Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Yet Yet Another Proposal

I propose that all city articles be a unique "Cityname" unless there is a need for disambiguation. If this need should arise, all citynames should be disambiguated save for a cityname that qualifies for "international renown" status, whereas all citynames would be disambiguated - using a bracket disambiguation method - save the qualifying one. Any placenames lower in the administrative hierarchy (neighbourhoods, quarters, streets) should always show their pertinence to the cityname using the comma method.

I've given this a lot of consideration, and I'll try to outline the reason for my conclusions below.

First off, reader comprehension. When opening the book that is Wiki, it should only take a couple pages to discern a naming convention, and what form to expect on other pages. Paper encyclopaedias do not disambiguate placenames (ref. Encyclopaedia Britannica, French Encyclopédie Universalis), leaving the description under each heading do the work of describing each locale, but this is not possible on the electronic database-fed media that is Wiki. Thus, since we must disambiguate, the method of doing so must be decided before anything else.

Second, at what hierarchical administrative level would it be best to disambiguate? "Cityname" would be the most logical point - I don't think it very wieldly nor necessary to tack "state" onto every cityname without exception just to avoid conflict of anything lower. Also, from an international point of view, it would not always be informative to put the province or state in the name unless as disambiguation, and even then the add-on must be recognised as a disambiguation.

Thirdly, should the disambiguation level be set at "cityname", everything below "cityname" (quarters, streets, etc) should be followed by its "cityname".

Fourthly, Since "cityname" appearing after the municipal place will be the rule rather than the exception, I propose to add it to "cityname" using the comma method. This way we can separate rule from exception - brackets would be exception disambiguation, and comma would be rule disambiguation.

Fifthly, it may be useful to have the "best-known definition of cityname" in an un-disambiguated state. This is arguable, but as mentioned earlier, there may be methods of discerning a "best-known" state. Airports, etc, whatever.

Thus, with the above, we would have the following:

  • Boston
  • Boston (New York)
  • Copely Square, Boston
  • Avenue of the Arts, Boston
  • Mill Street, Boston (New York)

This could even work internationally, but the disambiguation state tacked on, whether it be country or state, would probably vary. What's most important is that whatever is added on after must be recognised as disambiguation. In discounting the "best-known" factor, this would give the following:

  • Orléans (France)
  • Orleans (Vermont)

Now one can argue that the Orléans in France is the "best-known" one and should enjoy a state of non-disambiguation, but remember that that discussion would have nothing to do with the level nor form of disambiguation.

I'd like to pursue this further, but enough for now - I hope I made my thoughts and conclusions clear, and I hope this provides a new inroad on which to pursue this debate. THEPROMENADER 13:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Complete abandonment of City, State is never going to fly, and I don't see why we should have a "one size fits all" standard for the whole world. Different countries disambiguate cities in different ways. john k 13:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This is, I will note, very similar to Serge's preference. john k 13:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You'd have to explain "is never going to fly". I don't have any preference for any "stance" here at all - I've only retained the objective viewpoints in anything I've read and will only argue with the same; please examine the above with this in mind. All that concerns me is finding a uniform system that makes sense to readers, and yes, if possible, worldwide. The question is, first: will the above work? THEPROMENADER 14:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


Here's my one concern with this proposal; it is not addressed above: How will the DAB pages read?
Under the existing comma convention (hereafter, CC), DAB pages, such as Boston (disambiguation) read:
Boston may refer to the following:
So would we change the comma convention format of the DAB page? And if we retain CC on DAB, we should discuss whether the DAB page would create confusion as to the article titles. I'm persuaded that it would not, since, as Serge noted, the CC redirects would remain. I think we should not change the comma convention format on DAB, since that conforms to the expectations of many, if not most readers. --ishu 14:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Your proposition is sound - but would the CC DAB's link to... redirects? This would take a long time to correct - but could a bot do this task? THEPROMENADER 15:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
(Nota: the following stems from the above post but is not a direct answer to it) True, I had not even considered the above. But if you don't mind, I would like, if possible, not to consider it for now - would it be possible to think objectively of a system that works, then only after think of a means of implementing it? One of the main reasons this discussion has been spinning so long is because of a use of "the existing" as an argument against change - but just because a system exists, or even that it developed over a long period of time, doesn't mean that it is the best one. In fact, I think our quickest way of finding a solution is to ignore everything existing altogether and think from a "media limitations/possibilities vs. readership comprehension" point of view. THEPROMENADER 15:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
For this to work, any conflict of the name would need to be a dab page. Fighting over which place around the world is the better know will cause ongoing conflicts. Vegaswikian 20:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
"Paper encyclopaedias do not disambiguate placenames". Can you give an example of a paper encyclopaedia with two different articles about different places where both articles have exactly the same title? --Scott Davis Talk 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have indicated that the encyclopedias in question did not disambiguate if they did. Britannica (search for "Boston") and Encyclopédie Universalis (no full versaion available online) do not. No matter though - Wikipedia must disambiguate - this is all that counts. THEPROMENADER 00:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou for the example. Given that it appears to always respond to searches with a "disambiguation page" (search results with first sentence), I find our (current) naming convention quicker to identify which "Boston" I want and go to the right page, and see this as an example of why Boston should redirect to Boston (disambiguation), rather than any particular Boston. --Scott Davis Talk 14:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Paper encyclopedias pretty much never disambiguate, because they don't need to - they can have multiple articles with the same title. john k 01:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
No, but if they don't use the same place names, then they disambiguate. This also raises another point. The editoral policies and the review for inclusion in a paper encylopedic are better defined and under go reviews before being included. As a result they are not subject to the complications of the more open process we use here. So using a hard copy encylopedia may not be the best example. A better example might be in how you seach for a hotel. You either open the book, turn to the state or country, then look for the city and find the entry or you get redirected to the hotels in an area. If you go online, and enter the city you get a dab page and not a redirect. Here is an example from one hotel chain using Washington for the city:
  • Washington, IN, US
  • Washington, NC, US
  • Washington, DC, US
  • Washington, PA, US
  • Washington, GA, US
  • Washington, IA, US
  • Washington, IL, US
  • Washington, KS, US
  • Washington, MO, US
  • Washington, UT, US
  • Washington Court House, OH, US
  • Washington Island, WI, US
Vegaswikian 23:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Using Paris as the city search you get:
  • Paris, AR, US
  • Paris, KY, US
  • Paris, TN, US
  • Paris, FR
  • Paris, TX, US
  • Paris, IL, US
Vegaswikian 23:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I wouldn't take hotels as an example to follow for what they are (unless their media and readership is the same as Wiki's), but let's just take the disambiguation example to count. In the above example the rule is that the country (for the US) is the level of disambiguation, and this for many reasons - size, destinations (a destination is a destination, no matter the size). The form of disambiguation they have chosen is a comma, and although this is another issue, since the level of disambiguation as a rule is country, all administrative steps up to there without exception, are disambiguated (or have their pertinence to the higher administrative level shown) by a comma. This is yet another system. Would you be willing to name every article thus, at the same level of disambiguation, with the same convention? THEPROMENADER 00:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe if we are talking about places. While that proposal would fix some problems it would also create some others. I'm not sure that the advantages of a change like this would be worth the problems. However if you want a single standard that would work without exceptions this may be the only choice. I suspect that proposing this would not get any traction to move forward, it would likely be DOA. Vegaswikian 03:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Elaborate, please. What "problems" would this proposition create? Only in knowing what these are can we argue if it is "worth it." THEPROMENADER 12:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that paper encyclopedias are a poor example because they are edited to filter out most small places that WP has Rambot articles for. If we're going to use paper, then perhaps an atlas would be the more appropriate analogy. Or an almanac. In any event, the key issue is that WP includes many more "less important" or "less well-known" places than any paper source, save an atlas or other map-like publication. --ishu 04:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Here we have to assume that Wiki filters nothing. But again, what is elected "most important" is another later argument... one way or another, whether it be through a "most important article" link to a disambiguation page, or directly through the latter, the steps to a "lesser" article using an unambiguated term are multiple. THEPROMENADER 12:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The number of US cities that would have to be moved to observe the Common Name convention strictly is prohibitive; change the entries where there is an overwhelmingly primary topic, and leave the rest at the comma convention name. If we were starting from scratch, this would be a different discussion, but Rambot has already done the groundwork here and there's no reason to undo it all just for the sake of obeying guidelines to the letter. -- nae'blis 00:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, let's just forget what exists for the sake of discussion. Let's find a system that works based on the media and readership, and worry about what to change only should that solution (should it be found) be acceptable to most all. THEPROMENADER 00:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
What Rambot has wrought, another bot can redo for a new convention. (1) Find comma convention article; (2) note name of comma convention article; (3) move comma convention article to new convention name; (4) create redirect at CC article name. Or some such. --ishu 04:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Consideration of a guideline without consideration of how it would be implemented, or whether it could be implemented, is fatuous. As Serge's proposal, this one should not fly unless you want to create a new encyclopedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Whether a proposed system "can" or "can't" be implemented is set by the media we are working in. Contributor willingness to implement an accepted system (should it be found) is a complete other question. If a working system is devised and tested and seen to work, convincing others to use it will be a second step. THEPROMENADER 10:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
No. It's not a media question. Unless the convention were Serge's speedily quickly rejected proposal (stated as what he would like, under one of his other propsoals), that the convention be "cityname" unless disambiguation were presently required, the moves could not be done automatically. It would require editor selection and potential argument for each city move. That makes the implementation question an editoral question rather than a media question.
I think you're missing the point here. I don't care who proposed what, and I in fact made no mention of anything of the kind - and twice in this thread asked specifically that we not involve any "social issues" in any examination of technique. Again you are talking about contributor willingness to adopt an idea, and we're not at all there yet - all I ask is that we discuss what works best from an objective point of view. We could come up with an absolutely perfect site-wide solution and not be able to implement it because of the tenacity of the present system - but one thing at a time, and each thing in its place. THEPROMENADER 17:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I proposed both the bracket and comma separation is to separate for the reader what is disambiguation and what is convention. That both are used as methods of disambiguation is probably a) this discussion's most major roadblock and b) confusing to the reader.
I think separating these two functions would be a huge step forward in breaking confusion for both readers and contributors - convention and disambiguation are not the same thing and should be treated as two different issues of their own context.

Thus if the convention would be "locale, city, state", no disambiguation would be needed. Yet if the convention is "locale, cityname" only, anything after "cityname" would become disambiguation and treated with that method. I hope I clarified my argument. THEPROMENADER 12:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You are making a distinction that does not exist. Portland, Maine is recognizable because it is the conventional way to disambiguate the city from Portland, Oregon; so it is both. Septentrionalis 18:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
You are right - in this discussion convention and disambiguation seem to be one and the same - in any case, they are indescernable from one another. What I propose is to separate the methods - one technique, or presentation used to name the article, thus a convention, and another method easily recognisable to a reader as a means to avoid conflict, or a disambiguation. See below for a further example if you please. THEPROMENADER 18:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
One last thought. If part of a title is clearly disambiguation, it can take any form within and still remain identifiable as such. Like the example mentioned above, the many different Springfields in Wisconsin could become "Springfield (Dane County, Wisconsin)" were a "cityname" convention adopted, and "Springfield, Winsconsin (Dane County)" were a "City, State" convention in effect. THEPROMENADER 18:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

I have initiated an alternate discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/comma for all cities to discuss whether we would be able to build consensus towards naming article about all citites and towns using City, State or City, Country style. This would be a big change which would require careful introduction if it were able to be agreed on. --Scott Davis Talk 10:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the number of proposals popping up on top of each other will be barrier in trying to get a broad sampling of community consensus. Some visitors may have saw Serge's invitations to his poll and came over when that was opened and think that is that. Now we have Tariq's and now we have we this one, so do we conduct another mass posting "No wait! Here's another poll!". We got a rather thin consensus sampling with Serge's proposal as it was and I fret that we are going to get an even smaller sampling for both of these. That doesn't set up either proposal to have much credibility if only 15 or so editors comment on them. Agne 19:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement that Scott's proposal is not ready for approval in its present condition; so that's not a worry provided invitations link to the section on Tariq's proposal. Septentrionalis 22:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Cease fire?

An idea would be for all sides to agree to a "cease fire" of sort. (No new page move request to Cityname only and no action to move the current exceptions back to City, State). Let the dust settle on this for a month (and archive this page!). Then open up Dec with either Tariq's or Scott's proposal and try to get as much outside community input as we can. Leave that poll open for 2-3 weeks and see what kind of consensus we get. If there is no consensus move on to the next proposal. Again I think it's vital for the credibility of any proposal/compromise that comes out of this discussion to have as broad of a sampling consensus as possible. Plus "new blood" and new sets of eyes can be more productive then the "regulars" on this page debating the same points back and forth. I know that I, personally, would not have a problem with Tariq's proposal if it had the credibility of a clear consensus among a broad sampling of editors taking part in the discussion. (I would hope at least 50-60 editors taking part) I would also hope that some of the CITYNAME only folks would feel the same way if Scott's proposal passed with such a clear consensus. Right now I don't think either proposal would get anywhere near that amount of participation (Outside of vote stacking which no one would want) and so I think it would be best to have a "cease fire". What do you guys think? Agne 20:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I would like to think that there would be consensus to stop renames either way pending a new proposal. I don't think that discussion should stop. The discussion on the list of exception cities should continue to make sure that we know how all of them will be handled for any possible exceptions to the exceptions. That way when a vote comes all of these possible concerns have been addressed. This should allow a proposal to be presented that has been well discussed and possible issues have been resolved. Then the vote should be cleaner since we are not still discussing should xxx, state not be changed because... Vegaswikian 03:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is harm in a continuing discussion (kinda like what they are doing with Scott's) but what is going above is a vote. I would also like to see this issue resolve but I don't think there is prudence to being impatient at this point. It is absolutely vital to the credibility of either proposal (Scott or Tariq's) to have a clear consensus from a broad sampling of community consensus or else nothing will be accomplished. Considering the large number of articles affected and the recent events with the US Highway debate, a token consensus made among the same 15 editors will have little weight. Unfortunately, even at this point, without the interjection of the fresh blood that encouraging a broad sampling of community consensus would give, the discussions among the same 15 editors will just be a recycling of the same discussions we've been having. If someone wants to follow Serge's footstep and add a "But wait!!! Come back! We have a ANOTHER proposal to vote on now" message to the Village Pump, active proposal and all the City pages, it might help to bring in some more views. But I'm worried that the folks who stopped by during Serge's proposal will either get confused with the proposal merry-go-round or not realize we have a new proposal.Agne 07:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Objective criteria suggestion

The information at List of U.S. states' largest cities could be helpful in establishing an objective criteria. For example, any city that meets any one of the following criteria is not to be predisambiguated (disambiguated when there is no ambiguity issue to resolved) with the comma convention:

  1. Is a state capital.
  2. Is one of the three largest cities in any state. See List of U.S. states' largest cities.
  3. Is one of the five largest cities in one of the five largest states.

That's just an example. Thoughts? Comments? --Serge 01:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a solution without a problem. Why do we think that the articles for these particular cities, as opposed to others, need to be moved? Why should the third largest city be moved but not the fourth or the four hundredth? It still seems arbitrary and unnecessary. -Will Beback 02:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
What's your suggestion for how to define a major or well-known city? Would you rather leave it open-ended as in the current wording of Part I? That works too but some people seem to want concrete criteria. If you have ideas as to how to delineate a major city, please share them so we can discuss more. --Polaron | Talk 03:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we leave all cities at the "City, State" naming convention. Right now we're picking almost random lists of cities with the justification that they "need" to be moved. -Will Beback 03:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Will, actually, as I think you know, I agree with you about this being arbitrary. I believe all city articles should be at Cityname per standard Wikipedia naming conventions regardless of whether they are "major" or not, unless there is a known ambiguity issue with that name. But there seems to be a contingent of folks who think cities that are not "major" should be predisambiguated, regardless of WP:D, WP:NC(CN), et. al. That leaves us with the problem of defining "major", for which this, or something like this, is merely a suggestion. This is a solution to that problem. But the core problem we're trying to solve, at least to some extent, is that we have hundreds of U.S. cities sitting at article names that are in violation of fundamental Wikipedia naming conventions and guidelines. --Serge 03:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The overall naming convention allows for variations, such as the dozens of specific naming conventions that exist. If you don't think that these varied naming conventions should exist why don't you propose deleting all of them? Why have an intentionally inconsistent U.S. city naming convention? Especialy when it is already consistently applied with very few exceptions? -Will Beback 03:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The overall naming convention allows for variations in how articles are disambiguated when disambiguation is required. That's fine. Why do you think proposing the deletion of the dozens of varied naming conventions would be consistent with my position? The specific naming conventions have an important purpose: to specify a consistent fashion in which to disambiguate articles within a given category of articles when disambiguation is required. But they should not be used to disambiguate preemptively which is contrary to widely followed conventions expressed in fundamental guidelines like WP:D and WP:NC(CN). It's unfortunate that some of the naming conventions have gone in the direction of violating these fundamental principles, but it's not too late to correct. Canadian city names have moved in the direction of correction, as have TV episode names (the preemptively disambiguated episode articles of Star Trek and Lost are on the brink of being corrected). Putting unambiguous U.S. city names at "City, State" is a solution to a non-existent problem, and, more importantly, the creation of an unnecessary problem of Wikipedia inconsistency. Why leave it broken when we can fix it? Let's do it! --Serge 06:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The AP proposal makes more sense than any other means of calculating whether a city should be able to be recognized without being chained to its state. However, I am of the opinion that the matter is one for editors to use their judgment with. That would allow us to use Wikipedia's greatest resource - a plethora of editors, and not succumb to the hobgoblin of little mindedness. Therefore, I propose letting the generic naming convention "disambiguate when necessary" apply to all articles, US city or otherwise. --Dystopos 04:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The current US city article naming convention (without the exceptions) is consistent with the quoted (at right) naming convention in a nutshell. Especially once you've seen a few articles named this way, it's easy to extrapolate to guess what other city articles will be named. Article titles are generally unambiguous, and linking to them is easy and second nature without having to check whether there is somewhere or something else using the name. Once the exception lists grows beyond about seven, most editors will no longer be able to remember which city articles need a state and which don't. If the majority of people need a bunch of exceptions, I can accept the AP list. I know my capital-and-largest criteria are not suitable for the US. --Scott Davis Talk 13:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I support a no-exceptions comma convention, but there appears no chance of a consensus on that proposal for years, if ever. That being unlikely, the pragmatist in me prefers to draw lines around the exceptions (the alternative would be to continue these discussions... ugh!). --ishu 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

How about something like this:

Smaller locations that are not well-known outside their immediate vicinity should not be moved from "City, State"; they should remain disambiguated with their respective state names, regardless of the uniqueness of the names of the cities. Features that characterize a "well-known" city include (1) being a state capital; (2) being the largest city in the state; (3) being a port-of-entry for routinely scheduled international air traffic.

This being a guideline, the list would be neither definitive nor exhaustive, yet provide more guidance about what is meant by "well-known." Please feel free to suggest additional characteristics to include in the list.

I think every AP city should qualify under these guidelines, and this wouldn't explicitly refer to any outside lists, although one could use external lists to make the case for a particular city. I considered adding a fourth feature:

(4) being the largest contributor to a major industry in the state

to allow a chance for places like Biloxi, Mississippi. People probably won't like the "international airport" criterion, but we'll need at least three criteria if we want to include places like San Diego, California without relying on the AP list. I don't like using n largest cities, since it requires awkward formations like "five largest cities in one of the five largest states" to include San Diego and San Antonio, for example. --ishu 13:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What about

(3) Giving its name to a major professional sports team?

That would include, besides state-capitals and largest cities in states. If we add this to state capitals and largest cities, that gives us the following list of potential cities (obviously ambiguous ones striked through - this doesn't mean that other names might not be ambiguous, just that they don't strike me as clearly such):

I think that professional sports times are actually a fairly good measure, because those cities are more or less familiar to most Americans. Most cities that I would consider are well-known enough to go in, despite not having a pro-sports team, qualify for one or both of the other reasons, like being the largest city in a state (notably Las Vegas). There's a few cities that one might be inclined to move, despite not fitting one of these criteria (Tucson, Arizona comes to mind), but I think this would be a fairly reasonable list of "well known" American cities. Thoughts? john k 15:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not crazy about the sports team criterion, but it seems to work. John, can you tag the cities that are on this list only because of the sports franchise? And I assume you mean "major league," right? Don't want Hagerstown, Maryland or Pawtucket, Rhode Island to claim they're "major."
I've bolded the cities that qualify only because of the sports team rule. And, yes, I mean cities with teams in Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, and/or the National Hockey League. john k 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I still don't like the concept, yet I like the result more and more. Nearly all of the sports-team-only cities are places that most people would indeed recognize, certainly within the U.S., and many of them abroad, too. --ishu 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is what "most people would recognize" even a consideration? The WP:NC guideline says "give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize", but what that means is to give priority to recognizable English terms over foreign terms; it does mean to use a name so that "most people would recognize" the subject of the article from just seeing the name, which is how it seems to be interpreted for U.S. city names. If that were the intent, then most Wikipedia article names would be much, much longer. For example, if that were the intent, in the realm of cities, we would have to include the country in all city article titles for all but the most famous cities. This is why I don't understand the preference of many of you for a proposal that calls for predisambiguated titles for lesser known cities, and to not require predisambigation only for cities that "most people would recognize" by Cityname alone. Why is what "most people would recognize" even a consideration for U.S city article names when it is not a consideration for other articles in Wikipedia? Why should U.S cities be an exception? --Serge 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is what "most people would recognize" even a consideration? Serge, you often refer to WP:NC (CN), which states "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Hence the "most people recognize" standard: What is the common name of a place? Our dilemma is: What is the "common name" for places that are not "well-known?" And, "who is the relevant 'common group' when deciding what is the 'common name'?" If I understand correctly, you would have us use the local name except when there is a disambiguation issue, since that is the only "common name" for an otherwise unknown place.
This suggestion (if it is what you prefer) presents a practical problem identified by Scott Davis: Inconsistent article titles make linking difficult. There are probably tens of thousands of places if not more in the U.S. Under a consistent convention, it is simple to link from an otherwise non-notable place like McComb, Mississippi to pages of celebrities like Britney Spears (or [[Brandy Norwood and Bo Diddley). Given the hundreds (if not thousands) of places that would require such disambiguation, and the guesswork required when linking, some balance is needed between ease of linking and the "common name" of a place. Otherwise, linking will be difficult, and name conflicts and mis-pointed links will occur.
Finally, place names are different for a number of reasons, but most importantly because place names are an example of "everyday disambiguation" It's very common to refer to a place on first reference as as Paris, France or Greenville, South Carolina, and virtually nobody believes that the "common name" of the place is Paris, France or Greenville, South Carolina. It's understood that the country or state or province is a disambiguation. Put differently, disambiguation is not exclusive to Wikipedia, and is commonly used in daily life. Other topics like animals are not understood in this way, since common names (e.g., "monkeys") are clearly inappropriate when referring to species or even monkeys from different parts of the world. --ishu 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Ishu, why do you interpret "the most common name" to mean "the most common name for places that are not well known"? How is how "well known" a subject is relevant to the question of what is the most common name used to refer to that subject?
The red herring ease-of-linking argument is oft-repeated. No one is suggesting eliminating "city, state" as redirects, so all the links will work and new ones can be made.
As far as the place names argument goes, yes, places are often referred to with additional contextual information (Paris, France), but the name is still the Cityname alone, and that is the way they are most commonly referred to by the vast majority who refer to them (the extra contextual information is a first-time exception and is never part of the name).
Finally, it is useful in Wikipedia to know that when you get to a page titled Name, that there is no other subject that shares that name. Currently, when clicking on a link to "Cityname, Statename", if the article we are taken to is named Cityname, Statename, the reader has no way of knowing if there are any other subjects that share the name Cityname. This is confusing and inconsistent. If we only disambiguated with Cityname, Statename when disambiguation was required, then the reader who lands on a page named Cityname, Statename would know that there is at least one more subject that shares the name Cityname. That it is an interesting and useful feature in Wikipedia. Why take that from the reader with U.S. city articles? --Serge 23:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Where a sports team plays should not be a criteria. They move! Also the team may be associated with a city and be located in a small city or a different state New York Giants being an example of the latter point. Vegaswikian 18:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I did not say "where a sports team plays". I said "cities that have professional sports teams named after them." The New York Giants are named after New York City, not after wherever the Meadowlands are. The point is what city it's associated with, not what city it actually plays in. I said it that way for a reason. In terms of moving, sure. If a new city gets a franchise, and isn't on the list for another reason, it could be considered for a move. If a city loses all its franchises (which seems unlikely), and is not otherwise eligible, we could then consider it for a move back. At any rate, the point isn't sports teams per se. The point is that the cities with professional sports teams map fairly closely to "most important cities in the country". We could add other potential categories on, if you like, so that sports teams aren't alone in being odd. Or we could give those particular rules as simply being examples of the kinds of things that would make a city "well known outside its immediate vicinity", without being an exhaustive checklist of all able criteria. For instance, we could say:
Smaller locations that are not well-known outside their immediate vicinity should not be moved from "City, State"; they should remain disambiguated with their respective state names, regardless of the uniqueness of the names of the cities. Some features which might characterize a "well-known" city would include (1) being a state capital; (2) being the largest city in the state; (3) having a major professional sports team which shares its name; (4) being served by a major airport; etc.
This would make clear that other criteria of a similar type would also be acceptable as reasons for a city being considered to be "well known." john k 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Seriously - I've been away from this discussion for a while, but since returning it seems that I'm waaaay over my head. How did the naming an article reasoning descend to such criteria as airports and basketball teams? Could you imagine the Encyclopedia Britannica delegates depending on such criteria for their article naming conventions? No, they think beyond this. This line of thinking is an end to itself - not wiki readership objectivity.

Really. Pretend that the person reading doesn't know where the city in question is, nor what state it is in, and think from there. THEPROMENADER 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's an idea: let's just stay with the comma convention unless there's a real need to make an exception (e.g. Springfield, Wisconsin). The comma convention is straightforward. It's easy for editors to use and for readers to understand. Changing it will gain us nothing, or less.
Creating exceptions will lead to disputes, as people treat short-name titles as a promotion that some cities 'deserve'. Look at how much trouble it's been to find objective criteria to justify exceptions: "major" cities, AP-dateline cities, capital cities, well-known-in-India cities, cities with airports, cities with sports teams, cities with major industries ... all of which are subject to change. Why don't we just skip all that? If a city's so great, let's spend our time explaining why inside the article.
The current situation, where we have a rule that about half of wikipedia editors don't particularly like, has also led to disputes, and continues to do so. john k 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
And it's not like we're starting from scratch; we've already got thousands of articles with names which correspond to their subjects, with zillions of incoming links. Moving a bunch of articles, and updating their links (and then, oops, having to move some of them back) involves a fair amount of work—entirely unnecessarily. Consistency, clarity, and stability are good things. Other than Serge, does anyone actively oppose the established naming conventions?
—wwoods 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, consistency, clarity, and stability are good things. By supporting the use of the comma convention for U.S. city article names that do not require disambiguation you "actively oppose the established naming conventions" that practically define Wikipedia and are reflected in guidelines at WP:NAME and WP:D. --Serge 23:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Many of us actively oppose the current state of affairs. I also don't understand why Springfield, Wisconsin would be an example of a need to make an exception to the comma rule - that's a clear case where the comma rule is necessary. john k 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Springfield, Wisconsin is a dab page between (largely) different Springfields in Wisconsin. The individual articles therefore must be exceptions to City, State. The (existing) solution of Municipality, County, State seems to work fine, however. Septentrionalis 17:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing is incredibly irritating. Whenever anyone tries to develop a specific list, people whine that it's arbitrary. Whenever we say it should be up to individual judgment on a case-by-case basis, people whine that it's vague. What the hell do people want? Australia has a specific list - state capitals plus Canberra are eligible to be moved. That works fine. That particular criterion wouldn't work well for the US, because most of our large cities aren't state capitals, and many aren't even the largest city in the state (Cleveland, Ohio, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, San Francisco, California). So if we want to come up with formal criteria for excluding some cities, we need to come up with some sort of list that will include most major American cities, while excluding most others. I tried to say the AP list, but people complained that it was arbitrary. Now I try suggesting a more multi-part criteria, and people complain that it's arbitrary. Look, any pre-created list of American cities is going to be arbitrary, because the easy criteria (capitals, largest city in the state) are inappropriate and would leave out very important cities while leaving in much smaller ones.

The other option is not to have a pre-created list, but to use common sense about which cities are "well known outside their immediate vicinity." This would be my preference, but there seems to be a great deal of opposition to this idea, too. I thought we were actually moving towards at least some kind of consensus that Tariq's idea might be a good basis for changing the rule, but instead we're getting nowhere. Dare I mention mediation again? john k 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with john. I'd rather not create an explicit list but do include a non-exhaustive list of characteristics that a city might have to make it eligible to be moved to the unqualified name. Even without a definite list, I do not believe there will be this onslaught of moves that some people are afraid of. Surely, common sense will serve as a limiting factor. --Polaron | Talk 00:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
A list of cities that qualifies as "exceptions" is not arbitrary, its entire purpose is to appease the Wiki editors themselves... ! What about the readers? Of course it is irritating to come up with a unique naming convention, especially when other conventions (sometimes seen as flawed) are used in argument against reason - endless circles, man.
What we seem to have here is, because a majority of Wiki's editors US contributors, a majority of Wiki editors comfortable with the (often oral) very-US practice of saying and writing "City, State". Most foreigners are not aware of this practice, and most foreigners do not know where states are, let alone the cities. What you have to decide here is the target audience - US comfort of standard US practices, or foreign ignorance? - only then should you decide on a form (and level) of disambiguation. THEPROMENADER 09:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any basis for your claims about majorities? Many of us US editors are irked that major American cities, unlike major cities that are primary topics in every other country in the world, are pre-emptively disambiguated. Of those who have voted in favor of the proposal above, User:Tariqabjotu, User:Bkonrad, User:DaveOinSF, User:John Kenney (er, me), User:Georgia guy (I assume), and User:Josiah Rowe are all American or live in the US. Over at Talk:Philadelphia, I see that among those who voted to move from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Philadelphia were the following who are either American or live in the United States at present: User:Evrik, User:Kafziel, User:Dralwik, User:Looper5920, User:Danntm, User:Ccwaters, User:Spikebrennan, and User:John Kenney (er, me). That's only among people who indicate their nationality on their user page. All indications suggest that the vast majority of people who have participated in this debate on both sides are American. john k 12:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
For the record, you can include me in those lists. I'm a native Californian. --Serge 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected then - especially since I made it sound like a "US vs. the rest of the World" question. There is at least large part of the majority of American editors who opt for the "City, State" nameform because they feel comfortable with it - this part of my affirmation you can retain. As for being "irked" ad a pre-emptive disambiguation... why? Uniformity? If this is to be "World wiki" for a worldwide audience and a single standard, this I can understand. THEPROMENADER 13:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
PS: Pre-disambiguation should be decided based on the risk of an eventual need for disambiguation. Of two placenames having the same name, the more important of the two should retain the disambiguated state, and the second most important would take the disambiguated form - this is where a "list of criteria" could come into play. THEPROMENADER 13:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Pre-disambiguation should be decided based on "the risk of an eventual need for disambiguation"? Why? Regardless of the risk, if it's relatively well known (like Boston), it should be at Cityname. If it's not so well known, it should be at Cityname anyway, unless there is an ambiguity issue. If there is no amibiguity issue, but there is a "risk" of one, what does that matter? Leave it at Cityname. If another topic comes up, moving it to Cityname, Statename will not be a big deal by definition, since it's not relatively well known, and, so the number of links to Cityname at that point will be limited. --Serge 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. Ask yourself: What are the chances of more than two placenames having the same name? How often will this phenonmenon occur - if so, will disambiguation be so widespread as to appear almost general? At what level (city, state) will it not occur so often as to retain some form of uniformity between articles, and make those needing disambiguation seem an obvious and comprehensible exception to an obvious standard? THEPROMENADER 00:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
PPS: Yes I know that this may create a "level of disambiguation" conflict - between "cityname" disambiguated and "community" or "neighbourhood" disambiguated. It may be propice to decide on a "target level of no disambiguation" - for example, "cityname" without disambiguation (if possible) and anything under that (community or neighbourhood) associated with its city name (or "neighbourhood, City). If you wanted to target "statename" as a level of "no disambiguation", evey cityname would be associated with its state and every community with its city (meaning "community, city, state"). This would create a uniformity from one article to the next - the uniformity that is important for reader comprehension. This problem must be approached and resolved constructively for comprehensive results. THEPROMENADER 14:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Of two placenames having the same name, the more important of the two should retain the disambiguated state, and the second most important would take the disambiguated form... This is the big problem. It is simple to conclude that [[Boston]] should refer to Boston, Massachusetts and not Boston, Georgia. But most places are un-"important" and not "well-known" so it is difficult to determine which of the communities named "Lakewood," "Englewood," or "Glendale" is the "most important" or most "well-known." Sure, we could say "When n or more communities share the same name..." but determining n is arbitrary. Besides, there are five places in the U.S. called Boston (not including four other places like Boston Heights, Ohio and South Boston, Virginia or those named New Boston).
This topic was productive when John and I and a few others were hashing out a set of (sample?) criteria that can be used to determine whether a city is "important" or "well-known" enough to merit CityName only. Can we return to that discussion? I now agree that a fixed list should not be used (and is not necessary). --ishu 16:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The "big problem" you describe is standard everyday stuff for Wikipedia that is faced by every article. Why is it a "big problem" only for U.S. city articles? --Serge 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
How would you determine which of the communities named "Lakewood," "Englewood," or "Glendale" is the "most important" or most "well-known?" There is significant redundancy in place names that is unique to places. Consider the article for Monkeys that discusses this particular group of primates, and links to particular suborders, families, etc. of monkeys. The "average reader" of WP would likely call them all "monkeys." Would this be the "common name?" At any rate, the topic structure for Monkey (and animals in general) is inappropriate for places, many of which share nothing in common except for the name. --ishu 17:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
WP editors are constantly determining whether one particular subject is "most important" for a given name, or whether all subjects with that name should be disambiguated and listed on a dab page, like Portland, or A Trip to the Moon. This "big problem" is neither "big" nor unique in any respect to U.S. cities. The way you determine which if any "Englewood" or "Glendale" is the most important is using the google test, counting WP links, discussion, surveys, being bold, etc. In fact, all this was already resolved long ago for your three examples of Englewood, Lakewood and Glendale - they are all dab pages. There is no "big problem". --Serge 17:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course they're all DAB pages. For example, of six Englewoods, all--except for Englewood, Chicago--were created by the bot that you loathe so much--which created them under article names following the comma convention that you loathe so much.
Of 14 Glendales, nine were created by a bot except for Glendale, California, Glendale, Kentucky, Glendale, Nevada, Glendale, Queens, Glendale, Rhode Island. The earliest article appears to be Glendale, California, in 2002. The five later articles created by editors and could have been created under [[Glendale]], but weren't because the editors observed the comma convention.
But if the current comma convention had not been in place for U.S. city articles, then the situation would be the same as for any other articles in Wikipedia, and the creators of the five later articles would have still disambiguated, because [[Glendale]] would still have already been a dab page per standard conventions and WP:D and WP:NAME guidelines. I don't understand why think disambiguation within a given category (U.S. city names) cannot be normally dealt with per the accepted general naming conventions and guidelines. Why do you feel all names within that category must be predisambiguated in order to avoid some "big problem"? This is not the case for any category in Wikipedia, including for city names for the vast majority of other countries. Why do you think this is uniquely a "big problem" for U.S. city articles? --Serge 19:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Questions: Your proposal opens the door for one of the six Englewoods to move to [[Englewood]]. How would you determine which of the communities is the "most important" or most "well-known?" Since the Google test provides no guidance on this particular issue, how would you use a search engine to determine which Englewood should have sole use of the term? If you believe Englewood should remain DAB, then how would you determine when to make a city DAB and when not to? Please recall that the comma convention is much clearer as to when DAB and when not DAB. Of course, Los Angeles, Boston, and Chicago are the easy cases, but you wish to use unqualified cityname much more widely than most people in this discussion. How do you determine when one place gets unqualified cityname and when cityname goes to DAB? --ishu 18:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You determine these issues the same way the same determination is made for every other set of two or more subjects that share the same name and have articles in Wikipedia. Again, this is not a "big problem", nor is it unique in any respect for U.S. city names. I don't understand why you seem to feel the answer might be different for U.S. city articles than it would be for any other articles in Wikipedia. Can you explain this please? --Serge 19:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good lord. I think one should take the "more important" example with a grain of salt - and I meant it only for obvious examples such as "big city vs. burg". Would you suggest all locales at the same adminstrative level be disambiguated? A possibility. Actually, forget everything I said but "target level of non-disambiguation" - deal with this for questions of uniformity (for reader comprehension), and the other problems will show themselves afterwards. THEPROMENADER 23:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This latest tack makes no sense. Of course Glendale and Englewood are disambiguation pages; there's no one Englewood or Glendale that springs to mind for most non-local readers, thus no primary topic. Los Angeles, Biloxi, etc are totally different. -- nae'blis 00:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Renaming

The argument has been made here that the U.S. isn't building new cities; with the implication that we have a fixed set of names, so it is easy to tell which are unambiguous. That conclusion does not follow. Aberdeen, New Jersey used to be Matawan Township, New Jersey; Ocean Township, New Jersey changed its name, in the past election, to Toms River, New Jersey. Now both names for Aberdeen require disambiguation; Ocean Township has, I think, moved from one that does to one that doesn't. But how does the poor editor, or reader, know, without consulting a place-name guide before consulting an encyclopedia?

That's why we should dismbiguate pre-emptively, as we do with royalty; see WP:NC (names and titles). As with royalty, a few cases, like Los Angeles, are so well known as not to need dabbing. Septentrionalis 18:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the rationale for why only a limited set should be exceptions, and also why the burden should always be on the part of those who want a move. At any rate, as I've said before, I think Tariq's proposal, as currently worded, would more or less correct most of the problems that those of us who dislike the current convention have seen, without opening things up to much more radical change that many wisely wish to avoid. john k 18:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a non-issue and an argument that has been rejected in other contexts. Moving an article once an ambiguity issue is discovered is painless and practically automatic. It doesn't make sense to pre-disambiguate every city just because some might need to be disambiguated eventually. Note that Aberdeen (unqualified) is the city in Scotland, even though there are dozens of other places named Aberdeen, further evidence that the supposed "consistency" argument falls apart when you consider all cities, not just those in the US. -Anþony 08:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

State of play

It gets really annoying how any time we are in the middle of discussing one proposal, somebody comes along and proposes a completely different one. Given that, in the case of Promenader's proposal, it is a) not well-tailored to the actual issues we have been discussing, but rather designed to address a perceived problem that apparently exists throughout our city article naming; and b) highly unlikely to actually succeed, given the responses to Serge's somewhat similar proposals earlier, it seems to me that we should put it aside, at least for the moment.

On the other hand, Tariq's proposal has so far generated a fair degree of support. At present, about 60% of those who have weighed in have found it acceptable. Unless anyone has any specific wording changes they'd like to propose, I'm going to suggest that we

  1. Clear off the talk page, except for Tariq's proposal and the votes which have already been made for and against it; and
  2. Advertise the vote as widely as possible, and set formal poll guidelines (time limit, etc.).

Thoughts? john k 13:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly not an open-minded proposition, john. It doesn't matter who has been in this discussion, nor for how long, it's what's being discussed that is important. No-one here can expect any newcomer to the discussion to have a) followed the discussion from the start and b) make propositions based only on what has been discussed in the talk page.
That aside, my propostion in fact is based on what I've seen here. In some ways it seems that a few of you are just making compromises with each other (for reasons I don't know - impatience? exasperation?) and I really do think there are several issues being mixed here and points being missed. Especially as far as the latest compromise is concerned. I'm not even proposing anything per se - all I propose here is that we take a step back from the fray and attempt to look at this objectively from a reader - not contributor - point of view. THEPROMENADER 14:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
PS: But do as you will. If you all feel locked into something that you feel must be completed, than so be it. Just allow me to express my own reservations and thoughts from my (hopefully objective) "outsider" point of view. THEPROMENADER 14:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
To be blunt, Promenader, I think your proposal, as far as I understand it (I must admit I find it a bit confusing), represents the worst of both worlds. It abandons the familiarity of the "City, Larger Subdivision" form, which is the natural way to disambiguate city names in most of the anglophone world, but doesn't even seem to result in simpler names, as apparently your proposal would require Orléans (France) - that is to say, it would require moving articles from simple titles to more complicated ones. It seems like there's something to dislike for everyone, and very little to like. john k 18:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Argh, did I explain myself so badly? I proposed quite the opposite - to retain a "simplest form" if at all possible. If you'd read again my example I left on the "(France)" just for the sake of example. Boston is still Boston just above. All I have ever proposed here is a separation of convention and disambiguation methods for (readership) clarity. Please look again to the end of the #Yet Yet Another Proposal thread for another example. Perhaps I should start afresh in another thread under a more fitting title. THEPROMENADER 18:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you had better state your proposal exactly, and in a new section. At the moment, it appears to have much the same effect on American places as Serge's proposal, here, while being both vaguer and world-wide in scope. Serge did not have a majority, let alone consensus. This is why yours being dismissed: we've just been through this. Septentrionalis 18:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, apologies for the repetition. I do understand that things did get quite "obsessive" here for a while (which is exactly why I left the discussion months before) but my presentation is nothing of the kind - I would like it to speak for itself and be damned any similarities to anyone's former actions. I'll do you one better: I'll start a sub-page. Find it below. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Discernible Disambiguation

I've outlined my thoughts/proposition below. This is more a line of debate rather than a definitive solution in itself. THEPROMENADER 19:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary

I think it clear until now that there has been a mix-up between convention and disambiguation, and it is this that is making this discussion so long and complicated. Each element should have its own purpose, be instantly identifiable as such, and be treated in its own context for what it is. This would create a) different naming convention possibilities and b) make disambiguation identifiable as such to the reader. This should be taken step by step.

I - Create an Identifiable Disambiguation method

I chose brackets. These allow for the "pipe trick" in article Wikilinking (although I hear the comma works too now), and it seems that whatever is between is obviously identifiable as "secondary". States, counties, burgs, or anything would do the trick. This immediately makes several naming conventions possible, as the following. Nota: "most famous" places are left in their "long form" for sake of example. Once separated from the rest of the title by brackets, the "disambiguation text" can take on any form and still be identifiable as such.

II - Choose a Convention

Once the method of disambiguation is clear and identifiable, any convention will be identifiable (as such) as well.

III - Choose what (should be/deserves not to be) disambiguated

If at all possible, keep the shortest form of course. What qualifies as "best known" is a debate in itself.

IV - in light of the above

Anything from here down are my views on a "working model" made from the above elements.

Optimal solutions?

The "City, State" format is tenacious probably because it is both "comfortable" (US common usage) and "naturally disambiguated" (without being identifiably so). Yet from an encyclopaedic point of view it is rather pointless - it provides an only 'in-part' additional administrative information, and this information is only useful to those who are familiar with the state itself. It is probably for both these reasons that Encyclopaedias (US and foreign) do not disambiguate using the City, State method. In fact, most encyclopaedias do not disambiguate at all. But Wiki is not paper, and it must disambiguate. Thus, since disambigation is obligatory and unavoidable, best have an easily-identifiable disambiguation method to avoid its confusion with conventions.

Personally I think that "Cityname" should be the standard, but with bracket disambiguation, any disambiguation would be possible. For example the US could retain "City, State" and France could retain "City" as long as any "disambiguation words" outside the identifiable "country convention" are placed between brackets. Personally I don't see the sense in "City, State" but at least with this separation, a switch won't be painful.

If there is one additional thing to add, that would be that I see much logic in creating a convention whereas a "city locale" is always followed by its city (separated by a comma) as the risk of conflict at this level is great enough to merit this rule, and frankly it seems logical that placename below the "placename" administrative level (town, etc) should be identified with its owner.

I think that about sums it up. THEPROMENADER 19:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • I like your definition of the City, State convention better then what we have now for cases like Springfield, Wisconsin (Dane County) rather then Springfield, Dane County, Wisconsin since it maintains the editorial sytle and makes clear what is being disambiguated. If nothing else changes from this discussion, the dabs for multiple use within a state should be changed to the format you are suggesting. I would be suprised if there was a problem with getting consensus on this one point. Vegaswikian 23:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about your Hill Street, Boston, New York example. If this is a street and if we dab duplicates in a state as you suggest, then it may be more logical to use Hill Street (Boston, New York) since this is a dab rather then a style issue. I think this was what schools decided a while ago. Vegaswikian 23:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Some good points there. Especially in the "streetname" technicalities. I see also that adding "city" after an "in-city locale" with a comma ("streetname, city") can create confusion when used with the "city, state" convention - and imagine if some cities are only "city" and other "city, state" - the two and three-level variations will be confusing to the reader. All the more to say that everything outside of the subject of the article should be treated as DAB and presented as such: between brackets (or whatever DAB method decided upon). It would work, anyways. THEPROMENADER 00:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that you have confused disambiguation with qualification, rather than with convention. That being said, Los Angeles, California, is the fully qualified name, with Los Angeles as a nickname. (I don't know how to spell MA, and my spell-checker is on the blink because of a possible spyware infection.) Also, your logic requrires the disambiguation to be Springfield (Dane County), Wisconsin rather than Springfield, Wisconsin (Dane County). (Actually, I think that's an improvement over the current convention and tariq's proposal, but I don't know whether the pipe trick works for qualification + disambiguation.)
  • In other words, your point I doesn't reflect the current status or tariq's proposal; the state name is a qualification rather than a disambiguation or convention and should be treated as a separate category. I then agree with point III except to note that qualifications should not be removed except in exceptional circumstances, although diambiguations should only be included when necessary (or likely to become necessary in the near future). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As for the street article name problem, I tend to agree with Vegaswikian. This convention only deals with settlements, not streets or (necessarily) subsets of communities. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't even know what you mean by "qualification" - by what standards, US local? Then this is another word for "accepted convention" - and no, nothing of any discussion has entered this one. This is an attempt at an objective look at Wiki media vs. its readership comprehenstion. THEPROMENADER 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"Los Angeles" is not a "nickname." It is the completely correct short form name of the city formally known as the "City of Los Angeles". "California" is not part of the name at all. See, for instance, the official website. john k 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't on the merits at all, but is rather procedural, but, as I said before, I think we should go back to talking about Tariq's proposal, which seemed closest to potentially achieving some kind of consensus for a change. Perhaps it isn't perfect, and perhaps it's too obviously and awkwardly a "compromise" between what are actually irreconcilable positions, but we need to pick some proposal to try to go beyond getting the opinions of the 20 of us who read this talk page, and that looks like the best bet. Are we actually trying to accomplish something, or just doing this to hear ourselves talk? john k 20:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    I think it's reasonable to assume there are some sandbagging delay tactics at play here. I support Tariq's proposal as a step in the right direction, but, fundamentally, it is just as flawed as are the current U.S. city naming guidelines (in violation of WP:NAME and WP:D). Either qualification of the most simple/common name is allowed for some reason other than disambiguation, or it is not. If it is, you're opening the door for qualifying for just about any reason. Allowing qualification for reasons other than disambiguation has been found to be a Pandora's Box in all kinds of categories. For example, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). --Serge 21:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    No sandbagging tactics at all here - but I must say that I don't consider introducing two conventions where one will serve a good idea. Anyhow, even this wouldn't matter if we could define and use a clear-cut and identifiable method of disambiguation different from convention. THEPROMENADER 22:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    Promenader, your proposal does not actually address the issue that we have heretofore been discussing, in that it's unclear whether the "City, State" version would accommodate having the Boston, Massachusetts article at Boston, which question has been the whole thing we've been discussing. john k 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    John, this discussion is a complete other, and is not even a proposition per se. If you would like to continue with your vote please do, but if anything here is worth considering, please feel free to consider it as well. I'm not asking anyone to stop anything, nor am I attempting to. THEPROMENADER 22:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation vs. qualification

With regard to the disambiguation/qualification confusion...they are almost the same thing. In particular, qualifying a name in order to disambiguate from other uses of that name is disambiguation. Qualifying a name that does not need to be disambiguated is "predisambiguation". So disambiguation is a form of qualification: it is qualification done for the specific reason of disambiguating. Qualification done for any reason other than disambiguation is, well, unconventional, confusing and inconsistent with widely observed Wikipedia naming conventions and guidelines. --Serge 18:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The "qualification" definition seems to be a "local" (Wiki contributor) creation whose definition is most probably indetectible (thus indefinable) to the reader - so for the sake of discussion just consider it to be another "convention". All I ask is that you make disambiguation clear for what it is to the reader - this will waylay all "name" confusion and even make possible new conventions. THEPROMENADER 22:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Another reason to provide name qualification for placenames is to provide a broader context. Telling the reader that something happened in Spangle probably gives most of them no clue at all without clicking on the link, and losing the context of the article they were reading. Telling them it happened in Spangle allows them to wave the mouse over the link, and reading the tooltip may well give the required context to keep reading without following the link. --Scott Davis Talk 22:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
So if I understand correctly, qualification is whatever comes before a pipe, and is different from what's displayed? I wonder what happens with parenthesis and nothing after the pipe Spangle... hey, the same! No matter, as the roads to both uses are open. If "qualification" is a link to an article (thus to its name), than it can include anything (convention or disambiguation) - let's not confuse things! I think it would be simpler to keep the question to the article title. THEPROMENADER 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
No, qualification has nothing to do with piping. Qualification is anything in an article name (the actual title) that is beyond the simple/common name of the subject. The only uncontroversial reason to further qualify an article name in Wikipedia is to disambiguate it from other uses of that name. But some argue Pandora's Box should be opened to allow qualification for other reasons too, like to provide "broader context". --Serge 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The occasional need for "broader context" is not unique to U.S. city article names or city article names in general. For example, telling the reader that something happened in Blue Balls Lagoon probably gives most them no clue at all without clicking on the link, and losing the context of the article they were reading. Telling them it happened in Blue Balls Lagoon allows them to wave the mouse over the link, and reading the tooltip may well give the required context to keep reading without following the link.
Of course, what really matters is the context in which the reference is being made. For example, if the article is about someone born in Spangle, Washington, or Chicago, Illinois, that's how it is typically referenced. And, of course, there is nothing preventing an editor from linking to Spangle, or Chicago, should the context be appropriate for that, even though the article is actually at Chicago, since Chicago, Illinois redirects to Chicago (as Spangle, Washington would redirect to Spangle if the article was ever moved to Spangle).
So I don't see how the "to provide broader context" argument justifies violating WP:NAME and WP:DAB to put the article about Spangle, Washington at Spangle, Washington any more than it justifies putting the article about the episode of Entourage entitled "Blue Balls Lagoon" at Blue Balls Lagoon (Entourage). --Serge 22:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Any presumed "violating" of any present convention is out of context in this discussion, so stay on topic please. This discussion has nothing to do with anything existing nor, does it take any point from the same. It is (an attempt at) an objective (and constructive) look at creating a consistant method with an identifiable purpose, and is based on nothing existing. THEPROMENADER 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
We need to have some basis on which to decide what is better or worse. If you're throwing out the Wikipedia convention to use the simplest/most-common name of the subject to name an article on that subject, then I don't know what basis to use to decide whether a given name is a "good" or "better" one or not. If we're not using general Wikipedia conventions as the basis for making objective evaluations, then what are we using? --Serge 00:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
So if "qualification" is something added to its name outside of the name itself (for whatever reason), then it is a form of disambiguation. It should be identified clearly as such. Can we consider it as such for the sake of this discussion? THEPROMENADER 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
No, just because it is "something added to its name outside of the name itself" does not mean it is necessarily a form of disambiguation. In particular, if the qualificatin is not done to disambiguate, then it's not a form of disambiguation. --Serge 00:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict, replying to Serge) And I don't see why this convention/qualification cannot specify that qualification by state is a valid reason to override WP:NAME. WP:DAB doesn't enter into it at all. For specifics: WP:NAME#City names states:
Convention: In general, there are no special naming conventions for cities, unless multiple cities with the same name exist.
Discussion, rationale, and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)
In other words, it states specifically that the convention at WP:NC:CITY#United States overrides the general policy in WP:NAME. Neither WP:NAME nor any of the WP:NC articles states that the only reason for "qualification" is disambiguation. In fact, WP:PLACES (the parent of WP:NC:CITY) suggests a few instances in which "pre-disambiguation" should be done to avoid (probable) multiple moves at a later time. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It says there are no SPECIAL naming conventions, meaning there are none beyond the general ones (WP:D, WP:NAME, WP:NC(CN), etc.), not that there are NO conventions. I don't see how you can interpret what it says at WP:NAME#City names to mean that the "convention at WP:NC:CITY#United States overrides the general policy". Specific conventions should augment the general policy, clarifying things in a particular area that the general policy does not cover, not contradict or "override" the general policy or guidelines. It's like local and state laws compared to the Constitution - the Constitution provides the general principles and guidelines, the local and state laws provide the details. But they don't override the Consitution - that would be, well, unconstitutional. The current U.S. city naming convention is comparable to having an unconstitutional state law. --Serge 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking at another section, the policy on royal names amounts to a qualification convention in the absence of present or potential ambiguity, and the (number) convention doesn't have real potential for ambiguity for numbers over 1,000,000 or so. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Determining the most simple/common name for royalty is not a trivial matter as it is for cities. Thus, the conventions they use are arguably not qualifications of the simple/common name. No such argument can be made for cities where the most simple/common name is clearly always the city name itself. I don't know anything about the numbers naming, but, my initial reaction is that seems like an exceptional case, and, at most, is a counter-example. --Serge 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's forget all existing conventions for now, and just have an objective look at how everything in a title works. THEPROMENADER 23:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
What does that mean? What does works mean? How do we decide how everything in a title works? --Serge 00:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
So each subject could have its own agreed naming method and own disambiguation method. For reader comprehension it would be important that a single "name type" (say, people) always use the same (identifiable) convention and disambiguation, but it is not necessarily necessary that all "name types" use the same. THEPROMENADER 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
So every article could have it's own naming method? Or every category of related articles could have its own naming method? So you're okay with having inconsistent naming conventions between categories? Let's have cities be ALL CAPS (NEW YORK CITY, SAN FRANCISCO, etc.), animal names all be backwards (goD, taC, woC), and articles about corporations named by the CFO's mother's maiden name. Seriously, where do you draw the line? Should we not have consistency throughout the encyclopedia? Of course we should. So how do we accomplish that? What should those conventions and guidelines be? Hey, you know what? Deciding what those are is out of context for this page, and, even better, they've already been established! All we have to do is abide by them, which we currently are not doing with the U.S. city naming conventions as they stand. See WP:NAME, WP:D, WP:NC(CN), etc.... --Serge 00:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. "People" articles could have their own consistent naming method, and "Places" articles could have their own other. THEPROMENADER 00:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This is also a style issue. So it is not unreasonable to have specific naming conventions for broad areas. The one size fits all model does not always work. If all cities follow one unified style that is slightly different then the unified style for animals is that wrong or an error? I'd argue that it is not and it can in fact make the encylopedia better. Sometimes the implementation of broad high level goals need to be modified when you actually do the implementation. Vegaswikian 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
At the high level, the broad guidelines should apply to all or they should not be accepted as the broad guidelines. If they don't apply, then they should be discarded as general guidelines. As you go lower you can get into more detail, but you should not be overriding the broader guidelines from the higher levels. Abiding by the higher/broader guidelines while adding more detailed but still consistent guidelines at the lower and lower levels leads to a consistent and rich system. The alternative is chaos, confusion and strife. --Serge 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Promenader, but even then, shouldn't there be general guidelines that apply to both? Like "use English", "use the most commmon/simple name", etc? That's what the general naming conventions are for - to establish standards and consistency throughout Wikipedia that transcend specific naming areas. Why should one little corner (U.S. city names) claim special status to violate the conventions and guidelines used by the rest of the encyclopedia? Augment: to fill-in details not covered by the general conventions and guidelines? Sure. But override the general conventions contrary to the rest of the encyclopedia? Why? On what grounds? --Serge 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Like I said earlier: for the sake of this discussion, forget existing conventions/styles/uses. Let's look just at the reader sees and understands.

For now you have two methods of "separation" - comma and parentheses. If both convention and disambiguation uses only the comma method, the reader will not differentiate which is which - he may even assume that what he sees is a proper name. The only people who (can) "define" which is which are Wiki contributors.

Parentheses, on the other hand, mark a clear separation of disambiguation from the name proper of the article subject.

I see a conflict between comma disambiguation and comma convention, and think futile an attempt to make a "subject-wide" attempt at making the two not overlap. Even if a standard be reached, it would have to be constant to be understood by the reader - thus the futility in making "one place this, another place that" rules. The only method that would remain clear to the (quite possibly foreign) reader would be a "type-wide" standard - placename, people-name, etc. THEPROMENADER 09:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

US additional disambiguation change suggested.

I'd like to suggest that we change the following from:

Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county or parish (for example Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina and Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina).

to

Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county or parish (for example Elgin, South Carolina (Lancaster County) and Elgin, South Carolina (Kershaw County)).

This change would keep the place name in a more natural form and disambiguate in a more standard form. The pipe trick, Elgin, South Carolina, would work with this format to easly display the disambiguated city name where that was appropiate for use in the article.Vegaswikian 00:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. -Will Beback 00:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think (as I said above, in a lost context) that Elgin (Lancaster County), South Carolina would be more appropriate, as it's in order of size of geographic area. Testing the pipe trick below:
Seems to work in my version. I guess I don't understand the pipe trick.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Since disambiguation is usually at the end of the title and not it the middle, your suggestion would appear to be an exception to the norm. Vegaswikian 20:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, very good. I don't think you'll get much objection. If a few more chime in to agree, I suggest being bold and just changing it. No need for yet another survey, hopefully! --Serge 01:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would prefer Elgin (Lancaster County) since (Lancaster County) seems to be the simplest and most logical disambiguater in this case. --Serge 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be a deviation from the city, state guideline. I'm trying to only change one small piece and not open up the bigger problem in another way. Vegaswikian 01:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree my preference would be a deviation from the current guideline, which is why I mentioned it as such and do support your proposal. I can't believe there are objections (based on false claims like "AE usage" of course). --Serge 01:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
edit conflict-Looks like it may be a choice between
Vegaswikian 01:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason not to use Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina which pipes to Elgin. It is AE usage; the pipe trick works. Of Vegas's two choices, the one that pipes to Elgin is probably more useful. Oppose. Septentrionalis 01:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina is AE usage??? Let's ask google...
Results 1 - 10 of about 27 English pages for "Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina"
Results 1 - 2 of 2 English pages for "Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina" -Wikipedia
The two in the latter case are explicitly derived from Wikipedia despite Wikipedia being eliminated from the search results. In other words, there are only 27 references to "Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina" on the entire internet, and all 27 are derived from Wikipedia usage. It is not AE usage! --Serge 01:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Elgin, South Carolina is of course much more common; but we cannot use it. In its absence, Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina is the default. Please stop arguing with a native speaker. Septentrionalis 01:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
What is the relevance of you being a "native speaker"? So am I. So what? Why do you contend that "Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina is the default"? Why is it the default? What's wrong with "Elgin" or "Elgin, South Carolina" with "Lancaster County" as the disambiguator (to produce Elgin (Lancaster County) or Elgin, South Carolina (Lancaster County))? Why is one of those not the default? Either just Elgin or Elgin, South Carolina is much more common in AE usage than is the virtually unheard of Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina; in either case, the Lancaster County disambiguator is not part of the name. --Serge 06:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
How does someone who lives between the two Elgin, South Carolinas identify which one they mean? How about someone who lives halfway between them and another Elgin (e.g. Elgin, Texas), when talking to someone else who also is aware of the existence of all three? Of course the locals never use the state to disambiguate or qualify the names. Perhaps I should also ask how a Californian would identify which of the three he meant, when talking to someone who knows about all three, and they are equally likely to be the subject of the conversation. Secondly, if the audience is unaware if any of these Elgins, but possibly some other one closer to home? --Scott Davis Talk 08:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
We do name our subjects in Wikipedia consistent with how they are named in "real life", but I think it's a mistake to expand that to try and mimic how particular names are disambiguated in various contexts in "real life", and, instead, use a consistent/standard method to disambiguate within Wikipedia. I think it's a mistake because, as you point out, there is rarely a clear/consistent answer to how names are disambiguated in real life since it depends on context. --Serge 17:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems here is that the required disambiguation is often done verbally (e.g., between two South Carolinians), and we require a text-based representation. Additionally, the verbal disambiguation is different depending upon the audience. When disaster strikes in Metropolitan Los Angeles, local stations refer to specific communities, sometimes with a county identifier, other times simply by referring to a nearby geographic feature (e.g., Topanga Canyon or "Big Bear" (which could refer to Big Bear City, Big Bear Lake, California, or the reservoir Big Bear Lake). When such a disaster is reported elsewhere in the state, the county is often used, sometimes the nearby city, but rarely a canyon, valley, or mountain range. Of course, when the event is reported nationally, it is simply "near Los Angeles" or even "in Los Angeles." The disambiguation level changes depending upon who's supposed to be hearing/reading it. Likewise, in the Delaware Valley (regional identifier) (better known nationally as the "Philadelphia area"), there are at least three Washington Townships, which are disambiguated with their county (but not the state). As with the "Los Angeles" example, when these events are reported outside the region, only the region and the town name are used, but not the county disambiguator. We should consider this when making decisions, and it is probably a source of much of this strife. --ishu 13:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If I can express my opinion aside from any other discussion on this page, adding anything to a placename outside of its name with the comma disambiguation will always create conflict and confusion - if not for itself, for other similarily named (even in form) articles. The only part of a placename that reamains the same (language aside) is the name of the place itself - whatever is added after (and comprehension thereof) depends on the audience. Sates (attached with comma disambiguation) may as well be part of the name as far as foreigners (and the ignorant) are concerned.
I am still divided, but as I read through this (and it's taking a while) it is becoming apparent that "cityname" disambiguated with parantheses is the best solution for universal comprehension. At least I've seen so far. At least this way you can disambiguation whatever you want (states, counties, etc) between parentheses and the "which" of the namespace will still remain clear. THEPROMENADER 16:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree and am pleased to see you arrive at this logical conclusion. Perhaps the main reason "disambiguated with parantheses is the best solution for universal comprehension" is because this is the one standard/consistent method for disambiguation used throughout Wikipedia. Wikipedia readers are accustomed to it, and know what it means. In Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina. which is the name, and which is the disambiguating qualifier? This is even a problem for Portland, Maine (whereas Elgin (Lancaster County) and Portland (Maine) are unambiguous with respect to which is the name and which is the disambiguating qualifier). --Serge 17:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it took me some time to get there. Already I see little logic in any convention - unless rock-solid standardised (no exceptions) - between "name" and "name, to the, highest, administrative, entity" - the confusion between the two (which is which administrative level, and where is it?). Wiki can support the latter method, but it is too tedious and cumbersome for contributors. As for the "name-only" choice, the name must be identifiable and separate from whatever is used to disambiguate it - and, since disambiguation, often over multiple levels and separated by a comma (county, state, etc), it must be seperated from the name in a different manner - and the only other choice is using parantheses. THEPROMENADER 18:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
PS: As for the name of a place itself, I think it should be a "textbook naming" or "map name" that holds sway over all. THEPROMENADER 16:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. What are the "textbook names" or "map names" for San Francisco and Elgin (Lancaster County)? --Serge 17:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Look in a textbook, look on a map and you'll have your answer. THEPROMENADER 17:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
PS: by introducing convention into the name you are muddling the issue - did you not understand? A city may have a "local" name that may differ from its official name - so the official name should be used - this is all I meant. THEPROMENADER 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
What I'm not understanding is why you're saying I introduced convention into the name. What did I write to make you think that? Why do you think the "official" name should be used vs. the "local" name. What's the official name of New York City? City of New York? Are you saying Chicago should be at City of Chicago? I guess I'm not understanding. --Serge 20:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You're looking past the problem, Serge. What everyone sees on an official or reference map (encyclopedia, eg) should be the standard here - simple as that. Think "google maps", think "michelin." THEPROMENADER 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(settlements)/Archive_11&oldid=951373212"