the long discussion threads be refactored out of the list of pros and cons and moved to a section below, so the list of pros and cons for a position can be kept short enough to fit on a single screen? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Good question. I have been giving this a some thought. I was thinking of moving this topic to a subpage, then closing the discussion. I believe that there is consensus that some of the options are not worth considering and for now can be ignored. There there are a few that had very few comments. Since those lack a large number of pro comments, they too can probably be ignored for now. So what to do with the remaining ones? Some refactoring probably makes sense. We also need to continue discussion on dealing with the cross-country naming that has been raised here. I was considering a second discussion like this to list and see how the various guidelines and policies impact city naming. They keep getting thrown around without much basic discussion. I was also considering a discussion on how common name, style sheets and disambiguation affect city naming. Since I started this, I guess I need to continue. So suggestions on how to proceed? I will not move towards any kind of decision process since I don't feel that would be productive at this time. There is still too much to learn for most of us before consensus might be looked for. Vegaswikian 20:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Several other long-standing discussions have an agreed set of pros and cons, we could do the same, then at least the process can move forward, and new people can be directed to read the background. Moving the discussions out of the lists is a step towards that. A few of the pros and cons are flagged as disputed - we need to back those up with references one way or the other to show if they're legitimate. Then we can discuss the relative merits without having to rehash the arguments. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

      I am 100% for compiling the list of pros and cons, their objections, and objections to objections. Even if no consensus is reached as a result of this discussion, such list would at least prevent starting a new discussion totally from scratch, as all major ideas and concerns would already be neatly summarized.

      As for reaching the consensus per se, I am afraid we are hitting a stone wall here. The reason is not even that both sides seem to be too prone to emotional outbursts (although that certainly plays a role in muddling the discussion), but that all objections ultimately boil down to unverifiable assumptions. For example, I can vouch that the system which does not use pre-disambiguation is not confusing, is very logical and is helpful to readers. I can back that up with the fact that in all the time this system was used with the Russian inhabited localities there was no single complaint about it being confusing, and the new articles are being consistently created under the correct titles. US editors, on the other hand, can say exact same thing in regards to the United States, where pre-disambiguation is used exclusively. Yet, these empirical statements of both sides cannot be measured—just because there had been no complaints doesn't mean people did not get confused without voicing their frustrations aloud—a possibility with any naming convention! Hence, we could assume that the problem is not determining which system is better, but how the fact that two incompatible systems are being used in similar topical areas (names of settlements) affects general usability of Wikipedia as a whole. But here we hit the same wall again—no empirical evidence exists that naming US cities one way and the cities in the rest of the world the other way has negative effect on usability. Which brings us to the root of things—we should decide whether uniform naming conventions are good for Wikipedia, or whether uniformity doesn't matter. Even if it doesn't matter much now, will it still be the case when Wikipedia grows to five million articles? Ten million? Hundred million? A huge question to answer for sure, but imagine how easier things would be once it is answered once and for all—we would either be striving to standardize all naming conventions across all fields as much as possible (without sacrificing quality, of course), or we would always be stopping such standardization efforts, thus saving editors their valuable time to do other, more productive things. We would set a strategy that would guide us for a long time to come, instead of fighting pointless tactical battles every few months. Let's set a philosophy first and rules later—what do you people have to say about this?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would support "uniform naming conventions are good for Wikipedia", but I think I mean something different than you and Serge. I support Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), leading to attempting to name articles so that they do not and will not need to be moved to disambiguate in future. I also support the abolition of "primary topics" - if there is ambiguity, give every article a unique name, and move the disambig page to the primary word/phrase. Is naming an article Walla Walla, Washington predisambiguation or style, before you discover there is also Walla Walla, New South Wales and Walla Walla (tribe)? What about College Place, Washington next door? What would you name the articles Chief of the Defence Force (Australia) or Encyclopædia Britannica? Both articles have titles with an extra word to assist precision, otherwise known as "predisambiguation".

Nobody has yet downloaded the database and attempted to count the number of settlement articles, and what proportion of those a) contain a comma, b) would be ambiguous as primary topic, c) contain parentheses or d) are in the USA. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here! Here! Scott sums it up perfectly. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. Stupid question, but is it possible to download the db? With a bit of php we could certainly have some 'solid statistics' fun. Although separating 'placename' articles from the rest would be a gargantuan task... but we could do an accurate 'comma disambig vs. parantheses disambig' count for sure. THEPROMENADER 11:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of the naming conventions

(edit conflict though I see Vegas has another idea) An interesting discussion came as an offshoot of the Infobox discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Current Local City Time regarding ownership of the different country naming conventions - (i.e. American editors deciding the American convention, Canadian editors deciding the Canadian convention, UK editors deciding UK etc). The Canadian editors do make interesting points but in dealing with this decision over the last few months, it's hard not to see the centergy and interconnected nature all the articles have. Many times the affect of one article's title will have repercussion on several more articles--especially with City names where there are often similar city names in other countries. In tackling this complex issue is it best to split off into "national parties of editors" working independent or would it be best to start from scratch and try to hammer out one worldwide Wikipedia convention. Agne 21:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ouch. You are brave to bring this issue up. My basic reaction is that it is better to have a strong guideline that covers all settlement names with local editors refining the basic guideline as needed. So, if the basic guideline was comma convention, then the local editors would decide what was used before and after the comma(s). If the basic guideline was city, then the local editors would need to select a format for more descriptive names either as a style sheet or using disambiguation. Vegaswikian 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that might go just a little too far. Having one guideline that covers everything is not the answer, hense why there are conventions by country. Things vary by country; they are unique. As for the ownership thing, it's kind of an informal agreement between wikipedians that we will not make you change your convention, and you don't make us change ours. It's obvious that the US has no consensus on convention (from the above). So, the rest of us should sit back and let the US wikipedians decide what to do, as we probably would need to read a ton of background into it. We will let the locals deal with local matters, and we will deal with our own matters. Even though this is an international encyclopedia, it's divided. You can't possibly expect that editors from the US, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Germany, Russia, China, ect will all be able to find agreement on everything. Especially when we're talking about things that involve one country (such as the US discussion above). Therefore, it makes sense to stay to your own country unless you understand what is going on presently, what has in the past, and all the pages worth of discussion that have happen to lead up to now. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well we've had editors from other nationality chim in on the US convention before and I, personally, don't think that is an issue. In fact, I would expect other editors to be keenly interested in the US convention a rather large segment of the "settlement" articles are US related. As the project moves towards more consistency and respectability, the status of the US convention may very well have an effect on the other countries' articles. Agne 05:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You're perfectly free to express an opinion on the Canadian convention; nobody ever said you couldn't. What's being objected to is your seeming belief that you should be able to arbitrarily dictate and force changes to the Canadian convention without Canadian input. Bearcat 06:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Well considering that not even admins could arbitrarily dictate and force a change to any convention, I don't see where there is reason for concern or assumption of bad faith. Things are done here by consensus, always has and always will. Agne 06:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I doubt anyone even considered planning to "...arbitrarily dictate and force changes to the Canadian convention without Canadian input". That doesn't mean that the convention for naming articles about cities in Canada can't be changed by the whole community (including Canadians and Chileans and everyone else) any more than any other Wikipedia guideline. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Agne that the naming conventions belong to the entire community, not only to the editors from the country that the towns/cities happen to be in at the moment. That said, I expect most details (on any NC, not just settlements) to be sorted out by applicable wikiprojects. I attempted to raise a discussion a few months ago about commas in the names of all settlement articles (linked from the archive box), and quickly discovered that one size cannot fit all. We can attempt to create some "metaguidelines" on how to create broadly consistent guidelines for different countries and situations. Variables include big or small, federation or not, English-speaking or not, etc. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that something wacky like common sense should prevail. There's a reason why we have This article is about x, for other uses see x (disambiguation) - and it is because there are certain settlements wheich are undeniably, universally better known. It would violate common sense to have Toronto, Paris, or Moscow redirect to a disambiguation page - and if they don't redirect, why specify "Ontario," "France," or "Russia"? Because significant numbers of people might be confused?

There is a discussion, initiated by me, at Scarborough which highlights the parochialism inherent in such discussions nicely. Currently, Scarborough redirects to a settlement more than ten times smaller than Scarborough, Ontario - and English wikipedians are arguing that it is better known, although the Google results do not support that claim. But it is the case that if you ask any Canadian where Scarborough is, they'll say "Toronto," and a Brit will say, "Yorkshire." Currently, the consensus seems to be moving to a redirect to a disambig page and a renaming of the article Scarborough, North Yorkshire. This seems reasonable since the case is not clear-cut, and reflects the common sense of which I spoke - a common sense that prevails in large cities like Boston and smaller centres like Lloydminster.

I really do think that the number of cases requiring a genuine tussle are few. But since some wikipedians think Vancouver is ambiguous, perhaps I am being too sanguine about the power of parochialism. A drive along the Interstate 5 through the little town of Vancouver, WA takes fully seven minutes. London, Ontario, anyone? Fishhead64 06:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

London, Ontario indeed. That, and Paris, Ontario is not 60km away : ) THEPROMENADER 11:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Berlin used to be close by as well... Bearcat 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Other issues relating to naming conventions

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)

• Links to dab pages are easier to fix then incorrect links to articles. With a dab you know all of the incoming links need to be changed. Where there is no dab and the links go directly to an article, all of the inbound links need to be checked and a decision made if it is correct or not. In many cases, the context may not be clear from the article text. Portland, Oregon being an excellent example for anyone who is not familiar with what cities that tour finished. One list of cleanup for places appears at Disambiguation pages maintenance. The problem is not only US articles or Canadian ones. Vegaswikian 06:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am also aware of this issue, and it's the major reason I advocate the comma convention for all city/town articles. Any links direct to the article are deliberate, any to the plain name are candidates to have been made by accident. I'd support that any plain city names that are redirects and have a matching "City (disambiguation)" article should be fixed to have the disambiguation page at the primary name. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions bypass of this page

• 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 Template:2cc(edit talk links history), where 2CC through 5CC have been nominated for deletion as were their categories on CFD. // FrankB 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Settlements

• 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)

• A Possible source of information is Google search on 'human settlements', not 'settlement', though--of course--Google is not the controlling factor in what WP editors decide to do. Hmains 22:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been attempting to overview and tidy up the geography cats which involve the places where people live. There appear to be two useful ways of doing it - by region, and by size. I discovered that User:Hmains uses the term settlements to cover all sizes of communities. The dictionary definitions [10] don't appear to fit this understanding of the term - and Hmains has altered the definition to fit in with Wiki usage: [11]. However, community appears to be the term used most often to describe the places where people live, regardless of size. This is the definition of community - [12]. Hmains bases the use of settlements on this decision, which was a declined proposal to rename Settlements by region to Populated places by region. What do people think? Is settlement the appropriate term for covering human communities ranging from well established cities down to refuge camps? Is community a viable alternative? Are there other choices? I started a discussion here and here, with the above wording, and have now linked those places to here to have one place in which to discuss this. I have left this message on the talk pages of active Geography Project and Category Project members. And then on this page. I am a bit lost as the best place to discuss this issue. I don't want to delete or rename any category. And I don't want to get into a revert war. I'd like an open debate to reach sensible consensus. SilkTork 10:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 'Communities' has been previously rejected as an alternative to 'Settlements'. See the article on 'Community' and it should be clear why this term does not apply to places of human population, such as cities and towns. A community, as shown in WP and as commonly used, is something that is self-created by people having/pursuing a common interest, with common beliefs, etc. Hmains 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• I personally think that 'Human Settlments' would be the best term. See Google search for this term, not 'Settlements', and review the results to see current public use of this term. If so, an article on 'Human Settlements' should be created where the term can be fully discussed; it cannot not based on original research, I suppose. Thanks. Hmains 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the term settlement. However, I'd go with the word community if someone really prefered it. Being a geog school teacher, there are sections in our text books entitled Settlement but none entitled community. Generally in my mind, community seems to be a smaller unit. I would like to say that it was a USA v. UK lignuistic issue but actually I think you're both british so that's not very helpful. Choose one or the other and be done with it, it's not worth the grey hairs to debate it at any length. Thank you for asking my advice, just enjoy the real work in finding and adding encylopedic info. SuzanneKn 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Here's what I found:

32,600,000 for settlements 2,380,000 for human settlements 213,000,000 for communities 940,000,000 for community 104,000,000 for settlement 25,400,000 for human settlement 515,000,000 for human community 113,000,000 for human communities

To me, settlement or human settlement seems a better description of a place where people live or have settled, whereas community implies a developed town. Of course, I have no real expertise, little knowledge of Wikipedia rules other than the basic ones concerning article structure and content, and no clue why anyone wants me to help give advice. I agree with SilkTork's general plan for division of categories below human geography, but I personally favor the term "human settlement". Unfortunately, I'm still confused as to what is being debated and why. --queso man 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Having completed a little bit of research into this, it appears that the two most common terms are settlements and communities. Populated places is used mainly by atlases, and human habitats is a vague usage that will need looking into. It is possible that we could go for a vote on one or other of the two main terms - settlement or community. We could also propose putting the terms together: Human settlements and communities, thus covering all shades of meaning and avoiding conflict in the future. SilkTork 13:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Parsecboy's argument seems to be pretty good here. Settlements seems more specific; big cities would generally not be called settlements. "Human settlements and communities" hardly seems necessary when "human communities" will cover it. "Populated places" seems even better, because it covers places which have one or two people (which "human settlements" would also cover), whereas community strongly implies many people. However, "populated places" has the downfall of applying to all organisms, and "Places populated by humans" is too wordy. Human habitats just...sounds awkward and weird. I really can't think of any other good ideas (though I'm sure there some). --queso man 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  Here is a few more ideas for you: "inhabited localities", "populated localities", "populated areas", "human habitats", "populated/inhabited zones". "Inhabited localities" is my personal favorite (it is often used in the English language works on Russian geography and administrative structure). "Human-infestated zones" is another one to consider :).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What we actually mean, at least in Europe and the English-speaking countries, is municipalities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Some sources

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)

• UN stuff "Human settlements means the totality of the human community - whether city, town or village - with all the social, material, organizational, spiritual and cultural elements that sustain it."
• UN Habitat No clear definition - talks equally about habitat.
• [13] "urban centres of Latin America, Asia and Africa"

Communities:

• Answers.com "1. A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government. 2. The district or locality in which such a group lives."
• [14] "there are many types of communities. But they all have one thing in common: they’re places where people interact in some way."
• UK government
• Cambridge University

Populated places / Places:

• [15]
• U.S. Geological Survey

Human habitats:

• Wikipedia
• UN Habitat Same link as above for Settlement

SilkTork 12:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguments

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 [16]

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)

Vote

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

1. Support. I feel this combines the benefits of both terms and avoids future doubt. SilkTork 13:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Support Human settlements

1. 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)
2. Support - This is what geog students study when looking at places. "Communities" need not be put in one place. We are really operating now in the Wikipedia community and we are in lots of places. Similarly as Fishhead says there are religious communities such as the Josephite community which has schools in numerous different locations but is one community. SuzanneKn 21:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - per UN precedent (for what its worth) --Dystopos 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - the best of the alternatives currently offerred. Communities, as defined and used in WP and elsewhere, always imply a shared, voluntary goal or interest--not applicable to ordinary living places such as cities, towns, villages, etc. Hmains 03:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - With "Human" not being required as a descriptor for human settlements. (SEWilco 21:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC))
6. Support In a postmodern sense, communities can exist without spatial boundaries - MySpace communities, religious communities etc. 'Settlement' is a term which only applies in a spatial sense.--Cooper-42 17:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - Community is a broader term, this is more specific. GeoW 07:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Populated places

• 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)

  Comment - Nonetheless, only one person does a populated place make. Moreover, everywhere is populated by something - all "populated" means is that one or more of a categorizable entity can be found there. My home, for example, is populated by one human, two guinea pigs, and an unquatifiable number of dust mites. Fishhead64 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment for the same reasons you articulate your house is a "human settlement" as would be my house, and my neighbors' and everyone's house unless they are not settled there (vacation house? hotel? brothel?). None of these are perfect, but "human settlement" seems an odd thing to call New York City. Nearly all these choices also have the problem of being too inclusive: I assume that (e.g.) Iceland is a human settlement, a populated place, etc..... Carlossuarez46 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

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)

I understand your concern - but let's take into account human nature. A lot of people will visit this page just the once. Without a means to cast their vote in an orderly manner, people will leave a comment for which naming they prefer and this will have to be untangled later. I think it's OK for someone to look at the arguments and sources, do some research themselves, bring in whatever knowledge they have, make comments and suggestions, come to an opinion and leave a vote. Where it would be inappropriate is if the vote closed too early. SilkTork 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

The evidence doesn't suggest we are going to get a huge level of interest here. Already people have come and gone without casting a vote. I doubt if some of those people will be back. I have broadcast this as loud as I could, and response has been minimal. I think we take what we can get. Protracting this discussion will inevitably lead to no decision being taken. And remember that no decision taken here is eternally binding, and that the decision, while significant, is not hugely important. SilkTork 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I would deprecate moving this page, although I see the problem. There are several pages on more or less the same subject(WP:NCGN comes to mind, and there is at least one more). Let's leave this where people can find it; it has enough endemic woes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

It's a discussion on how best to categorise the places where people live. The notion is that we should have one uniform name, and that we should back up the name with an article. Currently there are scattered categories using variations such as Human habitat, Community, Settlement and Populated places. The most widespread use is Settlement. Evidence has been presented to show that Populated places is used in maps, Human habitats is not used, and there is widespread use of Human communities and Human settlements. The evidence suggests that Human communities is used slightly more widely than Human settlements, but that Human settlements has gained a foothold on Wikipedia and editors are more in favour of continuing that trend. A preference for Human communities has come from editors who feel that most readers and users of Wikipedia might not fully understand the term to mean places of all sizes as the general public understanding of the term is of a small or new community. Whichever term is settled on, there will need to be some text on the category and a supporting article to explain the usage of the term, and to prevent future challenges. I am quite happy to do that. There is only one poll. When the poll is complete, the result will go forward to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for ratification. SilkTork 20:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Use different terms in different contexts - for pity's sake! There is a reason why different terms are used in different contexts - it is because different contexts require different terms to avoid confusion. Geographers use the term 'settlement' in a very specific way. The public use the term 'settlement' in another way. Community has a range of senses, as does habitat. The terms city, village, hamlet, town, commune, metropolis and so on, are other words within this grouping. It is quite probable that English does not yet have a word suitably encompassing for our purposes, and it is bordering on creating a neologism to come up with a descriptive phrase like 'populated place' and try and shoehorn everything into that box.

The problem with the names of categories is that people think that the top category in a hierarchial category structure (note that not all category structures on Wikipedia are hierearchial) needs to be applicable to all the articles within the category. This is an unecessarily pedantic requirement. There are plenty of what I call 'spectrum' categories where this sort of handwringing can and has taken place, but in most cases no reasonable solution is ever found. For example: Category:Disasters and Category:Massacres both (if you look far enough down) contain events that are not, in the strict sense of the word, disasters or massacres, but the umbrella name applied to the top category is used to give a sense of what is inside the box, not an exact description of what is in the subcategories.

So my feeling is that rather than waste time on voting on, or discussing, names, concentrate on categorising articles and sorting out category structures and organisation. Categorise settlements in a settlements category, cities in the city category, etc, etc, and leave an explanatory note in the top category explaining what should be in there and explaining that the category name is not meant to be exact. After all, this category will only be visible in the category namespace, as it should not be used in any articles (there should be more specific categories for the articles). Carcharoth 16:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Places in Czech Republic and Slowakia should be treated similar to those in Poland

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)

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)

Comment: There is already WP:NCGN. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Talking of Danzig/Gdansk - I was reading that page the other day, and I was struck by how the parts of that article covering the history of the name make the naming dispute look, well, silly. Just treat it objectively from the point of view of a linguistic scholar and give all verifiable name variants, with the dates and history, and thus educate the reader. The only dispute that is then left is to decide on the article name, which then becomes the primary name used in the article when there is not a reason to use any of the other names. Common sense, really. Carcharoth 16:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

German/Austrian municipalities and locations

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)

German name in use

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)

I agree. Translating is definitely not a good idea. Ksnow 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Ksnow

Should not be translated. Olessi 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally against translations of proper names. This is especially true for such names given by law. For example, the correct name of the municipality is St. Wolfgang im Salzkammergut, while the article exists at Sankt Wolfgang im Salzkammergut (actually, that's how it is pronounced, but the official name given by state law uses abbrevations [17]. It's of course different if something is added by wikipedia just to distinguish. That parts can of course be translated. --Wirthi

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)

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)

Administrative division or nearby city

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)

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)Ksnow

Disambiguate with federal state where possible. Olessi 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

For Austria there should be little need to do this. Most municipalities have their official names made unique, check de:Sankt Oswald or de:Sankt Georgen. I'm not sure if this is valid for all municipalities though. If there is an ambiguity, use the federal state or the District. --Wirthi 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

German or English addition to name

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)

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)Ksnow

Current guideline is to use English state names. Olessi 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Comma or parentheses

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)

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)

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)

I prefer commas (conform guideline), but it's no big deal to me. Markussep 09:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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)