Jump to content

Talk:Brunswick metropolitan area

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

Requested move 1

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Disambiguation. Miniapolis 13:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Brunswick metropolitan area → Brunswick, Georgia metropolitan area – Add state to title.  Buaidh  16:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The preferred article title for metropolitan areas is the article title of the principal city with the lower-case words " metropolitan area" appended. Please see the List of metropolitan areas of the United States. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminating the state name makes this article title unintelligible to most users. The general reader should not need to read the article in order to understand the title. I'm not sure the folks in Brunswick, Georgia know what the Brunswick metropolitan area is, let alone the folks in all the other Brunswicks of the world. As Zarcadia points out, Brunswick is a disambiguation page.
I think that you're merely trying to justify your notion that all article titles should be as short as humanly possible in defiance of Wikipedia:Article titles.  Buaidh  20:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing that titles be in line with the WP:Article titles policy which says that article titles should be as concise as possible and no more precise than necessary to identify them. The current title is perfectly suitable for that purpose; adding the state doesn't make it any clearer than it is already, it just makes it longer and more out of line with what the sources actually use.--Cúchullain t/c 20:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current title clearly does not conform to that policy.  Buaidh  21:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current title is the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject; your proposal isn't used. When the common name is available we can't just make up our own titles, especially when there's no evidence whatsoever that anyone is confused by the common name. The current title is also concise and adequately distinguishes the topic of the article - there are no other articles that could reasonably be called "Brunswick metropolitan area".--Cúchullain t/c 15:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A move doesn't help with clarification as "Brunswick metropolitan area" would still redirect to the article. It just makes the title longer and replaces the common name with one that's not used outside of Wikipedia.--Cúchullain t/c 12:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that gets to the question of whether anybody anywhere considers this area to be the Brunswick metro area, under any name. --Orlady (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, though I've found a number of references to it dating back to the 1960s.[1][2][3][4][5] I haven't found any references for the phrase that would be relevant to another existing article, nor any sources that use the proposed form.--Cúchullain t/c 14:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my travels in the region, I don't ever recall it being referred to as the "Brunswick metropolitan area". I mostly associate the name Brunswick with Brunswick stew, and my guess is that the most prevalent name for this region is something like "Golden Isles" or "coastal southeastern Georgia" -- for example, I note that the regional chamber of commerce uses the name "Brunswick-Golden Isles".[6] The name "Golden Isles" is promotional; "Georgia sea islands" refers to the same area as "Golden Isles", but is not promotional. Perhaps someone who lives in the area could assist in finding a name for the whole region that reflects actual common usage.
When I see the name "Brunswick metropolitan area", I am inclined to ask myself which Brunswick is associated with a metro area. My first guess might be somewhere in England. Brunswick in Germany is another likely candidate, although it would more likely be called Braunschweig. Brunswick, Maine, is another candidate, as it has a larger population than Brunswick, Georgia, and Brunswick County, North Carolina is probably the most metropolitan "Brunswick" in the U.S. (but it's part of the Wilmington, N.C., Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC-NC metropolitan statistical area). --Orlady (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Corrected the above, per the latest definition, which also tells me that Brunswick, Maine, is the principal city of a micropolitan statistical area and a micropolitan NECTA (IMO, that's sufficient reason to disambiguate the titles for the Brunswick GA metro area and the Brunswick Maine micro area) and that New Brunswick, New Jersey is a principal city (the fifth largest) in the New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area. --Orlady (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Further, I find that there is a Wikipedia article for Golden Isles of Georgia, covering Brunswick and the Sea Islands, but not the rest of the area covered by this article. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 15,000 people living inside the city limits, but there are about

113,000 in the metro area. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested Move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per MOS:COMMA: "Modern practice is against excessive use of commas". Miniapolis 13:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Brunswick, Georgia metropolitan area → Brunswick, Georgia, metropolitan area – The new title is grammatically incorrect. State names are properly set off with commas on both sides. Powers T 13:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. That is only true if the subject of the sentence is "metropolitan area". If the subject is "Georgia metropolitan area", then no second comma is used. I am guessing there are a hundred other articles affected by any decision here. A starting point to look is Category:Metropolitan areas of the United States, and so far I see none which use a two comma approach. Apteva (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's what was meant, then using a comma in that fashion would violate our disambiguation guidelines ("Brunswick (Georgia metropolitan area)" would be correct). But that's not how it's meant; the title signifies the metropolitan area named for Brunswick, Georgia. Just like in the sentence "People living in Brunswick, Georgia, think their city is awesome," two commas are required. Powers T 21:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree, and would prefer keeping only one comma. For what it is worth, used in a sentence, Brunswick, Georgia, metropolitan area, has a different meaning than Brunswick, Georgia metropolitan area. With the two commas it implies that Brunswick itself is a metropolitan area, with one, it implies that the subject is a larger metropolitan area that is contained within Georgia, and is centered on Brunswick. Apteva (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So if the metro area spilled over into another state (as they sometimes do), you'd suggest it be called, say, "Brunswick, Georgia and Florida metropolitan area"? I really don't think that comports with our general naming policy. Powers T 14:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In those cases we do not use either state. For example, New York metropolitan area and Minneapolis–Saint Paul. Apteva (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Those aren't ambiguous. This one was determined to be. Powers T 13:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a flawed decision, since there are no other articles conceivably called the "Brunswick metropolitan area". And that title still redirects to this, whatever it's called.--Cúchullain t/c 14:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But whether that decision was flawed or not is irrelevant, as the current title is grammatically incorrect. I don't care if we change it back or not, but the current title is clearly unacceptable. Powers T 20:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This shouldn't have been moved from Brunswick metropolitan area. That name has at least been used before. So far as I can tell neither "Brunswick, Georgia metropolitan area" or "Brunswick, Georgia, metropolitan area" have ever been used; they certainly don't turn up in Google Books or Google News.[7][8] It is possible that there's a more useful name for the metro area; "Brunswick-Golden Isles" appears to have some use at least in the names of local institutions and promotional materials,[9] though as noted in the previous article it seems to only cover Glynn County.--Cúchullain t/c 21:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support looks better -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the subject is Brunswick metropolitan area, which is located in Georgia, and we absolutely must employ a completely unnecessary disambiguator, shouldn't it be Brunswick metropolitan area, Georgia? DoctorKubla (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just move it back where it was and avoid the whole mess.--Cúchullain t/c 19:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's always Brunswick (U.S. state of Georgia) metropolitan area -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, neither. Neither appear to be used outside of Wikipedia. I'll have to go for restoring the former title.--Cúchullain t/c 21:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to some other title when the COMMON name for the area is determined. I don't see any good reason to change the current title back to some other variation of "Brunswick metropolitan area" (at least this one doesn't cause me to look at the category to find out which Brunswick is alleged to have a metro area), but it would be nice to identify a COMMON name for this area, and use that as the article title. --Orlady (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is going to be a case for actual article editing rather than just going back and forth over which rarely-used or never-used title it should have. I'll get on it tomorrow if possible.--Cúchullain t/c 01:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If no concensus, move back to the original. The previous move discussion somehow didn't notice the absurdity of the new title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. But nobody bats 100. Andrewa (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't phrase it like that, but I agree the article should go back to Brunswick metropolitan area if no consensus is found for another solution.--Cúchullain t/c 20:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do appear to have a rough consensus that the previous move was not a good call. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal

[edit]
I'd oppose that as it's unnecessary disambiguation. "Brunswick metropolitan area" is still a redirect to this article under any circumstance. The proposed title is pretty awkward and evidently not used in any other sources, which is always a bad sign.[10]--Cúchullain t/c 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with all those other titles is they're made up and aren't used in any other sources (and they're pretty awkward). However ridiculous it may seem, "Brunswick metropolitan area" does appear in sources even if it's not particularly common. I found these.[11][12][13][14][15][16] As far as the disambiguation argument goes, well, so long as "Brunswick metropolitan area" redirects to this article, the article isn't being disambiguated from any other regardless of whether we insert "Georgia" into the title. And no one has suggested anything else be done with "Brunswick metropolitan area".
From what I've read, "Golden Isles" is fairly commonly the Brunswick area (especially in promotions), but usually only for Glynn County, while the MSA includes Brantley and McIntosh. It may be worth creating a joint article, perhaps titled "Golden Isles", that discusses both the "Golden Isles" region and the greater Brunswick MSA in together.--Cúchullain t/c 13:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simply moving the article back to Brunswick metropolitan area is IMO an acceptable solution. Of course it does not address the legitimate issues raised in the first move, but if consistency with other article titles and existing guidelines is regarded as sacrosanct, it's the only apparent solution. I draw attention again to WP:IAR, which is an official Wikipedia policy, and to the apparent consensus here that the current name is unacceptable. Andrewa (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC notification

[edit]

Participants in the two RM discussions above might be interested in the RfC at Talk:List of metropolitan areas of the United States, where I'm trying to determine the general consensus on the issue of state names in metropolitan area article titles. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 March 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Brunswick metropolitan area, Georgia. Not a particularly easy one to close due to the alternatives provided through the discussion. I've gone with this option because there was a clear consensus against the current title (so closing this as no consensus would be counter-productive), this appears to be inline with other US metro areas, and (if anyone feels strongly about it) we can then have a new RM about whether the state is necessary in the title which will be free from the comma debate. Jenks24 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to look over my decision again on my talk page (see here). On reflection, I think there was a consensus to move to simply Brunswick metropolitan area. See my talk page for slightly more detail. Jenks24 (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Brunswick, Georgia metropolitan area → Brunswick, Georgia, metropolitan area – The unbalanced comma is an error of grammar and/or style according to most writing manuals. How have we not fixed this yet? Dicklyon (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the article Comma#In geographical names says:

Commas are used to separate parts of geographical references, such as city and state (Dallas, Texas) or city and country (Kampala, Uganda). Additionally, most style manuals, including The Chicago Manual of Style[1] and the AP Stylebook,[2] recommend that the second element be treated as a parenthetical, requiring a second comma after: "The plane landed in Kampala, Uganda, that evening."[3]

References

  1. ^ "Mary traveled to Seattle, Washington, before going on to California." "Chicago Style Q&A: Commas". The Chicago Manual of Style Online. Retrieved 2008-10-29.
  2. ^ "Acme Pens was founded in Padua, Italy, in 2004." "Ask the Editor". AP Stylebook. Retrieved 2008-10-29.
  3. ^ Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed., §5.67.
I'm OK either with fixing the comma now and then talking about Brunswick metropolitan area, or going straight there. Up to closer to pick one. Should be a no-brainer to close this one way or the other. Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A comma would easily fix that. Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True. The nomination is OK. The following are acceptable, in my order of preference:
1. Brunswick metropolitan area, Georgia
2. Brunswick, Georgia, metropolitan area, per Amakuru. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Brunswick metropolitan area
The current is not acceptable.
On the suggested parenthetical disambiguations, parentheses are to be avoided, per WP:NATURAL, and their use doesn't help solve anything. (not unless someone tells me there is a Brunswick in Georgia (country))
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the proposed form "Brunswick, Georgia, metropolitan area" is not acceptable. See Talk:Rochester metropolitan area, New York/Archives/2013#Requested move 1 and Talk:Rochester metropolitan area, New York/Archives/2013#Requested move 2 where no consensus was ever seen that adding a comma after the state name was correct. That is what spawned the whole RfC, and why we prefer to put state names at the end now. For the record I oppose the proposed "Brunswick, Georgia, metropolitan area", but would be happy with either "Brunswick metropolitan area, Georgia" or the best of all, the unambiguous "Brunswick metropolitan area" as the RfC result suggests.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Agreed it looks a bit weird. I definitely support "Georgia" being in the title as there are Brunswicks elsewhere, and all can be reasonably expected to possibly have a "metropolitan area". NB If "metropolitan area" has a technical meaning, I am completely unaware of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If the consensus is to include a state name at the end, then so be it. I have no objection to that, and it also avoids comma drama.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I disagree with you if you are saying there is a clear positive consensus in any of the RfC, RM1, RM2, or even this RM3. I still like my proposal, even if there is a hangup (eg Cúchullain) in using a name not used much (if at all) elsewhere. I dismiss that hangup as a symptom of a different, worse, issue, that the topic is not actually notable per se. It is included only for completeness. There are no sources that come anywhere approaching sources required by the WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brunswick metropolitan area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brunswick_metropolitan_area&oldid=1200404986"