Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)

Please post discussions about Railway station names at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations).

Frequently asked questions

Why is the article on Georgia named Georgia (country), and Georgia is instead a disambiguation page?

The consensus is that there is no primary topic for the term "Georgia". Supporters of that position successfully argued that since the country is not significantly more commonly searched for than the US state of the same name, it cannot have primary topic over the US state. Opponents argued that internationally recognized countries should take precedence over sub-national units like the US state. Some opponents argued that the current setup conveys a US-centric bias. Attempts to rename the articles to a natural disambiguation title like "Republic of Georgia" or "State of Georgia" have not reached any consensus (see the list of archived discussions).

Why is the Ireland article about the island, while the article on the country is named Republic of Ireland?

The naming of Ireland articles dates back to 2002. Previously, content for both the island and country appeared on the same page,[1] but it was then decided to move content and the page history about the country to its official "Republic of Ireland" description, while keeping content about the island at "Ireland". Ever since, this issue has been heavily disputed, but there has not been any consensus to change this status quo. Previous failed proposals have included making the country the primary topic of "Ireland" instead, or using parenthetical disambiguation titles like "Ireland (island)" and "Ireland (country)". According to an ArbCom ruling in 2009, discussions relating to the naming of these Ireland articles had to occur at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. In 2023 this requirement was withdrawn so discussions can take place on the talk pages as normal.

Why do articles on populated places in the United States primarily use the [[Placename, State]] "comma convention" format? Why is there an exemption for cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring a state?

This is an issue where different rules of Wikipedia:Article titles can conflict with each other, thus consensus determines which ones to follow. Most of these articles were created by User:Rambot, a Wikipedia bot, back in 2002 based on US Census Bureau records. When creating these pages, Rambot used the "Placename, State" naming format, initially setting a consistent naming convention for these articles. Supporters of keeping the "Placename, State" format argue that this is generally the most common naming convention used by American reliable sources. Opponents argue that this format is neither precise nor concise, and results in short titles like Nashville redirecting to longer titles like Nashville, Tennessee. After a series of discussions since 2004, a compromise was reached in 2008 that established the Associated Press Stylebook exception rule for only those handful of cities listed in that style guide (the dominant US newswriting guide) as not requiring the state modifier. There has been since no consensus to do a massive page move on the other articles on US places (although individual requested move proposals have been initiated on different pages from time to time).

Need for clarity on linking major American cities

Consensus is sought as to the correct way to refer and link to major American cities such as Los Angeles and Boston. The discussion is being held at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Need for clarity on linking major American cities.

Does this page only deal with article titles ?

Does this page only deal with naming titles of articles. It seems to be the case let me know 2603:8090:C00:543E:985A:7DE9:C982:B7BC (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger - Did you mean "No"? Per 1st sentence of the Lead, and "This page in a nutshell".

What does seem to be ambiguous is whether the General Guidelines (3) is referring to use of names in article content only where the article title has the same name. Davidships (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have a policy that specifically governs Article titles (see: WP:Article titles). Our various Naming Conventions (NCs) do discuss titles, but focus more on article text. Now, most of the time, the names we use for article titles will be the same as those used in article text (and vise versa)… but not always. When there is a difference, follow WP:AT for the title and the appropriate NC for text. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wut? First sentence in this article: “This page describes conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places.“ AT contains the general policy, guidelines and naming conventions for WP article titles. Area-specific naming conventions for titles are laid out in separate pages like this one does for titles of articles about places. —-В²C ☎ 15:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. There's no full stop after "places" on my screen. It continues ".... articles on places, and for the use of place names in Wikipedia articles."

Anyway, I came here through the Help menus to find guidance on the use of common-English names of places in particular historic events in articles which are not about the places themselves (eg ship biographies, or List of shipwrecks by year articles), and hoped that I had found it. In the meantime I discovered MOS:GEO, tucked away on the main MOS page, and although most of it is just a précis of this page, there is also pertinent guidance there. May I suggest that one of the established editors of this page adds a link to MOS:GEO at an appropriate place here. Davidships (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican state capitals with the same name as their states

In 2014, apparently as a result of a discussion at Talk:Chihuahua City#Requested move, it was established that Mexican state capitals with the same name as their states be named ____ City, for example Aguascalientes City, Campeche City, and so on. However, I believe these article titles are neologisms that are not used outside of Wikipedia and the articles would be better located at ____ (city).

In the RM, comparisons were made to cases like New York City and Mexico City, but these articles are fundamentally unlike those examples. They are unlike cases like Mexico City or Guatemala City because in those cases the "City" is part of their official names in Spanish (as "Ciudad de ____"). They are also unlike cases like New York City or Panama City, because though those cities do not have City in their official names, they are widely known by those names in English. I could find no widespread use of the name "Chihuahua City" in English. The city is widely called simply Chihuahua in both English and Spanish, therefore the word city should be the disambiguator instead of part of the title. This would be in keeping with similar situations in other countries, for example Cork (city) and Chiba (city).

As the consensus from the RM has been listed on this page, I think it's better to try to overturn it here and not on the talk page when so many articles are affected. Pinguinn 🐧 14:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objections to using "....(city)", where city isn't a part of the official name. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinguinn, I agree that those titles are neologisms and don't reflect real-world usage. There's a current RM at Veracruz (city), if anyone feels like weighing in. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinguinn, I agree with what you said above, and Moscow Mule, I've weighed in at that RM and generally agree we should be using parenthetic disambiguation rather than descriptive titles, uncommon names, or outright neologisms, for titles of articles about subjects that have common but ambiguous names. On that note, if you (or anyone else) could weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Clarifying_"also_commonly_called"_but_not_"obscure"_in_NATURAL, that would be appreciated. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 17:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, it doesn't seem that Veracruz (city) is going anywhere. Is there an appetite to align the rest of them with that article (and Puebla (city))? If so, how would we go about it? A multiple-but-linked RM? Moscow Mule (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Though I’m not sure what you mean by “multiple-but-linked” RM. It would be a normal multi-page move request. See WP:RMPM. —В²C ☎ 23:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

В²C: WP:RMPM -- great. Exactly what I meant, despite being unaware of the existence of such a thing. Moscow Mule (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should compile a draft here? A comprehensive list of current titles and the corresponding proposed new one for each? --В²C ☎ 20:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was preparing a move request as you replied: listing placed on Talk:Aguascalientes_City#Requested_move_29_January_2023. The affected articles would be

Aguascalientes City → Aguascalientes (city)
Campeche City → Campeche (city)
Chihuahua City → Chihuahua (city)
Colima City → Colima (city)
Durango City → Durango (city)
Guanajuato City → Guanajuato (city)
Oaxaca City → Oaxaca (city)
Querétaro City → Querétaro (city)
San Luis Potosí City → San Luis Potosí (city)
Tlaxcala City → Tlaxcala (city)
Zacatecas City → Zacatecas (city)

Eleven of them. I think that's the lot. It can be edited to include any I might have missed, I suppose. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian placenames

It seems bizarre that 20 years in we have no WP:MOS-Albania or MOS:Albania, WP:Albania is just the wikiproject with no style guide, and there are 4 discussions of Albany, New York, but none of Albania or its placenames in the archives here... but here we are.

Every single Albanian placename has an indefinite (any given Paris) and definite nominative form (the specific Paris). You might think all placenames are necessarily definite all the time but somehow they aren't and—this being the Balkans—somehow it's political. The subject has bizarrely never come up in the archive for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albania. This comment thread on Tirana (def. with Tiranë indef.) seems to be the only thorough discussion anywhere on the project... and it comes to no conclusions except to note that it seems like definite forms are more common for female Albanian names (=normal Latiny -a endings) versus indefinite forms being more common for male Albanian names (=leaving off the is and us and whatnot from the roots). There's also an accusation of racism and colonialism for preferring one of Albanian's own native grammatical structures... the correct one.

This UK guide notes that Communist Albania preferred definite names (since... y'know... they refer to a single specific place) and therefore free Albania has generally preferred to use indefinite names... (since... uh...) except in certain cases where it was just too weird. The old US gazetteers deferred to the Brits in the 1950s; presumably they wouldn't now but aren't easily accessible via Google Books. The basic CIA info seems to be random.

This leads to the exact same name for the exact same place being given in both forms: Himara for the Himara/Himarë District and Himarë for the Himara/Himarë Administrative Unit. No, agreement with the words for "district" and "unit" have nothing to do with the difference. It's exactly the same name, just presented inconsistently. Can we come to an agreement to always prefer the definite forms? Always prefer the indefinite forms except in truly egregious edge cases (Tirana isn't becoming Tiranë anytime soon)? or at least throw up a guide explaining what's going on here? — LlywelynII 07:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes any difference, OpenAI thinks

For proper names of cities in Albanian, the definite form is generally used. This means that the noun is preceded by the definite article "the," which is "i" in Albanian. For example, the city of Tirana would be referred to as "the Tirana" in Albanian...

Then again, it also thinks all pretty women are models and all ugly women are scientists, so it's obviously working from a techbro-heavy corpus... — LlywelynII 07:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to at least add a section about Albanian place names to this WP:NCGN. And you're right that the Himarë/Himara issue should be corrected (my proposal: move Himara (the article about the larger municipality/region) to Himarë, and leave the town at Himarë (town)). The grammatical concept of definiteness in Albanian is very different from the ones in English and French, so examples like "a Paris" and "the Paris" cannot convey the same meaning as they would have in Albanian. Both the definite and indefinite forms are used in Albanian in different contexts. It makes sense to choose one of them to be consistent. As far as I know, the only place with a widely used name in English in the definite form is Tirana, all others are commonly written in the indefinite form in English, e.g. in Encyclopaedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia (check Vlorë, Shkodër, Gjirokastër, Durrës, Berat). So that could be the naming convention for Albanian: use the indefinite form unless there is a more widely used other name in English (e.g. Tirana). Markussep ^Talk 10:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have though this through. Feel free to start MOS:Albania, even if there is nothing more to it that what you have posted here. This is my first time hearing of such a grammatical issue, but since you proposed it and described your reasoning, I support your idea of preferring definite forms. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Markussep: 1) Right, but our current articles on definiteness and on the Albanian language don't currently explain how that works. They should and we need at least some explanation of what Albanian grammatical-a-Paris is even trying to say, because it doesn't make any sense. 2) I'm 100% certain that the main ENGLISH form is always going to be -a before -ë in English sources. Findings like this will happen every time for feminine placenames. There needs to be an actual source and criterion for why we're going to ignore that. — LlywelynII 01:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Markussep is right, a brief note on the difference and the history at this page would be helpful, and that can be expanded and split as needed later. I don’t think we should be prescribing either form at this point, especially as it could get political. Also, LlywelynII, I think you have a typo around the Him / Ham of Himarë (etc) in your comment. — HTGS (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to Llywelyn that you re-write your initial request, keep it focused and to the point, and cut out all the superfluous language. My guess is a lot of editors will get half way through what is currently their and switch off. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, fixed. — LlywelynII 01:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the articles about definiteness in the Albanian language should be expanded, but that's not in the scope of this naming discussion. "Vlorë" does not mean "a Vlorë" (that would be "një Vlorë"), it's a form used in some grammatical contexts, and "Vlora" is used in other grammatical contexts, for instance after some prepositions. There's nothing political about that. This discussion is about widely accepted names in English usage. Reliable sources like encyclopedias and dictionaries overwhelmingly use the indefinite form, see Encyclopaedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Collins and also this UNDP report. It's also the advice of the PCGN LlywelynII quoted above. The CIA Factbook map has all indefinite forms (e.g. Vlorë, Korçë), except Tirana. So my proposal is to add a section about Albania to WP:NCGN, saying:

"When a place does not have a widely accepted name (e.g. "Tirana"), use the indefinite Albanian name (e.g. "Vlorë", "Durrës")."

Markussep ^Talk 11:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly good. I think the ngram suggests that any given feminine placename will have "WIAN" using the -a form when people care, but presumably they won't much? Similarly, the articles seem to be at definite forms on the Albanian Wikipedia itself (e.g. Himara). For whatever reason, though, yeah, that's a pretty authoritative list you've got there, from US and UK dictionary/style guides plus US and UK gov't plus an agency under the UN aegis. The only things I could imagine gumming up the works at this point would be if the NY Times, Chicago Manual of Style, or the UN itself came out strongly on the other side. Seems unlikely. So, a new Albanian section just above the Belarus one to cover this?

Two minor points: WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISH is overwhelming anywhere and doesn't need to be excerpted here. I think we're better off just saying Apart from Tirana, use... and anything that actually turns out to be a major exception will announce itself quickly enough and be worked out on the merits. Tirana isn't even really the way it is because of an exception within Albanian grammar; it's just an English or Latin name like Albania, plus it's too major to be hard to spell.

Second, no, the whole idea of "definiteness" here is too weird and should be noted at Albania and Tirana at minimum. "It's different from what definiteness usually means" and "there's some grammar" needs to be explained better. It's part of the scope here since it's been so badly handled up to now. We're doing the geographic names, but this will come up in every single article (e.g. administrative divisions of Albania) where there's a need to provide the Albanian form of any noun. It will also impact every one of these articles because it's not as simple as "the indefinite form is the English name". They both exist; both need to be mentioned; and that'll involve some explanation or (better) discussion to link to about what it means. — LlywelynII 16:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could rephrase it to:

"For places in Albania, use the indefinite Albanian name (e.g. "Vlorë", "Durrës")."

I'm omitting the Tirana case now, since indeed widely accepted names are already in the general guideline. I'll post this version at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albania, for comments. The encyclopedic definition of definiteness is really not in the scope of a naming convention. Maybe someone who is knowledgeable about Albanian grammar can help here. Markussep ^Talk 20:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix, Arizona or Phoenix?

A discussion at Talk:Phoenix, Arizona#Requested move 1 February 2023 may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment (RfC) about WP:USPLACE

Should WP:USPLACE (specifically regarding major cities) be based on the AP Stylebook?

WP:USPLACE cites the AP Stylebook for the "comma convention" ("Placename, State") for populated places in the USA, only excluding 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, D.C..

Many large cities such as the following would usually use the short form name per WP:PRITOP, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISE.

Some clearly fulfil WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and in many cases are redirected from the short form (for example Orlando redirects to Orlando, Florida), but cannot have the title be solely the city name.

Nere's a quick mock-up of what I'd like it to look like.

Where populated places in the United States qualify for Wikipedia:Primary topic, the title of the article should be the name of the place. Where articles on populated places require disambiguation, the comma convention should be used (typically titled "Placename, State") when located within a state (or "Placename, Territory" in US territories). A placename that needs additional disambiguation should include its county or parish (e.g., Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina, and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina). If more than one place within the same county has the same name, specify the type of local government unit in parentheses before the comma, for any article that is not the primary topic (e.g., Callicoon (CDP), New York, and Callicoon (town), New York, but not "Callicoon, New York (CDP)"). A small number of unincorporated communities bear two states' names due to their peculiar locations across state lines (e.g., Glenrio, New Mexico and Texas).

Articles on US cities should never be titled "City, Country" (e.g., "Detroit, United States") or "City, State, Country" (e.g., "Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.") because that is contrary to general American usage. Postal abbreviations (such as CA or Calif. for California) are never used in article titles. (For postal abbreviations in articles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations § Special considerations).

Thanks, --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 17:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the FAQ (Freguently asked questions) at the top of this page? Proposals to change this guideline have been frequently offered and frequently rejected. Donald Albury 17:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I plainly do not agree with any arguments made. --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 17:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus supporting the currently wording of the guideline has survived many challenges, and is unlikely to change anytime soon. I do not agree with some of the specific guidelines for article titles, but Wikipedia works on consensus, and I am willing to live with that. Donald Albury 18:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO all places should in the form of "place, sovereign state". GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, unless they fulfil WP:PT1 --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 17:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Portland, Phoenix, (already on the AP Stylebook) Columbus, Memphis and San Jose go to DAB pages so unless there's a consensus to make them primary this is moot for those ones. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not use such a system in the case of German or Canadian cities. Why should it be used in the case of the United States? Wikipedia doesn't have to follow AP styleguide only. Internet media deffer from the printed ones. Everyone can find out the state in the first sentece of the article. Martin Tauchman (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that I don't understand what change is really under discussion here. Could someone articulate what content would be added/changed/removed to/in/from the guideline? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done! --- Tbf69 P • T 16:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, I'd strongly oppose Portland, Columbus, Memphis, and Phoenix, but would be open to Orlando and Louisville. I don't see the point of a broad-sweeping RfC, and this idea has been thoroughly rejected routinely in the past. Curbon7 (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be handled case-by-case, instead of the AP stylebook --- Tbf69 P • T 08:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, in case I wasn't clear, I am in favor of maintaining the status quo, besides a few limited exceptions determined by local consensus. Curbon7 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the state should be included in the title, but only when disambiguation is required. --- Tbf69 P • T 18:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation will be required in almost every single case not already on the AP stylebook, except a small handful, like Orlando and Sacramento. Instead of blowing up the whole system, why not seek a local consensus at those articles instead. Curbon7 (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7 I've tried. I started RMs at Portland, Oregon and Louisville, Kentucky. And they were unanimously rejected, per WP:USPLACE. Also, I've changed the list of cities in the proposal, what do you think? --- Tbf69 P • T 18:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you tried getting local consensus for this change and the proposal was soundly rejected, what made you think that there was going to be support for changing it centrally? At some point you've just got to recognize that a consensus exists that you disagree with and move on. VQuakr (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you provide a better example of exactly what would be changed in WP:USPLACE so we have a better idea of what we are discussing? Is it just dropping the AP Stylebook reference in the "Major cities" subsection (so what would that subsection look like then, exactly/roughly)? Off-loading the decision of which styles are eligible (so not required to be) to be a bare city to a reliable, independent source seems like a reasonable decision, over all. Skynxnex (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a draft of what I'd like it to look like. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. I don't really see any advantage for changing it at this point. I think for many of the floated cities that would get just bare "City name" titles should not have just a barename since they are commonly referred to by "City, State" when looking at the totality of the US/world. So I think that following the AP styleguide, in general, does not violate WP:COMMONNAME. And I think, in general, the names are as WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE as possible without being confusing. As for WP:CONSISTENT, I'd personally support moving basically all US cities to "City, State" and moving almost all disambiguation pages to the base "City" name. To use Jacksonville as an example, I don't think there's much advantage to our readers to have Jacksonville be a redirect instead of the disambiguation page, even though the Florida one is by far the biggest. I know this latter half is a minority opinion but it's also weakly held. I'll revisit and re-evaluate my vote later. Skynxnex (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support not just for this, but for all unambiguous U.S. cities. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISE and more have been ignored for long enough. Red Slash 16:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the proposed change. We have had this discussion many, many times, although not so much in recent years, since the accepted format seems to have become largely accepted. As per previous discussions, there are strong reasons for American city article titles to include the state, even if the city name is unique. And yes, we know that city-name-alone is the situation for most countries, where the name of the state/province/other division is not so important. But in the U.S. the state is almost added to the city, both in written sources at the first use, and in casual conversation ("I am from Louisville, Kentucky"). U.S. city names should not be handled on a "case-by-case basis" as proposed here; that would just lead to endless arguments on individual pages. [[City, State]] is the long-accepted format for U.S. cities. Our only exceptions - the cities named in the AP stylebook - are based in true Wikipedia style on a Reliable Source. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That goes against WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISE and more policies. Why can't we just use the same principles we use in the rest of the world, in the USA? --- Tbf69 P • T 17:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the role of the states in the United States is different from the role of geographic divisions such as states, provinces, etc. in other countries. For one thing, in the U.S. the states pre-dated the country (note its name, the United States of America). Under our constitution, states have an outsize role in governing the country, in passing laws, in setting taxes, even in national elections. For another thing, the U.S. is such a vast country that a person gets no idea of where a city is, just from its name; that’s why we almost always add the state when mentioning a city, even a large or well-known city. We DO know where the states are! We also know that city names are often used in more than one state. That is why we usually add the state when mentioning a city. If I say “I am from Nashville” or “I am going to San Jose”, the other person will commonly ask “Nashville, Tennessee?” or “San Jose, California?” for clarification.

The bottom line here: Different countries are allowed to use different systems and different formats at Wikipedia. In each article here, we use the date format, the standards of measurement, the spellings, etc. that are accepted in the related country. I don’t try to insist that you say "honor" instead of "honour" in an article with a British connection; you don’t try to force me to say "25 February 2023" instead of "February 25, 2023" in an America-based article. Place name conventions should be no different. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. One other thing: The current convention is based on a Reliable Source. What you suggest - a case-by-case choice of title - would in effect replace that Reliable Source with Original Research. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We already make WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT determinations for every single municipality around the globe, U.S. included. It would be seamless to switch all the current primaryredirects to the article titles. I agree with MelanieN that City, State is a ubiquitous convention. But it's also true of cities on the AP list: Someone says "I'm from Seattle, Washington" just as often as someone says "I'm from Nashville, Tennessee" - so why do we treat them differently? The AP is not the exclusive source for how to present U.S. city names - there are many other reliable sources that say you can omit the state for different cities than are on the AP list. Can you think of another situation where we restrict ourselves to a single reliable source when there are dozens of others we could consult? Finally, if we make this change, there will be zero confusion or outcry from readers or editors, whereas keeping USPLACE will guarantee this discussion every couple of years, because it's out of step with the rest of WP and editors are naturally troubled by it. Dohn joe (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dohn joe. Regarding “Finally, if we make this change, there will be zero confusion or outcry from readers or editors, “, you are so, so wrong about that. For an example of how much outcry to expect if we change this, see this summary. This used to be a constant source of argument, always concluding to keep the US Place system. And then the arguments pretty much went away for four or five years. I'm sorry to see it revived. If we make this change, especially the “case by case basis” recommendation, there will be constant battles everywhere. IMO the only reason you aren’t seeing more people here defending US Place is that everyone thought the issue had been settled, and stopped watching this page. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MelanieN. I've changed the list of cities on this proposal. Basically all of them would use the short form name per WP:PRITOP, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISE. So, I don't think there'd be many "battles" about those ones. Please can you provide some examples of cities where you think "battles would take place? --- Tbf69 P • T 19:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer removing the exceptions and naming all US places "City, State". Also support moving cities in other countries to "City, Sovereign state". Except Canada, Australia, and UK, where province, state, and constituent country would be used instead of sovereign state.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 04:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be OK with removing the AP-based exception and adding "state" to all cities, if that is people's preference. It would be seamless, because a city name like [[Chicago]] would simply redirect to [[Chicago, Illinois]]. But I disagree with changing it for other countries. We already accept different conventions for different countries on things like spelling, date format, units of measure, etc. We should accept (and have accepted for years) local conventions on place name style too. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AP-based exception makes little sense. I think consistency is important and I don't think most readers are aware of redirects, especially if the redirect is closely linked to the search. - Enos733 (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Readers don't need to be aware of redirects for them to do their thing in helping people get to the right place. Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case my position is not clear from the comments I left at the top of this section, I am opposed to any change in the current form of WP:USPLACE. - Donald Albury 16:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Do you think that WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISE are all wrong? --- Tbf69 P • T 16:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say that those are wrong? Do not be putting words in my mouth. Donald Albury 20:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USPLACE, in it's current form, violates all those principles. --- Tbf69 P • T 22:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It looks like we've found ourselves in a very comfortable position which is (a) supported by a top-quality style guide and (b) a huge time-saver for the community. When it comes to guidelines, that's about as good as it gets. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That violates at least 4 other WP principles. And leads to janky situations where a WP:PRITOP is redirected to an unnecessarily long title (Orlando -> Orlando, Florida, Nashville -> Nashville, Tennessee). --- Tbf69 P • T 22:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it gels well with the other criteria. It maximizes balance between consistency and naturalness and is equally precise. Tbf69, please don't feel you need to respond to every opposing comment, especially if it means you're repeating yourself. See WP:BLUDGEON. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more like the redirect is in error. I would expect Orlando to point to the given name. Or possibly the Shakespearian character. Personall, I find this more evidence that the concept of primary target is flawed. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 03:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose – This long-stable compromise convention prevents untold hours of argument over such things as whether either Portland, Maine, or Portland, Oregon, should be primary. There is no harm that comes from having Orlando redirect to Orlando, Florida. I'm not a fan of the arbitrary following of the AP, but that's where we are. If we don't like it, a less disruptive and generally better fix would be to remove those 30 exceptions. I'd support that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question can equally be asked "Should Portland redirect to Portland, Maine?" as "Should the article about Portland, Maine be at Portland?", and if this proposal passes then the answer to the latter should be identical with what now is the answer to the former. Animal lover |666| 14:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon We shouldn't just accept the status quo. Obviously Portland is a bit of an odd case, but surely Orlando and Nashville are universally agreeable cases --- Tbf69 P • T 17:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying "just accept the status quo", but rather accept it if you don't want to fix it in the direction that I proposed, opposite to the direction you proposed. A stable compromise is better than make it worse (worse in the opinion of many of the contributors here, that is). Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Any city (or town, village, or any other type of populated place) where the article titled "city" is a redirect to "city, country/state/region/other bigger location", the page should be at "city". We have Ramla, not Ramla, Israel. We do have Lapid, Israel, but Lapid isn't a redirect to it. Same should work for all other cities in the world, including the US. Animal lover |666| 14:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Complaint to the OP: You have RfC linked in the heading, but apparently did not read it yourself. You seem to have overlooked both WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCBRIEF (also shortcutted as WP:RFCNEUTRAL). I do not see where you discussed with others the best way to formulate the RfC question. And your "statement" is neither brief nor neutral. An RfC begun this way is faulty, as it's open to too much arguing about fairness. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose whatever half-baked, unintelligible and ever-fluctuating proposal is being made here. @Tbf69, your reaction to my complaint about a lack of brevity was to lengthen the RfC statement. Why? Because, you said, "It's my RfC, and I can change it if I want", which, in fact, is untrue. Your edit summary further said, "I originally wrote the cities in a rush", which is one reason for WP:RFCBEFORE which I linked to above (and which you apparently continue to ignore). On top of all that, your edit summary concludes with an exhortation to "please see WP:RFC", which I guess you have not done yourself.

Your argumentation, packed into what should be a neutral statement, is still muddled, even though you have removed some obvious non-primary topics (San Jose, Phoenix, etc.), since you simultaneously added others (Mesa, Raleigh, etc.). On top of which: changing the RfC after more than two weeks of active discussion is really disrespectful to all participants. All editors should boycott this mess, you should self-close the RfC, and then, if you still feel the need, work up a proper, well-formed RfC (not "in a rush") as per WP:RfC (read it yourself first) and start again. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 13:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I have not commented in this RFC because I can see that it is badly worded enough to make any outcome impossible to implement. @Tbf69, please follow JohnFromPinckney's advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I honestly wouldn't even mind if some of the articles that currently don't have state names instead included them. I think this convention could be extended to be other countries even because I find it funny when tiny little villages don't include any other specificity in the title. Your list of those that would become case-by-case is pretty silly when at least five obviously need the disambiguation. Reywas92^Talk 14:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 You misunderstand WP:PRITOP. --- Tbf69 P • T 16:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. We include the state to be precise and to follow general conventions of how US places are used by folks like the AP, not merely to disambiguate what is or is not a primary topic. Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I find it funny when tiny little villages don't include any other specificity in the title". If the village is WP:PRITOP, then the title should be the name of the village. --- Tbf69 P • T 17:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbf69: only if just the name of the village is sufficiently recognizable. WP:PRITOP is related to precision, which is only one of our five WP:CRITERIA for article titles. VQuakr (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to my comments. I continue to strongly feel that the United States should keep its standard format of "City, State" despite how it is done in other parts of the world. But in response to comments here and elsewhere, I would be OK with using "City, State" for ALL U.S. cities, and dropping the AP list of exceptions (which as many have noted is pretty arbitrary). If someone types in "Chicago" or "Nashville", they would automatically end up at the article "Chicago, Illinois" or "Nashville, Tennessee" without even noticing that they have been redirected. This would eliminate the arguments over the AP list (why not Orlando? why not Sacramento?) and treat all U.S. cities the same; the stand-alone name would redirect to "City, State" as it does now (or to a DAB page if the name is not unique). -- MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I notice that the same suggestion - dump the AP exception and use “City, State” for all cities - has been endorsed above by User:Khajidha and User:Dicklyon and partially endorsed by User:Dohn joe. Would anyone else feel OK with dropping the AP and titling ALL uniquely named cities as “City, State”? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be opposed. I think New York City beats New York, New York on all the criteria except consistency, assuming we adopted this proposal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, "New York City" is the title of our article, but it is not what the AP guidelines recommend. They recommend just "New York". So that is one case where we do not follow the AP, and it could probably remain "New York City" regardless of whether we keep or dump the AP. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well let's dump the AP then. Or how do we all feel about New York (city)? --- Tbf69 P • T 18:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would actually be longer than the current name of the NYC article, which benefits from being naturally disambiguated already. Also, the current title of the NYC article was decided through several huge RfCs, so I don't think that move will be happening any time soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gooooood point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with universal City, State as my second choice, and far preferable to the status quo. Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—the status quo is a carefully crafted compromise that has been in place for many years and works. It is also based on a reliable source for style guidance, so it has some imprimatur that a case-by-case discussion wouldn't have. Digging into the specifics: Portland, Phoenix, Columbus, Memphis, and San Jose would not be retitled if this RfC closed in favor of the proposal. There is discussion above that Orlando may not be the primary topic, and if so, that's another to add to the list that would be unaffected if this proposal passes.
As MelanieN says, I would also be in favor of possibly jettisoning the list and placing all US cities at "City, State" for consistency and clarity reasons. We bumped into something similar a few years ago when M-185 (Michigan highway) was moved to "M-185" when that article was the TFA. Because the "M#" or "M-#" convention is used in many places of the world, even though none of them use 185, it's still the convention to use the parenthetical for Michigan for clarity. Imzadi 1979 → 18:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the proposal above was changed significantly on 28 February 2023 after discussion and !voting ran for 16 days. Please take that into consideration when evaluating all comments and !votes made here before this comment. Imzadi 1979 → 19:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me what the change accomplished. @Tbf69: Was the change you made today simply to make a longer list of cities that could be listed by city name alone? But wasn't your original proposal to list ALL uniquely named cities by name alone? Or did you mean to propose deciding individual cities on a case-by-case basis? It has become very unclear what proposal we are being asked to discuss. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the list of cities only serves to shoot your argument in the foot even more. You have included one's that clearly should not be like Charlotte, Raleigh, Mesa (I didn't even have to cheekily pipe this one), and Arlington. Curbon7 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can no longer take seriously any proposal that implies that the primary topic for mesa is the city and not the geological feature--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read the current proposal, is that is a list of cities that are widely known as "City", but that some would require disambiguation regardless of the convention. Not artfully put, perhaps, but that's how I took it. Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible oppose to all broad changes, per my arguments above. Any changes should be made in the form of local RfCs, likely almost all of which will likely be in favor of the status quo. Curbon7 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you opposed? --- Tbf69 P • T 11:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbf69: Two of us now have asked you to stop challenging everyone who disagrees with you. You are still doing it. In this case, the answer to "Why are you opposed?" is as he says: "per my arguments above." -- MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support suggested changes to naming conventions. It has been discussed before but I agree that any populated place in the US that does not requrie disambiguation should just be at the the village/town/city name. This is how it is done for every other country. There no clear rationale why the US should be different. The state will always be in the first sentence of the lede anyway. ShakyIsles (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I thought the rationale was pretty clear; multiple points of rationale:
- This long-standing compromise has been very successful in preventing a large number of arguments/discussions about primary-topic status and ambiguity of thousands of city and town names.
- The "city, state" convention works very well in support of recognizability, one the main naming criteria. If omitting the state is more common, that doesn't make it more recognizable.
- Having a simple consistent convention such as this has proven successful in other titleing areas, too, and is explicitly discussed in WP:PRECISE ("Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. ... Bothell is already precise enough to be unambiguous, but we instead use Bothell, Washington (see Geographic names), seeking a more natural and recognizable title which is also consistent with most other articles on American cities.")
- The AP list of 30 exceptions was settled on long ago, and it's hard to imagine any particular modification of that list gain consensus.
So, yes, it's been discussed before, and no it's unlikely that we'll ever see a consensus to move to a different convention. Dicklyon (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking for the "rationale why the US should be any different" from any other country? What you've written above applies to other countries. Australia and India have states, China has provinces, the UK has counties. For these countries (well for every country except the US) we only put states/provencies in page names when disambiguation is required. Why should wikipedia treat the US differently? ShakyIsles (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think the US is different in that its cities really are very commonly referred to as "city, state", and its states really are pretty recognizable to most of the world's English-speaking population, much more so than the state names of other countries. Anyway, I for one would be happy to see such a convention in other countries where cities are so referred to (I'm not sure which those are though). Dicklyon (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The proposed expansion to every U.S. city that could clear PRIMARYTOPIC is far too much. I would support a limited expansion with a clearer criteria (as the AP Stylebook's is out-of-date, but including every last town with a unique name is extreme) that focuses mostly on large cities that are the center of their respective metropolitan areas and are broadly recognizable without their state to someone non-local. Sounder Bruce 01:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One of the main reasons why the U.S. uses the comma convention, both in practice and on Wikipedia, is the sheer number of U.S. places that aren't clearly a primary topic. The U.S. is unlike most countries in how common duplicate city names in different states are, especially for smaller cities and towns, and even a lot of the more unique city names share a name with a person or geographic feature. I'd be open to using a different list than the AP Stylebook to determine which cities are large enough not to need the comma convention, but the OP hasn't provided one. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCatalyst31, I don’t think your desire is at odds with the proposer’s. The comma convention would still be the mode of disambiguation, and those places that need disambiguation (those that are not primary) would be simply left in place; if this is the majority then there would be no issue, but it would mean we wouldn’t have to maintain a semi-arbitrary list here. — HTGS (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't clear, my desire is to continue using the comma convention for places that are still primary, simply because there are so many places that are either non-primary or only debatably primary that convention in the US is to include the state name for all but the largest cities. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCatalyst31 I kind of get your point, but surely you could say that we already know that some are primary, if the short form redirect to a title with the comma convention? Like Dayton or Spokane etc. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — how many times over how many years must we discuss this? Even for common primary topic names, the title should be qualified by state, no AP stylebook exceptions. Redirects are cheap.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support: The current standard can be summarized as “disambiguate first, except in a handful of carve-out cases”. This goes against the typical application of the MOS and Wikipedia standards as they are usually applied. It is absurd that some people are oppositional for essentially the reason that “we expect a lot of disagreement” or “we don’t want to have to deal with it”. This is, plain and simple, against the spirit of the project; if you want to appeal to an FAQ that is only explanatory on a descriptive level, then don’t participate.
For the record, I would be fine with a default of “disambiguate, except where article-level discussion prefers not to disambiguate” (though I would not prefer this solution); and I would support a standard that avoids disambiguation by default, but also allows that some places are better named City, State by allusion to common name. — HTGS (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Recommend following how it's done for British & Canadian cities. GoodDay (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. A lot of place names in the US are repeated, but I'd like to see some evidence that those that aren't primary topics form a major share of US place page views. However, I disagree that all of the place names listed at the top are primary topics. Daß Wölf 20:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per much of the above. SounderBruce's alternative might be workable, but people come here to try to change this guidance again and again and it always fails to gain traction. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer USA community articles to be titled "City, State" and links to them to make it more obvious, because english readers outside of America as well as geographically-ignorant Americans often aren't aware what state some cities are located, except for a fraction of largest cities such as New York and Los Angeles. I am willing to bet money that numerous people in 2023 wouldn't get a 100% on a test asking them to fill in the blank for state names of the 50 largest cities in United States. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbmeirow Umm, that's a bit racist to Americans. Anyway, the state the city is located in will literally be in the first line of the article, so who cares about having it in the title? You could argue that we should move Caen to Caen, Normandy, under your faulty logic. 157.157.164.28 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This will create a lot more problems than it solves. The current guideline is just fine and meets WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISE, since there are so many names that are repeated across several states (and even the same state). Even places like Orlando, Florida, would decidedly be better off at their current title, since names like Orlando may still be confused with something else, e.g. Orlando (given name). Finally, like Sbmeirow and several other editors above have said, the vast majority of readers won't recognize where a town/city/village/locality is located unless the state name is also given in the title. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support I see no reason why a city which is clearly identifiable by it's short name, such as Dayton, should need the state identifier. The current policy violates WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. CityUrbanism (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should probably be closed with no action as it's a blocked user and the nominator also changed the original RFC. – The Grid (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Grid No point. The RfC has already got quite a lot of support, and there's no policy that states an RfC has to be closed if the nominator is indeffed. 157.157.164.28 (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. USPLACE works well as is. I see no need to change it and the endless debates that would result from changing it about which cities are primary enough to drop the state. City, State is the most common way to refer to localities in the U.S., even the ones listed above that are being used as examples of ones to be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Relying on a style guide is the best possible option. O.N.R. ^(talk) 21:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Old Naval Rooftops Why though? The style guide is outdated anyway. It's not WP:CONSISTENT because other countries use the method the proposer has stated. 157.157.164.28 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support per nom.194.105.229.28 (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - When the City name is clearly the Primary topic and already redirects to the City name, state name article, I think the shorter city name would be better because its more concise. But there may not be that many examples where this is applicable. Eopsid (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedure close this RfC as the user changed the original RfC and they are infinitely blocked. – The Grid (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Grid Who cares? There's no policy that says we have to close an RfC if the proposer is indef blocked. Anyway, the thing they changed it to has been proposed before, so it's not a big deal. 157.157.164.28 (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I care and it's odd for a fresh IP to state anything of the sort. – The Grid (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is far too long

Can't we just standardise on WP:COMMONNAME (or if that doesn't exist, local name) for everything, with disambiguators (that should be the country name in the first instance) used if needed? I know I've never read through this whole page, and I doubt that many others have. I was motivated to post this here by the realisation that we have guidance for naming of neighbourhoods in New York City. Should we really be creating rules for such specific things? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simplify a MOS page?

Heretic! Burn the witch! Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the RfC above. --- Tbf69 P • T 16:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COMMONNAME is one strategy in support of recognizability, one of the 5 naming criteria. Let's not throw out the others. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about WP:UKPlace and ceremonial counties

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

History and geography
Politics, government, and law

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should articles about UK places feature ceremonial counties as prominently as they currently do, e.g. for disambiguation purposes? A.D.Hope (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that Wikipedia has got ahead of itself a little with the English ceremonial counties. The ceremonial counties are simply areas to which the lord-lieutenants are appointed (as reflected in their full name, 'counties for the purposes of the lieutenancies'), which is quite a minor ceremonial function. On articles about English places, however, they are often featured prominently in the lead and infobox and used for disambiguation.

Anyone who has edited anything to do with English local government will know that it's complicated. There are multiple types of local authority and county and they do change sometimes, which can quickly become confusing. In this context I can understand the appeal of using the relatively stable ceremonial counties, but I don't think the practice is helpful as it inflates their importance. Kendal may still be ceremonially in Cumbria, for example, but Westmorland and Furness is now the more important body as it's the local government area.

Instead, I believe it would be better to follow the example of many articles on Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish places and use only the current administrative area and historic county in the lead, using the former for disambiguation. Some examples:

Melrose is a small town and civil parish in the Scottish Borders, historically in Roxburghshire.
Flint is a town and community in Flintshire, Wales, lying on the estuary of the River Dee.
Ballymena is a town in County Antrim, Northern Ireland.

It's worth noting that both Melrose and Flint use their current administrative areas for disambiguation in the article title, not their Scottish lieutenancy area or Welsh preserved county respectively.

As I say, I can understand how the ceremonial counties have taken on this inflated status on Wikipedia. They don't change much, editors have become used to them, all that sort of thing. Consider, though, if it would be logical to use the shrieval counties in the same way as we currently use the ceremonial ones. They're very similar, but it seems obvious to me that the shrieval counties serve a minor ceremonial function and would not be appropriate to use as a primary disambiguator in a title. It's time to treat the lieutanancy counties in the same way. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes generally the ceremonial counties are the most identifiable way of referring to places in England. In Scotland and Wales unitary districts are generally used but in Northern Ireland ceremonial counties AFAIK are normally used. The other 3 UK countries have unitary districts covering the whole countries while in England we have unitary districts, 2 tier counties as well as London boroughs and metropolitan boroughs both of which appear to operate at the country level yet apparently aren't legally counties unlike unitary districts[2]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why ceremonial counties have come to be regarded as the 'most identifiable' way of referring to places in England, honestly. The lord-lieutenants aren't very prominent, and as far as I know the ceremonial counties are only the areas to which they're appointed.
If the ceremonial counties had a greater administrative role then I'd see the argument for using them as prominently as Wikipedia does, but since their role is minor it seems logical to use local authorities (regardless of whether or not they're counties) and historic counties instead — local authorities because they're the current local government entities, and historic counties because they have a reasonable level of recognition and are geographically stable. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between England and it's other outlying neighbours.

England is larger and has more coverage then the other countries.

Lets say that Lancaster said Lancaster, England and not Lancaster in Lancashire, England. It would confuse the readers as there's multiple Lancaster articles.

Same with York. Yorkshire, New York, City of York and Yorkshire and Humber among other uses. It's better to use the county and country because it helps readers none British to understand better.
DragonofBatley (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point isn't that counties should be removed entirely, but that local authorities are more appropriate than the ceremonial counties in this context. To use your examples, that would give something like:
Lancaster is a city in Lancashire, England.

York is a cathedral city in England, in the historic county of Yorkshire.

York is the primary settlement in the City of York unitary authority in England. It is in the historic county of Yorkshire.

A.D.Hope (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historic counties are anything but geographically stable. Because historic counties can have multiple definitions, you'd have to decide what date you want the historic counties from. For example do you use the boundaries from before or after the Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844? Also using them would just be confusing for the many towns which have changed counties over the years. I support the current consensus of the ceremonial counties, they aren't perfect but they're better than the alternatives. Eopsid (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historic counties are way more stable and unchanged compared to ceremonial counties (the latter which have only existed for less than 30 years by the Lieutenancies Act 1997!). Official UK government publications continue to inform that historic counties continue to exist and were never abolished.

This confusion, where members of the public (quite understandably) edit pages to update local government changes/ceremonial county changes, will continue to happen on Wikipedia every single time new legislation changes these volatile boundaries. Hence why using ceremonial counties/local government areas as reference points will never be sustainable. I would support using historic counties as the basis for defining geography in the UK. Administrative areas/ceremonial counties are unstable, and will continue to be constantly chopped and changed by legislation going forward in future. Acapital (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please define historic counties for me? What stable boundaries are we using for them? Eopsid (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go and search on Ordnance survey, the gov.uk website, or something. They produce maps of the historic counties online, it’s not difficult. Acapital (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that the historic counties are generally taken as they were in 1889, which is when they were superseded by what are now called the administrative counties. Where this isn't the case, being more specific would arguably make for a better lead, for example:

Little Compton is a village and civil parish in the Stratford-on-Avon district, in south Warwickshire, England, and is located about three miles east of Moreton-in-Marsh. Until 1844 it was an exclave of Gloucestershire.

A.D.Hope (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So your definition of historic counties are the ones between the Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844 and 1889? Only 45 years. Thats only 20 years more than the ceremonial counties. I wouldnt call those much more stable boundaries. Maybe we should instead define historic counties using the boundaries from 1889-1965. They lasted longer... I don't think ceremonial counties having the potential to change boundaries and having to update articles is a bad thing. Change is inevitable and Wikipedia should reflect that. Eopsid (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change is inevitable, which is why I don't think we should shy away from using administrative areas as the primary means of describing a place's location.

The historic counties never ceased to exist, according to the traditional county groups and more recently the UK government. That means that they've now had the same boundaries for 179 years, as far as I know, and by their very nature they're unlikely to change. This makes the historic counties useful as a secondaty descriptor.

Interestingly, since making my last comment I've done a bit more reading and discovered the 'Historic Counties Standard' developed by the Association of British Counties (a group which has been endorsed by the UK government). The Association specifically criticise Wikipedia for not having a standard approach to the historic counties, so it's probably worth us paying attention to their proposal. It could provide the basis for a consistent treatment of the historic counties, eliminating the problems you mention. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alas we don't let fringe pressure groups decide Wikipedia policies. G-13114 (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about the counties corporate like the County of the City of Coventry. Coventry was a county in itself longer than it was part of Warwickshire. G-13114 (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a dismissive and unhelpful attitude to take. The Association of British Counties can't force Wikipedia editors to do anything, but since they've created this resource we may as well make use of it. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have been through this historic counties nonsense far too often before. Can we PLEASE not go through it again. This pressure group has no status, their definitions of historic counties are fluid to suit their agenda. Historic counties are just that – historic. Not again, please. Nothing has changed since the last time this was raised. Or the time before. Or the time before that. Except that they've become even more historical. Like Hundreds. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their definitions may be fluid, but ours don't need to be. Wikipedia's treatment of the historic counties is inconsistent, so I don't see the harm in using the Association's publication as one source to help us create a more consistent standard.

I think it's also worth pointing out that my main point is about changing how we use the ceremonial counties, this is a bit of a distraction. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly there is a fringe pressure group on Wikipedia already who suggest in another RFC that reading a map (where one could glean county boundaries) is Original Research. I would link to it but that could be construed as canvassing. –Fredddie ™ 21:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Labelling them all as fringe pressure groups couldn’t be more false and dismissive. The government themselves keep reiterating the historic counties exist, and were never abolished. I’m sure you cannot possibly say the government is a fringe pressure group. Ignoring the fact of the existence of historic counties, and their continued importance in cultural identities across the UK, is clearly just dismissive.

Look at the mess in how Wikipedia county articles are written. You have Yorkshire, where the county page infobox clearly shows its current status as a historic county, then shows a historic county map and the historic county flag. Then you have Oxfordshire where the infobox shows it is a ceremonial county, includes a map of the ceremonial county, then incorrectly includes a map of the historic county of Oxfordshire.

Such inconsistency! No wonder members of the public (quite understandably)feel the need to edit pages to correct county information, only for the edits to be reverted and referred to talk pages. This will continue as long as Wikipedia policies continue to ignore the historic counties. Acapital (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, this inconsistency is one of the things I'm keen to address. I really do think that the way Wikipedia treats ceremonial counties, although surely developed with good intentions, has ultimately only confused things further.

The current administrative areas and the historic counties seem like the natural entities to focus on, at least in the leads of articles about locations. Things like lieutenancy areas and shrieval counties can be mentioned in the body. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So let me just point this out for those saying HC still exist.

When was Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Cumbria, West Midlands County, Greater London, Herefordshire and Rutland created?

Between 1940s-1990s? All these are official counties metropolitan or unitary authorities.

Rutland and Herefordshire are unique in being unitary authorities and counties with no districts or single unitary authorities other then the county council .

Now if we need to delve into hc boundaries let's try and keep it simple.

Do people who live in Manchester primarily southern and northern Manchester still identify with Cheshire or Lancashire? Same with Wirral and Liverpool. Cheshire and Lancashire? Older ones do but not younger ones.

Lancashire still exists in these counties through history and heritage but not local government. Like West Riding of Yorkshire still exists through historical but not local government.

West Yorkshire is one combined authority like Greater Manchester West Midlands County and Tyne and Wear.

But Cumbria and Lancashire are not they. One is a smaller shell of its former county and the other was formed from multiple counties and hundreds being Cumbria.

Cumbria and Humberside is there a comparison? Yes and no, Cumbria has not been abolished and still remains a county of ceremonial and higher lieutenancy like the Duchy of the House of Lancaster. But Humberside is long dead and buried but not its name in radio and local emergency services but the former settlements are back in Lincolnshire and East Riding of Yorkshire as unitary authorities.

So Westmorland and Furness and Cumberland are not counties but local authorities. Cumbria continues to exist the same as it did before being split only thing is the loss of its district's and boroughs as well as county council. But is Carlisle still the largest settlement and county town of the county and unitary authorities? Yes it is

Like Chester is for Cheshire despite the county being unitary authorities and Lancaster is for Lancashire despite Preston being the administrative centre and Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool being seperate unitary authorities.

Cumbria exists and that's the end of it. Not been abolished like Lancashire hasn't and Yorkshire but only changed.

DragonofBatley (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbria does exist, but now as a ceremonial county. My point is that ceremonial counties aren't that important, and so shouldn't be prominent in articles about English locations. Historic counties aren't important either, administratively speaking, which is why I wouldn't use them as a primary geographic frame of reference.

Local authorities are the best thing to use as the main geographic frame of reference for a place, because they're both important and current. Ceremonial counties aren't important and historic counties, for all their cultural value, aren't really current. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying that whether a county exists or not depends on whether or not local people “identify” with the county? That is just trying to introduce subjectivity to the discussion, and should be avoided entirely. This should be a factual website. Fact is… that historic counties were never abolished. They continue to exist. The Government has confirmed this. Fact. Whether you like it or not, historic counties exist and were not changed by local government reorganisations. This is a fact. It doesn’t matter how you decide to interpret ceremonial counties or administrative areas or whatever. Historic counties exist and were never abolished… Fact.

Besides, you generalise people and populations, which weakens your point greatly. Have you conducted a survey of how people identify to their counties, and correlate this to age groups? Just go to the places that you mention, and you’ll find that many many people still identify with their historic counties, regardless of age group. In many places around the country, such as East London (Essex) or Manchester/Liverpool (Lancashire), many people still identify with historic county boundaries. Similarly in Cumberland and Westmorland. But this subjective point should not even be a point in this discussion anyway.

Please keep to the facts. Acapital (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]