Talk:Nashville, Tennessee/Archive 2

To create the next archive click here

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)

Requested move

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: Moved to Nashville, Tennessee in deference to WP:USPLACE. If editors believe USPLACE contradicts Primary Topic and Commonsense, then change the guideline first. Mike Cline (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

---

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• Huh? Dallas, Texas is a redirect page. The TV certainly does not get more views than Dallas. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Dallas (1978 TV series) gets more views than Dallas, by about 40%. Dicklyon (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I must have misread something. How strange. For what it's worth, the TV show had a massive spike in visitors on one day in mid June. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is reasonable to note that Dallas the TV series would have a recent spike, as there is a renewed Dallas TV show, people looking this up is a temporary surge.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 16:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support – no apparent reason to depart from the widely accepted consensus compromise WP:USPLACE. Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:USPLACE. This was moved without discussion and should be speedily moved back. Zarcadia (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If there's a place to make a stand and try and put a stake through WP:USPLACE, this is a good one. Look at WP:CANSTYLE, look at WP:MOSPHIL. Nashville is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC regardless of how many states have little places with the same name. I disagree that Austin is a clearer case, as it's also a common personal name (given and surname). Unnecessary disambiguation doesn't help anyone. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"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)

• I don't know, do you want to argue against the whole system of primary topics and hatnotes? Or do you really think most people typing in "Nashville" aren't looking for this city? --BDD (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose there aren't other Nashville's I know about. If people are so keen on following the AP's rules, go write for them. Hot Stop 23:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That only shows that the set of things you know about is small compared to the set of things that exist; no surprise. There are about 19 other Nashville cities and towns in US states, 3 films, a song, 2 TV series, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack much? I'm probably far from the only one who doesn't know about the other cities (I knew the television series existed), because this is far and away the most common use. Are you disputing that? Or just blindly following rules? Hot Stop 12:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

*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)

• 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)
• 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)

On what basis woud you suggest an exception to WP:USPLACE here? Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE? Hot Stop 12:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• And WP:IAR too, yes. Whether USPLACE is repealed outright or greater exceptions are made for other larger cities, this is a good example of how that policy mandates unnecessary disambiguation against better established policies such as COMMONNAME. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• But what about the even better established policy of Reliable Sources? See my comment below. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

  Reliable sources matter when one is dealing with facts. Here, we are dealing not with facts but with a naming convention (unless you are ready to demonstrate how "Nashville, Tennessee" is the proper name of the city and simply "Nashville" is not).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 7, 2012; 16:44 (UTC)

• Reliable sources also determine names. The naming convention, spelled out right at the top of the policy page WP:TITLE, says "generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." That page further states, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."--MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

RS is a red herring here. I don't think anyone disagrees that the place is widely and properly referred to both as "Nashville" and as "Nashville, Tennessee" in the best reliable sources. But our own policy and guidelines specify the conventions used by all American cities, and there's no reason, in sources or otherwise, to make this one an exception. Dicklyon (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

But it is called "Nashville" in the reliable sources. "Tennessee" is added not because it's a part of the city's name (it's not), but because that's what the style guides which those newspapers follow recommend. Wikipedia does not follow the same style guides (indeed, we go to great lengths to develop our own MoS), so it's not really an argument. The only question that stands before us here is whether "Nashville" is the primary meaning of "Nashville, Tennessee". USPLACE (regardless of whether one agrees with it or not) is only helpful if there is an agreement that this meaning is not primary, in which case one can use USPLACE to determine what a disambiguated title should look like (i.e., it's "Nashville, Tennessee", not "Nashville, TN" or "Nashville, United States"). Well-substantiated primary usage concerns are a perfectly valid reason to make an exception to any rule (including USPLACE).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 7, 2012; 17:16 (UTC)

You are completely misquoting USPLACE. It says, and I quote, "Articles on settlements in the United States are typically titled [[Placename, State]] (the "comma convention")." and "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook[2] as not requiring the state modifier may or may not have their articles named City provided they are the primary topic for that name.[3] In other cases (in other words, other than the 30 exceptions named in the AP stylebook), this guideline recommends following the "comma convention" as described above.[4]" The guideline offers no room for quibbling about "primary meaning" or "unnecessary disambiguation"; it simply says to use [[City, State]]. That page also says, "This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." You have not offered any reason why this city should be an "occasional exception"; you are simply arguing to ignore the established convention, in this and presumably thousands of other cities, despite the statement that USPLACE is "an accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I am not misquoting USPLACE. Heck, I'm not even quoting it; you are! All I'm saying is that for the purpose of this move request USPLACE is irrelevant and should not even be taken into consideration until the primary usage question is settled. And primary usage is covered, of course, not in USPLACE, but elsewhere, in more general guidelines. That USPLACE does not even take other established guidelines into consideration is a problem with USPLACE and yet another reason to kill thoroughly review and, if necessary, revise it. In other words, I'm not fishing for "an exception" here; I'm saying that USPLACE should take a hike until more important issues (such as primary usage) are settled. Primary usage is just as established a convention as you purport USPLACE to be. If they contradict one another, then the contradiction should be resolved on its own merits, not by shouting "my guideline is better than yours". That's just not productive. One could very well use your own words and say that "you have not offered any reason why for this city primary usage concerns should be ignored; you are simply arguing to ignore the established convention... despite the fact that PRIMARYTOPIC is an accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". We won't get very far with this kind of arguments, will we?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 7, 2012; 19:17 (UTC)

Well, at least we understand each other. I want to answer the current question by following the very precise and specific language found at WP:USPLACE. You want to answer the current question by claiming that the guideline at USPLACE is irrelevant to the very topic it is supposed to be about, and unilaterally repealing it - or at least deciding that a vague guideline like PRIMARYTOPIC should take precedence over a specific, community-hashed-out guideline like USPLACE. So do I understand correctly, that you wish to replace the USPLACE guideline of using [[City, State]] for all but a few specified cities, and replace it with everybody's individual interpretation of PRIMARYTOPIC, at every individual city article? If that is your intent, an individual article talk page like this is not the appropriate place to repeal an established guideline. If you like, you can start yet another discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), where the topic has been discussed many times over many years, and see if you can get a majority to agree with your suggestion to dump USPLACE and replace it with individual discussions at individual talk pages. I suspect you will not be successful in that. The very specific language of USPLACE was agreed upon, in part, because it establishes clearcut criteria and thus (hopefully) avoids hundreds of revert wars, not to mention tens of thousands of individual discussions like this at tens of thousands of city articles, where everybody can debate at great length whether a particular city name is primary or not. What an enormous waste of everybody's time! To quote WP:TITLE#Considering title changes, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed," and "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Melanie, you really shouldn't be making so many (unsubstantiated) assumptions about what I may or may not mean—it complicates the matter of addressing them for me and makes it all but impossible to follow for other people. Unless, of course, that is your intent? :P If anything in my answer is unclear, just ask; there is no need to second-guess.

To address some of your concerns, no, I'm not interested in "starting another discussion elsewhere", although I'd probably join if one were started by someone else. Yes, I do think that USPLACE is a horrible horrible guideline which flies into face of most other conventions we have, but also yes, here is not a place to discuss it (which, I thought, my "oppose" below makes it perfectly clear already). Now can we return to the subject of Nashville, please? Just because we have USPLACE does not mean all RMs dealing with US cities should automatically be prohibited. There are valid primary usage concerns here, which USPLACE in no way trumps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 9, 2012; 14:23 (UTC)

MelanieN. USPLACE states "typically" - so the typical city will follow, that does not mean all will, it does not say that the AP style has to be followed either. Nashville is not a typical city.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 21:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

True, it does not say that it HAS to be followed, but it does say "editors should attempt to follow" the standard. In what way is Nashville any different from hundreds of other U.S. cities, that it should be the one and only exception to a long-established guideline? --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Every rule has an exception. Blindly following a guideline because it's a guideline is not a reason to follow a guideline. Nashville is different, it is an internationally recognized city, for it's music and culture to begin with. This is a clear case of primary topic. The first guideline on article titles is to be a specific as necessary, and Nashville is as specific as necessary. A guideline is there to guide us in a direction, not to bind us. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA - With the exception of USPLACE, every other naming guideline tells us that Nashville is the correct title. Why does USPLACE go against every other guideline in this case? Well I say in this case we WP:IGNORE USPLACE as it is contrary to all the wisdom of the other guidelines applicable.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 02:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

See my reply above. If you are planning to abolish USPLACE or render it inoperative, this is not the right venue. --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, no one is proposing to abolish USPLACE here. Here, the proposal is to move one specific article, and that's it. A proposal to move "Nashville" is not at all the same as a proposal to abolish USPLACE.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 9, 2012; 14:23 (UTC)

• Support Oh, brother, not this again! The "city, state" format for U.S. cities, with the specific exceptions mandated by the AP Stylebook, has survived here for a long time, but every now and then someone tries to sneak through an exception. The existing guideline is supported by many discussions and long precedent, but above all it is supported by WP:TITLE, which says "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." Reliable sources (including virtually all major US newspapers) follow the AP stylebook in listing U.S. cities as "city, state" except for 30 specified exceptions [1] where the state is omitted. There is no reason why this one article should violate the Reliable Source usage which is "Nashville, Tennessee". --MelanieN (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the question this RM is trying to answer is whether "Nashville, TN" is the primary meaning of "Nashville", then invoking USPLACE is nothing but an unnecessary distraction. If "Nashville, TN" is the primary meaning of "Nashville", then the article should not be moved. If it isn't, then it should be moved. Submitting an RM is a perfectly good way to figure it out, as long as the discussion stays focused on the merits of the titles. From where I stand, the argument that in this case "Nashville" alone is sufficient is rather obvious.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 7, 2012; 13:32 (UTC)
• Comment It looks as if this discussion, like all such discussions, is headed for the usual lack of a clear consensus. If No Consensus is the result here, the outcome IMO should default to the article's original, longstanding (December 15, 2001 to June 6, 2012) name of Nashville, Tennessee - rather than to the current title "Nashville," which was boldly created by a single individual without discussion and against established convention. --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment from the nominator - Couldn't COMMONNAME also be a relevant policy here? Most or all non-local news agencies are using the City, State convention at first mention. Almost makes our USPLACE guideline a little redundant. This is something to consider. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • USPLACE is a little redundant, because it is in fact based on COMMONNAME. Its purpose is to provide clarification on COMMONNAME's applicability to U.S. placenames, to reduce argument about what is common and what isn't. The AP stylebook was used because it influences whether a city is accompanied by its state on first use or not. Powers ^T 15:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support reverting non-consensus undiscussed move that contradicts WP:USPLACE. Powers ^T 15:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:USPLACE and reverse the undiscussed move. This convention also makes he title clearer about the subject of the article for those who are not familiar with every US city. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Forgive me, but that argument only makes sense to me if you're assuming there will be readers familiar with one or more Nashvilles in the US but not this one. How likely does that seem to you? --BDD (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I'm assuming that those readers have no idea where Nashville is! Some number of those may know of the US state called Tennessee but not the cities in it. So this naming is helpful for a very large number of readers. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Interesting discussion so far. Move appeared standard as per Wikipedia:Moving a page as it fitted WP:PLACE as an unnecessary disambiguation, but I hadn't considered WP:USPLACE. My mistake, and if someone had pointed it out, I would have restored immediately. This discussion, however, is revealing that some users are uncomfortable with WP:USPLACE's recommendation to disambiguate for reasons of consistency with other America articles, as that puts the American articles out of step with the rest of the world. Perhaps it is worth folks having a discussion regarding that guideline, especially as the view expressed in the footnote, indicates that there is a degree of division about that approach, and it is only convention that keeps such an approach going. I don't have strong views either way so I'm unlikely to get involved in any further discussion (I am inclined against unnecessary disambiguation, but quite comfortable with following existing guidelines as that enables us to keep focused on building the encyclopaedia - as I say, I felt I was following the appropriate site-wide guideline, but would have reverted on request if the relevant local guideline had been pointed out to me). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It would be interesting if we could find out why the AP Stylebook indicates that Nashville requires the "Tennessee" qualifier, but in this matter we have chosen to defer to them. The guideline at USPLACE is a compromise between those who thought it ridiculous to name an article San Francisco, California and those who thought it equally ridiculous to name an article Coraopolis without appending the state qualifier (which is almost always used outside of the most local contexts). The rule has sufficed to greatly reduce arguments over article naming for U.S. places, with only edge cases like Nashville and Las Vegas continuing to generate (unavoidable) controversy. Powers ^T 13:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • As I understand it, the AP style book was for listing location in the headline of an article based on where the story originated. Some places, note I did not say cities, were deemed to be unambiguous and well known so that the state identifier was not needed. Of course this probably assumed that this was for US print newspapers and not the internet. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The city in Tennessee is clearly the primary topic of this name. No one seems to be proposing to move the disambiguation page to the unqualified name. If there is general agreement that this is the primary topic, there is no reason to use unnecessary disambiguation. --Polaron | Talk 02:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is general agreement that it's primary, yet there still is a reason, in WP:USPLACE, to prefer the full name. Don't call it disambiguation and it won't bother you. Notice that Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC#Redirecting to a primary topic says "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term. This may happen when ..., or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions. When this is the case, the term should redirect to the article (or a section of it)." In this case, "the naming conventions" are WP:USPLACE. Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This has been going on for over a week now and it appears as though there is no clear consensus. That being said, without consensus, the proper thing to do would be to revert it back to its original title "Nashville, Tennessee", leaving "Nashville" as a redirect to the article and not the disambiguation page. nf utvol (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  No consensus means leave it as it is.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 19:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support moving back to original title, and Support close with reversion back to original title. The AP stylebook criterion has provided a great solution to endless warring. No exception is warranted here. The renegade / bold moving of the article should simply be reverted. --doncram 20:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Just to be clear, the only valid outcomes here are moved, not moved, and no consensus. It sounds stupid to have to say, but only "moved" should result in the article being moved to Nashville, Tennessee. Moving and ruling otherwise would be a major cop-out on the part of the closing administrator. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"No consensus" should obviously result in the article reverting to the title it has had for more than eleven years - not the title it was moved to without discussion or consensus a month ago. Note that the person who did that bold move has stated (above) that if asked they would have undone the move and immediately reverted to Nashville, Tennessee. Even the person who did the move to Nashville thinks it should be undone. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, it's not that difficult. Since this is not a vote, the closing admin can rule "moved" even if the comments are heading that way, but it would be inappropriate to move the page with a verdict that says otherwise; that's just against the spirit of the requested move process. Now, there's no reason a bold administrator couldn't move the page back after discussion is closed (it wouldn't even need to be an administrator but for the existing redirect), but "no consensus" rulings on requested moves mean the articles aren't moved. That's what it means: "no consensus [to move]." The requested move is a question—"Should the article be moved?" "No, move it" is not a valid answer. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's nonsense. U.S. placename move discussions revisiting, again and again and again, this area cost approximately 1% of all wikipedia editor attention, I would guess. At each of these repeated discussions there can be an apparent non-consensus, unless and until a large enough contingent of editors is awakened to the need to stop the nonsense yet again. No one can be allowed to flaunt the repeatedly upheld compromise position ratified in the guideline, by simply boldly moving and then claiming that a local discussion with an arguable "no consensus" means that willy-nilly moves are now allowed. This is ridiculously too costly of our attention. Please move on. To the closing administrator, please move this back, of course. --doncram 23:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Marcus could have reported this contradiction of a consensus to an administrator for reversion, but he chose to make a proposal instead. We can say he should have done the former, but we don't govern by what could have or should never have happened. I don't even care if the closing administrator calls it procedural and moves it back, under the argument that the whole thing should have happened, but calls for a no consensus verdict to result in a move are out of line. Process is important. --BDD (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we can rely on the closing administrator to figure out the appropriate process. It's not up to us to tell them what to do. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That's all I'm asking. --BDD (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Stability and predictability are superior to continual contention over minor details. The AP style guide rule may not be perfect, but following it consistently will save everyone a lot of trouble. Accordingly, this city is "Nashville, Tennessee". --Orlady (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONSENSE - WP:USPLACE is just a guideline, and having Nashville as an exception to the "comma convention" seems acceptable given that this city is the clear primary topic. The addition of the "Tennessee" qualifier is unnecessary disambiguation. Cheers, Rai•me 01:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I think U.S. naming conventions should apply for all U.S. cities, even the ones well-known. - Darwinek (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Meh. Either one is fine. Whatever we end up choosing will just get changed again in 2 years anyway. Kaldari (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support—a rename back to the old city,state name per the AP convention, which, despite this conversation, the one at Talk:Beverly Hills, California, and probably a zillion others I don't know about, is going to save time in the future if we can just stick to it. Everyone thinks that the one they know about is the real one. We might as well pick an objective standard and stick to it, and the AP standard is a perfectly good one.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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.

Nashville vs Davidson County

This article isn't clear on what Nashville's legal borders are. Are the coterminous with Davidson County, or is Nashville just the "unincorporated" part of the county which is not part of another municipality. The lead says "consolidated city–county government" not "consolidated city–county" so maybe the consolidation had little or no effect on Nashville's legal borders; i.e. like Hartsville, Tennessee, "[d]espite the city-county government [Nashville] is not coterminous with the county; it remains a geographically distinct municipality within the county". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Nashville is coterminous with Davidson County. They have the same borders and government. Kaldari (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording so that it is more consistent and less confusing. Kaldari (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hot Chicken Capital

I actually thought that Memphis was the "Hot Chicken Capital" and Nashville was the "Hot Fish Capital". Can we get Guy Fieri to settle this? Kaldari (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Redundant images

We have two very similar images of the Nashville waterfront in the History section and two very similar satellite views in the Geography section. Since these extra images add little value, I'm going to remove them. Kaldari (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Representation and voting rights/government

Have added material on changes in representation - change to single-member district method of voting for city council seats under charter, and change to metro government. The former affected voting representation even before the state repealed use of the poll tax in 1953, and well before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed by Congress. Important aspects of government.Parkwells (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Needs material on civil rights movement

Nashville had significant actions and leaders; needs more coverage of civil rights issues and people.Parkwells (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is Metro Pop "1,702,603" coming from?

Every time I use the Census data to pull up 2013 estimates for the Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN Metro Area, I keep getting the old value used on this page, "1,757,912". As far as I'm concerned, this appears to not only be the correct value, but also the same value I've found used on the Nashville Metropolitan Area page, as well several others.

If anyone wonders where I got this number from, go onto http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml. From there, select "topics" - "Dataset" - "2013 Population Estimates". Then close the window and select "geographies" - "Select a geographic type:" - "Metropolitan Statistical Area/Micropolitan Statistical Area - 310" - "Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN Metro Area". From there, I got two results, and opened up "Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013". On this page, I found the value "1,757,912".

Andrew Darmac (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Nashville, Tennessee

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Mayor

As of today, Megan Barry is Nashville's mayor.

References

Nashville isn't the largest city in TN.

According to the second sentence of the article "Nashville is the largest city in Tennessee". This is not the case. Memphis is larger. According to U.S. Census Bureau 2014 Estimates the population of the two places are...

Nashville-Davidson metropolitan government (balance): 644,014 Memphis city: 656,861

Memphis is 12,847 persons larger. See: http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2014/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.190.198.190 (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Page Rename

This page should be moved back to Nashville, with Nashville, Tennessee redirecting to the Nashville page. There is nothing wrong with the Nashville page and "Nashville, Tennessee" just adds unnecessary content to the title of the page, which is the city. Thus, I propose the page should be moved back to Nashville, with Nashville, Tennessee redirecting to the Nashville page. It just makes more sense. 173.68.25.111 (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Read and comprehend the #Requested move section above, which says all that needs to be said on this. - BilCat (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of cited content

User:Huntster: Why did you remove cited content about the Shooting of Jocques Clemmons, the Nashville Statement and the Confederate monuments? I don't think it's UNDUE (there are lots of RS) or RECENTIST (the paragraph is about the 21st century). It seems POV to redact referenced content when it does not fit a city's advertising.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It's in the very first sentence of WP:RECENTISM. There were four paragraphs of events in 2017. That's the very definition of recentism, with an undue focus on the current year. These things might work in History of Nashville, Tennessee, but even then, some of those things still feel "flash in the pan" and unnecessary, especially the highly superficial Nashville Statement. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this your opinion? We should edit based on reliable third-party sources, not our opinions. The anti-LGBT Nashville Statement was covered in lots of RS. The Shooting of Jocques Clemmons has 28 RS. I see you also removed Z. Alexander Looby's picture, from 1960, which was not recentist by any stretch of the imagination. You also removed the mayor's picture instead of adding this one. You also added "In 2017, Nashville's economy was deemed the third fastest growing in the nation,[27] and also was named the "hottest housing market in the US" by Freddie Mac realtors" but removed "The Tennessean noted in October 2017 that 2017 was "the bloodiest year for teens and children in more than a decade," many of whom were African Americans who lived in city-run housing projects."" So, YOU added recentist content, but only as long as it made the city look good. That looks like advertising to me. Instead, I think we could keep the Freddie Mac quote AND the other content from The Tennessean.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm? I didn't add anything. I moved some material into chronological order. I removed the Looby image as it is non-free and should really only be used in his article as minimal usage of non-free material. I only removed Barry's image as a copyright violation, but I have no problem with a free version being added (it makes sense for the current mayor to be represented in the article). The number of citations is not always relevant, as it could (and usually does) simply indicate a spike in media interest. This is another hallmark of recentism. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, you skipped a line and moved the content chronologically. Can you read the "21st century" section and not see that it looks like censorship? The only content we have at present is advertising and a few lines about the mayor. Yes, the content about the mayor is historic and should remain, but the other content (about the shooting, the statues, the spike in crime) should not be redacted. This is Wikipedia, not Pravda!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s asked if I would look at the recent edits to this article. The 21st century section does appear to have had some of its nastier bits removed, and unfortunately what was removed was not then added to the History of Nashville, Tennessee. Regarding what appeared to be recentism in this section, the question is, is the shooting of Jocques Clemmons, the removal of Confederate monuments, and a bloody year for teens less ephemeral than Nowville bouncing back with a hot housing market and a pro-same-sex marriage female mayor. I feel this section would be improved if the rosy economic information was moved to another section, and the content that was removed (less the Nashville Statement) was put back. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I definitely think the stories about the shooting of Jocques Clemmons and the removal of Confederate monuments should be mentioned in History of Nashville, Tennessee, which they aren't currently. I'm less sure they belong here. It would also be nice to consolidate some of the content currently in 21st century, as it does seem a bit overly-detailed and recent-biased. We should only include content there that we think will still be deemed important to the history of Nashville several decades from now. Kaldari (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to copy and paste the relevant content from the article history to the History of Nashville, Tennessee please? That article has a curious section by the way ("Recent economic development"). But since this is the Nashville talkpage here, let's not get distracted. Why do you not think that the statues and the shooting are historic? I've just added similar content to St. Louis#21st century. They both seem like part and parcel of local history, since African Americans are US citizens (and should not be written out of US history), and there are lots of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: I definitely think the shooting and statue controversy are historic. I'm just not sure they are among the most important events in Nashville history (which is very hard to judge since they just happened). I'm open to more debate about their inclusion though. Frankly, I think the entire "21st Century" section should probably be removed as it all suffers from recentism. If I was going to rank the importance of African American-related events in the history of Nashville, I would probably rank the Nashville sit-ins first (which isn't mentioned in this article) and then the Nashville streetcar strike (which isn't mentioned here or in History of Nashville, Tennessee, and also needs an article). Kaldari (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree because many cities have "21st century" subsections with content from the past two decades. Why should this city be treated differently? Yes, the 21st century is recent, by definition. That does not mean we should redact content when it reflects persistent bigotry, and only add content that matches the city's advertising as "Nowville". As long as reliable third-party sources tell a different story, we should reflect that. Facts are facts.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Have to agree that this is the very definition of WP:RECENTISM. If you think not, set yourself a timer for one year from now, and have another look. Or, if you are really interested in the latest events around this topic, maybe consider taking it to WikiNews first. Mathglot (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody uses Wikinews lol. I get the point that we should perhaps wait and see if the historic statues/monuments get removed (the protests are a bit Crystalball), but the shooting of Jocques Clemmons and "the bloodiest year for teens and children in more than a decade" seem totally DUE to me. Note that the bloodiest year goes back over a decade, and the 21st century only goes back 17 years. The shooting has so many RS that it does not look like an insignificant little thing.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The subsection does look a bit hagiographic at present. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me expand on that just a little. If we're going to cover recent events (and trying to apply RECENTISM strictly to any article is almost always an exercise in futility), then the decision of what to include or exclude should be based on breadth, depth, and persistence of coverage by reliable sources. The current last sentence (about the economy and the housing market) probably should be cut. I would think that it, as well as several other items recently removed, could be restored in a couple of months if there's continuing coverage. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Shooting of Jocques Clemmons has 28 RS, which makes it very WP:DUE indeed if weight of RS is the main criterion for inclusion.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The main criteria for inclusion in the history section is "Did this event have a significant and lasting impact on Nashville?". Did the shooting of Jocques Clemmons result in any changes? For example, were new laws or policies enacted? Did any significant political figures resign or come to power because of it? Was there a lasting change in the social or political climate in Nashville? If you can find reliable sources related to any of those things, I think it should be included in the article. If not, I think it's premature. Also, why is no one interested in including more significant events in Nashville's African American history such as the Nashville sit-ins or Nashville streetcar strike? Clearly the Nashville sit-ins had a huge and lasting effect on the city. Would anyone support adding it to the history section? Currently, it only mentions the Looby bombing. Kaldari (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please add the sit-ins! Wonderful suggestion. The impact may not be as 'huge' as one might think--there is still some segregation--not de jure but de facto due to income levels--but we would need an RS for this. Regarding the impact of the Shooting of Jocques Clemmons, it led to protests and statements from the minority caucus of the metro council, but it looks like they were largely ignored by the decision-makers--which does not sound like a convincing argument for leaving it out. I am also concerned that the text currently talks about the "hottest housing market in the US" (for people who can afford to become homeowners) but fails to mention the living conditions of the poor in city-run projects. This is another reason for re-inserting the content about the shooting (where it occurred) and "the bloodiest year for teens and children in more than a decade" I would say. This is Wikipedia, not Richopedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Kaldari: It looks like the streetcars stopped running in 1941, before desegregation. What did you mean please?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Did you mean the boycott?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Yes. Richard Henry Boyd, James Napier, Preston Taylor, and others organized a boycott against Nashville's segregated streetcar service that lasted from July 1905 until at least July 1906. More information about this strike can be found in Bobby Lovett's A Black Man's Dream. Kaldari (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Kaldari: Was it a boycott or a strike? For African Americans to boycott the streetcars is probably what the white racists wanted, so it seems counter-productive. Anyway, I thought you wanted to create an article about it. Or if you just wanted to add a few lines about it to this article, you could but...I don't see a long-term impact at all, as the streetcar system was discontinued decades before desegregation.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me the so-called "boycott" was merely the marketing of a new competitor, the Union Transportation Company, and more about capitalism than civil rights. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested Move 2018

I see the page was moved to Nashville, Tennessee in 2012, due to the WP:USPLACE rule. However, Nashville is now the largest city in the state (and rapidly growing), and has a population larger than other cities that have pages that do not follow the USPLACE rule, such as St. Louis, Detroit, Atlanta, and Pittsburgh, which are considered major cities. Thus, Nashville can be considered a major city, even more major than these cities. So, the page should be moved back to Nashville, with this page becoming the redirect. Please don't just automatically reject this proposal, actually discuss it, and don't just say that we already determined this in the previous section; that was six years ago, and things change. It's time for the change. Thank you, all. 108.30.110.252 (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - The only allowed exception to the "City, State" format is "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook[2] as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles", per WP:USPLACE. You have not provided any proof that Nashville is now found in that list, so the article should not be moved per the guidelines. Also, the article was unilaterally moved without prior discussion to Nashville only in June 2012, then returned to the original title per #Requested move in August. - BilCat (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Neither population nor population rank is an adequate determiner for this change. For one thing, population rises and falls over time. For another, the population of a city proper doesn't necessarily indicate how notable a city is; the metro area population also must be factored in. Detroit, for instance, once had a population of almost 2 million, and its metro population is still vastly larger than that of Nashville. Pittsburgh now has less than half its peak population, but its metro area is still more populous than Nashville's. We really don't know what the future holds for the population of any of these cities, and we shouldn't go changing our style back and forth as a given city's population ebbs and flows. An additional problem with Nashville is that its population figure is for consolidated city and county, which isn't analogous to the figure for most other cities. And there are also non-quantifiable, historical factors that enter into the mix. I concede that it doesn't always make a lot of sense, and it may be that the AP will revise its stylebook sooner rather than later vis-à-vis Nashville, but I don't see any compelling reason for us to make an exception here. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Collage

Is it time to update the collage? The Nashville skyline has changed greatly in the years since the skyline photo in the collage, and a couple of the other photos would be different if taken today. A better camera would improve on my skyline from Fort Negley, and some might prefer a photo from the other direction (with the river), but what do you think of File:Nashville collage.jpg as a start towards an update? Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Collage

@TheTexasNationalist99: thanks, buddy. It was time we had a new collage! I'll see if I can get a new Nissan Stadium photo for it some time. It might be a while, though. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jacknstock: Anytime! I'm always browsing about at Southern cities with much-needed format updates and images. --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)