User talk:Totallypostal

city names

Why look at the convention used by the postal system to determine what convention to use in an encyclopedia, when you could look at the convention used by, uh, other encyclopedias??? Maps, atlases, newspapers, magazines, books, websites, etc., etc. and yes, encyclopedias, typically (there are always exceptions) do not use the "postal convention" when referring to city names in most contexts. Why a gang of Wikipedia editors is so enamored with this naming convention that is totally irrelevant to the topic of encyclopedia naming is beyond me. Not to mention that the U.S. postal convention is [[city, two-letter-abbreviation, zip code]], not the contrived [[city, complete-state-name]] these marginal autistics favor. And don't get me started on the totally ridiculous and convoluted community naming convention, [[community, city, state]], that this same gang imposes on many pages, like Hollywood, Los Angeles, California. It's embarrassing.

Consider any newspaper story. The beginning of the story is almost always the city name, and what is the convention used? The city name. It will say...

LOS ANGELES - This morning, ...

Not:

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - This morning, ...

And no self respecting newspaper editor would EVER allow:

HOLLYWOOD, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - This morning...

Professional encyclopedia editors follow the same convention. Check any real encyclopedia. But not the clods here at Wikipedia...

Whether you agree with me or not, I hope that explains my frustration with this issue to your satisfaction. Thanks for inquiring. Let me know what you think now. --Serge 01:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)