Jump to content

Talk:Nashville, Tennessee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MrBoire (talk | contribs) at 05:56, 7 August 2012 (→Requested move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleNashville, Tennessee was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 14, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 8, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Citations needed

I just tagged the article with a Citations Needed. As it stands, it's in pretty terrible shape at the moment. The majority of the content is completely uncited, and to be honest, I'm not sure where we can find citations for much of it. If we can get a team together to work on this, I'd like to start from scratch on the sections that are uncited. We can use them as templates and try to find information that supports the claims, but that will be a pretty difficult task I believe. nf utvol (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Nashville → Nashville, Tennessee – This was moved on June 6. While I'm always in favor of a little boldness, I think this could have benefited from at least a week-long discussion.

As far as I know, this is the only city not on the WP:NCGN#United States/AP list not using the comma convention. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Template:USLargestCities[reply]

  • Comment - I Agree that Nashville is not listed in the AP Style book, but I would lean towards common sense that this is the primary subject and does not require additional disambiguation. The guideline says "typically", and this city is not typical.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We already know this Nashville is the primary topic for Nashville, so is Frye Island, Maine for Frye Island. What we need to know here is at what point does a primary topic no longer need comma treatment? I also suggest we instead use a bigger city, possibly Austin, Texas, as a starting point for discussion. There is a better case for moving Austin, TX than Nashville, TN. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The size of the city is not the question, Austin TX might be a larger city, and the largest Austin, but does not have the same recognition (international, not just North American) that Nashville does. When someone says "I'm going to Nashville" there is no question as to which one they are going to, there is no need to "preface" or contextualize what Nashville someone is going to. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 01:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely hundreds or thousands of American cities are "primary" and don't need disambiguation. On the other hand, about one-third of all U.S. states have a place or two called Nashville. It's just so much more precise and recognizable to follow the familiar "city, state" pattern that everyone, in the U.S at least, is used to, so that at a glance you know for sure what the article is about. For an article where's that's not the case, and the title leaves you wondering what it's about, see New York. Or Dallas (which most people in the world think is a TV show; the TV show article gets more views than the city Dallas, Texas). Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dallas (1978 TV series) gets more views than Dallas, by about 40%. Dicklyon (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Unnecessary disambiguation doesn't help anyone" is an interesting slogan, but what does it mean? What about enough precision to clearly indicate the topic of the article? Is that somehow "unnecessary disambiguation" in your book? Because I think it helps people. Dicklyon (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose While other Nashvilles do exist, outside of limited local contexts, an individual discussing "Nashville" without any clarification will be taken to be referring to the city in Tennessee, not any other entity. No incorporated place listed on the disambig page has a population over 5,000, with the majority being much smaller than that. nf utvol (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support In restrospect, I think following the guideline may not be a bad idea. I don't believe there is any ambiguity as to what someone means when they say Nashville, however that's not really a reason to go against a long-standing guideline. Keeping it as "Nashville, Tennessee" and having "Nashville" redirect to the article instead of the disambig page is the best practice. nf utvol (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Clearly this is the primary topic, I agree with BDD, this is a case where the suggested guideline is out of touch with reality. Guidelines are just that guidelines, there will always be exceptions.--MrBoire (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nashville,_Tennessee&oldid=506182969"