Jump to content

Talk:Vidalia, Georgia, micropolitan 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, as a compromise between those wanting more disambiguation and those wanting to maintain status quo (the second-comma concern applies to prose, not article titles). Miniapolis 13:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Vidalia micropolitan area → Vidalia, Georgia micropolitan area – Add state to form standard article title.  Buaidh  04:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The preferred article title for micropolitan areas is the article title of the principal city with the lower-case words " micropolitan area" appended. Please see the List of metropolitan areas of the United States. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Vidalia is a disambiguation page.  Buaidh  21:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my opinion to oppose barring a better suggestion. As at Talk:Glasgow micropolitan area, barring a common name or some other more suitable name, the current title is the simplest available descriptive title. It's not reasonable to think anyone will confuse this with any other existing article considering there aren't any more "micropolitan area" articles for other towns of this name.--Cúchullain t/c 17:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be better, as these are officially defined areas that would not otherwise be topics. Is there a reason for the "descriptive" title? Peter James (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, other than to be clearer than the presumably clunky title used by the OMB. I don't oppose a move if we can think of a better one, but the proposed title is even worse as it doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia. In contrast to the metropolitan areas, which appear in many other sources under common names (as we see at other RMs like Talk:Pensacola metropolitan area and Talk:Brunswick metropolitan area) the micropolitan areas/Micropolitan Statistical Areas don't seem to have much currency outside of government statistics, but if we want an article on them we have to call them something.--Cúchullain t/c 18:09, 14 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: pages moved Chihin.chong (tea and biscuits) 08:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

|current1=Vidalia, Georgia micropolitan area|new1=Vidalia, Georgia, micropolitan area|current2=Glasgow, Kentucky micropolitan area|new2=Glasgow, Kentucky, micropolitan area|}}

– State names are properly set off with commas on both sides. Article titles must still be grammatical, notwithstanding the inexplicable comment above that "the second-comma concern applies to prose, not article titles". Powers T 13:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose both. The grammar with two commas suggests that Vidalia and Glasgow are micropolitan areas, which is not what is meant. With one comma, there is a micropolitan area centered on Vidalia and Glasgow, which is the meaning used. A review of the cats involved shows that one comma is used for this type of article, such as Jacksonville, Illinois micropolitan area. Apteva (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your interpretation of the meanings denoted by the two punctuation options is idiosyncratic at best. The state name is delimited by commas because it is an interruption to the regular flow of the phrase. Much like one would say "the British style of government" or "New York state of mind", we have a noun phrase ("micropolitan area") being modified by a location ("Vidalia") to form a descriptive phrase ("Vidalia micropolitan area"). It's an area named for or identified by the community "Vidalia". The state name, here, is used as it is in running prose: "The man said he was from the Tupelo, Mississippi, area." One would not say "... from the Tupelo, Mississippi area", because one is not talking of a "Mississippi area". Likewise, we are not speaking of a "Georgia micropolitan area"; we're talking of a micropolitan area named for "Vidalia, Georgia". Thus, the commas are necessary, just as they would be in running prose. Powers T 21:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both per WP:Copyedit mentioned in the previous RM above. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support seems better -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:06, 4 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.

Requested move 3

[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: no move. This seems like a basic comma point. "Georgia", "Kentucky", and "Alabama" act as disambiguators and so the second comma in each title is required. As for whether it would be okay to drop the states, there doesn't appear to be consensus for that (running counter to WP:USPLACE as written) and it seems only to be a compromise where one, at least from a grammatical standpoint, does not need to be made. -- tariqabjotu 07:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Revert previous close. Grammatically the second comma only applies if the micropolitan area is completely enclosed within the city limits. Neither is. The one comma format is followed by dozens if not a hundred micro and metropolitan area US related articles. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 18:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Apteva (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the micropolitan area articles since those names are not widely used in sources. I suggest "Vidalia Micropolitan Statistical Area" and "Glasgow Micropolitan Statistical Area", which seem to be closer to what the few available sources for the topic actually use (unlike metropolitan areas, they're not in wide use outside the government sources that originated the concept).--Cúchullain t/c 18:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that all of our articles use micropolitan and metropolitan, but the census bureau uses Statistical Area. I do not have any objection to Birmingham metropolitan area as long as it does not conflict with Birmingham England. Apteva (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What we are saying is "the micropolitan area of vidalia, georgia" and so on, not "the georgia micropolitan area of vidalia". Georgia is being used as a disambiguator. Georgia is not being used as an essential part of the article title which is what omitting the comma implies. So the comma should stay.
As for getting rid of the state name completely, that's a discussion about getting rid of the "comma convention" at WP:USPLACE, not this comma-related requested move. Ditching the "comma convention" in an impromptu fashion with little attention paid (this RM didn't even spawn notices at the top of the 3 concerned pages) isn't the answer.AgnosticAphid talk 02:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true if the micropolitan region was contained within Vidalia, which it is not. It is contained within Georgia, though, so it is the Georgia micropolitan area that includes Vidalia. Apteva (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move notices are only on talk pages, not on the articles. Apteva (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're just wrong here, I'm afraid. I hate to be so blunt, but it's true. The reason why this must have a second comma if the state is to be the second word is illustrated by the especially unfortunate article at Rochester, New York metropolitan area, which clearly suggests the article is about an area called Rochester within the "New York metropolitan area" when what's actually meant is "the metropolitan area in Rochester, New York" – one that's not with the "NY metropolitan area." Grammatical rules exist partly to eliminate ambiguity in instances like this. I suggest leaving the current title which is grammatically correct. AgnosticAphid talk 16:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New York is both a city and a state. Rochester is pretty well known, and if anyone says Rochester, no one is going to think it is part of the New York City metropolitan area. Rochester, New York metropolitan area, is not located in Rochester, but is located in a rather large number of cities and towns centered on Rochester, New York. There are three articles to be moved, but there are dozens if not a hundred that are the format City, State metropolitan area, or City, State micropolitan area. Which is it, all of those are wrong, or these are wrong? Consensus clearly seems to favor those being right, and these being wrong. I do agree that if the metropolitan area was within the city limits of Rochester, the grammatically correct name would be Rochester, New York, metropolitan area. Apteva (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The US census does not use a second comma, but uses Vidalia, GA Micropolitan Statistical Area, Glasgow, KY Micropolitan Statistical Area , and Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area.[3] Apteva (talk) 22:34, 22 July 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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vidalia, Georgia, micropolitan 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) 07:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vidalia,_Georgia,_micropolitan_area&oldid=1212333580"