Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/One international convention

One International Naming Convention

I'm a bit flummoxed at the idea that different countries have different conventions. In any printed publication it is usually the publication itself that, in a goal of better reader comprehension, devises and exercises a naming convention consistent through the whole publication. This naming convention is usually tailored to its audience, and most of the world's publications until present cater to a language or locale often related to that of the publishing house. This is of course changing thanks to CD and DVD media, and online Wiki is of course a huge step ahead in this regard.

So who is Wiki's audience? I'd say that comes from an indiscriminate world over, and if this is not so than it should be treated like this is, or will be, the case. For this I find the name quibbling to be a bit narrow-minded in scope for its targeting only 'local' understanding. I am also of the opinion that the existing system has its a*s between two chairs.

A huge number of the world's people don't know that Chicago is in the State of Illinois. A fewer number couldn't even tell you that Illinois is a state in the United States of America. Yet an American encyclopaedia would never dream of publishing an article on Chicago under a Chicago, Illinois, United States title - but would a French one? My Larousse doesn't; Illinois is listed under Illinois as "a State of the US". Chicago also is under its own title. But imagine a publication listing every neighbourhood of every city in the world under its own namespace - would this be chaos - or natural in light of the media? In the single-name convention to the uninformed, between La Jolla and Illinois, which is State and which one is neighbourhood? What if there was a city that shared the same name as another city or even State, won't this create a sort of name 'hierarchy' as well? I think it all depends on organisation.

Myself I find a "Chicago, Illinois, United States" title bulky but highly informative. It is a walk down all the administrative steps until the subject proper. It also serves as a form of categorisation - a search for "Illinois" will turn up a city I am looking for in this state - but it is also true that Categories can serve to this end. But to me, from an international point of view, Chicago, Illinois seems incomplete without its country in the namespace - it is a trip half-complete.

Perhaps all I've done here is ask questions, but I think there are a few points that deserve consideration when devising naming conventions - namely audience, support, mechanical function (browsing, searching) of that support, and an audience's maintained comprehension no matter where it browses within. -- thepromenader 16:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Chicago, Illinois, United States" would force piped links in practically every article that links to it. It's good to use different standards for different countries because the articles that accompany them are generally written by those who know them. We should keep that in mind when naming each article. If there is some sort of confusion from "an international point of view", reading the first sentence of Chicago, Illinois will make it abundantly clear where it is. Titles should be accurate without being counterintuitive. If someone is basing all their knowledge of a subject on the title of an article, and succumbs to confusion without even reading a single sentence, then I think they've come to the wrong place. Wikipedia encourages the use of multiple dialects, and should encourage the use of multiple formats for place names. Kafziel 16:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The information is also in the infobox. We don't need to provide it a third time. --Yath 17:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Promenader, while I agree with you that we should be consistent internationally, I believe you are confusing the purpose of the title of an encyclopedia article with the purpose of the text of the article. The purpose of the title is to specify the most common name used to reference the subject of the article, period. When there is an ambiguity, then disambiguation information (normally specified in a parenthetic remark) is used to distinguish the name in one context from other contexts. While adding disambiguation information also happens to add more information in the title, it is a mistake to start relying on the title field for that information.

With cities (and communities for that matter), I think part of the confusion stems from the fact that the disambiguation information is provided with the comma method rather than as a parenthetic remark. The problem is that the comma method makes it less obvious that the disambiguation information is disambiguation information; the comma makes it look like the disambiguation information is part of the name.

Once you see the disambiguation information as part of the name, it's tempting to see value in providing that information consistently. There is something appealing about seeing SomeName, California and knowing that the format alone tells the reader that SomeName must be a city in California. Once you see value in that, it's tempting to take it to the next step... and AnotherName, SomeName, California tells you that AnotherName must be a community in SomeName. But why stop there? Why not invent conventions for other categories too? Maybe ModelName [CarManufacturer], for example, should be the format used for titles of articles about car models? The reason we don't do that is because we would be solving a non-existent problem. All articles names are referenced in contexts that almost always make their "type" obvious.

Encoding information about the subject of the article in the title, beyond what is necessary for disambiguation, is using the title for something that it is not supposed to be used for... which is to specify the most common name used to reference the subject of the article. Adding any addition information contaminates the title. When disambiguation information is added inside of a parenthetical remark, at least the common name, outside parentheses, is still obvious. But when done with a comma, the very purpose of the title is not met because the common name specification becomes less clear.

So, I agree with you that we should be consistent internationally with city names. But I go beyond that. I think all Wikipedia articles, including all city articles, should be named according to one of the following two formats, period:

• CommonName
• CommonName (incidental disambiguation info)

Simple and consistent: the common name is always obvious. The content and format of the incidental disambiguation info in the parenthetic remark does not matter since its only purpose is to disambiguate Name in one context from all the others. This should be handled on a case-by-case basis, as it is for all Wikipedia articles.

By using the title of an article to specify information about the subject other than the name by which it is most commonly known, you are creating a purpose for the title that it is not supposed to have. --Serge 17:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I was only speaking of Title. Some of you seem to be continuing your arguments from above here. Mine was an open question - there are many elements to take into consideration when creating a convention, not only one point de vue. thepromenader 18:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you were speaking only of the title... but you seem to be assuming that information in the title about the subject, besides specifying the name that is used most commonly to refer to the subject, is reasonable and appropriate. Any information beyond the name belongs in the text of the article, not in the title. That's why I said you seem to be confusing the purpose of one with the other. --Serge 19:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In other words, we are saying that the purpose of a title is not to be "highly informative", as you put it, but simply to be useful. The purpose of the article is to be highly informative. The title is just a way for people to find what they're looking for, not a way to try to answer all their questions. Kafziel 19:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In particular, the purpose of the title is to answer exactly one question: What is the most common name used to reference the subject of this article? Specifying in the title any information beyond that solves no problems, except when there is an actual ambiguity issue. And using the comma convention to specify disambiguation information (like the state), muddles the purpose of the title: since it makes the common name unclear. --Serge 19:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's just say that we're trying to designate as simply as possible, for the uninformed researcher, exactly what he is looking for. How better can we pinpoint this research, out of the hundreds of thousands of article possibilities there are in Wiki, than in the title itself? You must also consider the media and the way it is used by those unfamiliar with the subject in which their query lies. thepromenader 20:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia. We don't need to compromise the quality of the site to try to cater to every culture on Earth. If a person can negotiate English-language websites well enough to find and navigate Wikipedia, they can certainly make their way through a disambiguation page (and actually, for most places, it's just a redirect and requires no additional input at all). I don't agree with Serge's view that parenthesis are always the way to go, but we certainly don't want more information than is absolutely necessary. There's only one place named Chicago. Chicago, Illinois would be unnecessary, and "Chicago, Illinois, United States" would be extremely unnecessary. We want the simplest, most useful title for the purposes of linking and searching. Kafziel 20:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What people might search for should definitely be taken care of by redirects. But that should not be the main criterion for deciding what to title the article. The Wikipedia-wide standard for most articles is to use the common name and disambiguate only when necessary. --Polaron | Talk 20:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this is exactly what I am asking you to consider. As it is a reference available to all (and English Wiki is the most consulted), optimal wiki "quality" == "comprehension for the user no matter his level of education or provenance". I don't think our goal here is to predict who will use what in what way with what knowledge - with all the information to choose from, it would be "most useful" to call a cat a cat, and more quickly than that.

It is also worth considering that most navigation to articles here is a result of either the Google SE or direct links from one article to another. I do quite understand the difficulties caused by 'piping' - yet couldn't reidirects, save questions of ambiguity, take care of such problems? "Chicago" for example could redirect to "Chicago, Illinois, United States" - wouid this bother? How about a link to Tashkent - is this clear for you to which country this belongs? Must you really read the article first before you know? Or would you, unaware of where this locale is, prefer to see Tashkent, Tazakistan and understand immidiately that it is not what you are looking for? You must remember that Wiki visitors often do not have the same knowledge nor habits as we contributors.thepromenader 20:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. If you want to know where Tashkent is without reading any part of an article whatsoever, then you're better off just using google. What would you do if you only had a paper encyclopedia? We are infinitely more accommodating than that, but in the end you can't expect to have every bit of research handed to you without the slightest effort. Besides, you've picked a pretty poorly formatted article as an example. There should be an infobox, and the first sentence should make it clear. We don't format Wikipedia based on exceptions, ignorant users, and laziness. Kafziel 21:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

PS- just wanted to make it clear that I'm not applying those descriptions to you. I'm just speaking in general of the kind of people who would expect a title to contain every bit of info they could want. Kafziel 21:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you, and from my end please be reminded that my only goal is to consider the question - conventions - in every way possible, and especially outside of a US-only point of view. All of us searching for anything on the web are ignorant about what we are looking for - no matter what country we come from. I also ask if it is so damaging , to cover all bases, to have the full name as an article title, and the "shortest name", save disambiguation, as a redirect? Now I've gone beyond simply asking questions as now I'm forwarding ideas.... thepromenader 21:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: Wiki is not a paper encyclopaedia, and this is another very important part of my question. thepromenader 21:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain exactly how naming Chicago Chicago, Illinois or Chicago, Illinois, United States, will help any reader-researcher. In other words, please provide an example of what exactly a researcher might be doing such that he would be helped if the title had more information in it besides just the most common name, Chicago, used to reference the city. --Serge 22:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to ask me that, then please explain how a reader-researcher wouldn't be helped by such information : ) thepromenader 22:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, really, please consider my questions from an objective view as possible. I'm not here to support any other argument on this page. thepromenader 22:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't show you how a reader-researcher would not be helped by such information, any more than you can show me how someone would not be helped by lining their toilet bowl with fur. The only way to "show" either is by a lack of any examples of how it can help. So, for those of you who are promoting more information in titles, please provide an example of how that might help. --Serge 23:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The title should reflect what the thing is called. Anything else should be in the article text. Context should of course be indicated in the very first sentence. We don't put people's occupations or place of origin or who their parents are in the titles of articles about people. I'm sure an article entitled George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States, son of George H. W. Bush would be more useful but inappropriate.We don't put articles at Dog, Carnivore, Mammal, Vertebrate, Animal - I'm sure that title is helpful in some cases but it is not what the thing is called so should not be the title of the article. --Polaron | Talk 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. --Serge 23:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

By following a convention we impart information to a reader. Naming a city, to make up an example, "Green River, Wisconsin" imediately alerts readers that they are looking at a city rather than a river, or "Fort Wayne, Indiana" tells readers that it is a city, not a fort. -Will Beback 22:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In what context, exactly, do we impart this information to the reader? Can you provide any actual examples? But, in that example, say the example is on a biography of John Doe it indicates he was born in Green River, Wyoming. Do you really need to float your mouse pointer over Green River to learn that Green River (in this context) is a city? Of course not. So can you provide a realistic example where that would actually be useful?

By the way, note that you used the phrase, "naming a city". By naming the city Green River as Green River, Wyoming, we are misnaming it. And that's the point. At best, we are blurring the information... is the most common name for the city Green River or Green River, Wyoming? It's not clear when the title is Green River, Wyoming! --Serge 23:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could move Chicago to [[City of Chicago, Cook County, Chicagoland, State of Illinois, American Midwest, Contiguous Forty-Eight States, United States of America, Anglo-America, North America, the Americas, Western Hemisphere, Planet Earth, Inner Planets, Solar System, Milky Way, Local Group, Canes Venatici cloud, Virgo Supercluster, Universe]] and just make Chicago a redirect... In all seriousness, being unnecessarily specific makes linking to articles that much more cumbersome. I understand if many feel Chicago, Illinois isn't unnecessarily specific, but Chicago, Illinois, United States, to many, is. Also, I'm not sure how the use of the state only in the title of an article indicates an American bias. We don't mention the country after Tehran or Paris or Nairobi either. We can leave the specifics to the article (well... not what supercluster the city is in; that's for another article). -- tariqabjotu 22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Those extremes aren't necessary. But it would be nice if Highland Park, Illinois's neighbor was Evanston, Illinois, rather than "Evanston" or "Evanston (Illinois)" or whatever variation the editors of Evanston decide on from week to week. Other countries have other conventions, that doesn't mean the U.S. can't have one too. -Will Beback 00:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ya think those extremes aren't necessary? Do you have a sense of humor?

What would be nice is if the Illinois cities of Highland Park and Evanston were disambiguated in a manner consistent with the convention used by every other article with an ambiguous common name in Wikipedia: CommonName (disambiguation information). The titles Highland Park (Illinois) and Evanston (Illinois) make it clear in no uncertain terms that the common names for the two cities are Highland Park and Evanston, respectively. But the current titles of Highland Park, Illinois and Evanston, Illinois, leaves it unclear what is the most common name used for each... is it Highland Park or Highland Park, Illinois, for example? There is no way for the reader to know!

The city, state "comma convention" makes it impossible for the title of a city article to clearly convey the one piece of information that it is supposed to specify: the most common name used to reference the subject of the article! Is it city or city, state? The "comma convention" make it impossible for the reader to know! --Serge 00:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, look, exaggerations aside, you have two extremes. You have the "one name only" choice which is the name of that entity and none other. This would make linking things up easy, but would require that the first line of each article state exactly where that entity is. On the other hand, you have the "what it is and where it is" naming convention that would name not only the entity itself but its locale - this is cumbersome, and this is also where conventions would most come into play. Again, I don't see the point in "half describing" where that entity is, that is to say stopping short of its largest administrative entity that would be country - and I see only confusion in treating neighbourhoods one way and burgs another - if this convention is to be effective and comprehensive to all, the comma must separate a name from its next largest entity, and so on up the chain.

I'd like to propose a mix of the two. Why not have the article final destination (explained just ahead) in a 'full name' format, and place redirects in the short-name format? This I think would be both informative, cover all technical bases, and eliminate all ambiguity. thepromenader 10:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(OK - I'm 24 hours behind - sorry). Serge has said and repeated The purpose of the title is to specify the most common name used to reference the subject of the article, period. Please cite a reference that this is a) a purpose of an article title in Wikipedia and b) the only such purpose.

In my view, purposes served by an article title include:

• A unique identifier to use in the URL for the page.
• Something to type in the search box that will take me to an article I've seen before without having to scan a search results page. This is the distinction between the Go and Search buttons. Redirects and mnemonics help here (such as WP:NC:CITY).
• Use as the text for a tooltip on links to this page from other wikipedia pages if piped links are used.

None of these need to be the title, but neither does Serge's stated purpose. The URL could just as easily be a sequence number, the Go button could be replaced by "I'm feeling lucky" which just returns the first article that would be in the search results list and links could be to the sequence number in the URL, so the visible text is the user information. The most common name to reference the subject of an article could (and should be) in the first sentence of the article. As a reader, I frequently use the article title for one of the purposes Serge says I shouldn't: I wave my mouse over a link to get the little bit of context about a place that saves me the time and cost of downloading a potentially large article just to see where the town is.

The purpose of this naming convention is to provide a consistent appearance to the names of articles about cities and towns in Wikipedia. For various reasons, the way we name and disambiguate town names varies in different countries in the real world, so this article naming convention is also divided by country, and has some variation across countries, especially federations, large countries, small countries, and by local language. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I frankly don't get the "common name" part - shouldn't the official name hold sway here? How would the namespace be referenced? I doubt that local common usage should be the norm here... unless I'm missing something. In any case "common use" as it is cited here seems more an interpretation of a rule than a rule itself. thepromenader 22:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The worldwide mess

Can anyone explain why we need different standards for each country? This causes problems when you do need to disambiguate two cites in different countries. Reaching consensus is difficult, especially when the WP:RM notice only goes into the city that is being forced to dab. Why not clean this all up with an encylopedia wide standard? Using just the place name will not work since they are too often repeated in other countries. Also the way places are grouped varies by county so you would still need to define a portion of the convention by country. If we adopted a convention of [city, local_dab_term] one convention would work for all. In the US, the local_dab_term would be state, it would vary for other countries. local_dab_term could be complex if needed, like 'name2, name 4, name8'. Places that could simply use city would need to meet a specific standard that would need to be developed. Vegaswikian 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it needn't be complicated - it could perhaps get long. I opened a few points on this subject upstairs if you look up. Most here seem more concerned with local concerns though. thepromenader 22:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Then simply agree on the one standard and resolve the local issues. I know it is not that simple, but maybe if we propose the vote on it, consenus will develop. The biggest problem I see for something like I suggested is the renaming of a bunch of articles. That could be simply addressed by saying they should be renamed as time allows or when necessary for a dab through a speedy rename. Vegaswikian 23:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly a reasonable idea. -- tariqabjotu 22:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We need different standards for each country because each country is different. Personally, I'm most familiar with the Dutch situation, and I know the U.S. naming convention does not work there, because:

1. The subdivisions of the Netherlands are not well known enough to be recognized by the average visitor, so a title like Soest, Utrecht would not be more informative than Soest (Netherlands);
2. If Dutch placenames are mentioned in a text, it is uncommon to see them followed by a province name; this really is a very American convention; which means that plain names with a disambiguation term in parentheses if needed are the most practical;
3. Standard disambiguation with the country name is not sufficient for most of the cases; there is a lot of duplication of names within the Netherlands, even within provinces; but disambiguation on the municipal level would result in even more unknown terms;
4. "local_dab_term could be complex if needed, like 'name2, name 4, name8'": that would lead to names like Heikant, Baarle-Nassau, North Brabant, Netherlands, which still is the name of 2 villages...
5. some place names contain commas, e.g. Nuenen, Gerwen en Nederwetten. Prematurely dab'ing such a page with commas would be confusing...

That is why places in the Netherlands (and this probably holds for other countries as well) should be at the plain names, and only be dab'ed when needed, using parentheses, on the level that is appropriate for each case. That is already the convention I use when creating articles. Eugène van der Pijll 23:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You explained why the U.S. convention would be problematic to apply in the Netherlands. You did not explain why applying the Netherlands convention (only dab when needed), which is consistent with all of Wikipedia, would be problematic to apply in the U.S. I suggest there is no such explanation and strongly support the uniform naming convention of dabbing only when needed across all of Wikipedia, including U.S. city names. --Serge 23:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

At least my reason number 2 does not apply to U.S. cities. But I'm working on articles on Dutch towns much more than on articles about U.S. towns. I know the U.S. convention would not work for the Neteherlands and probably many other countries. If it works for the U.S., then that's OK with me. Eugène van der Pijll 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The system you're using would actually work for anything. This is basically the basic Wikipedia guideline that says use the common name for the title and disambiguate appropriately when needed. --Polaron | Talk 23:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. But changing U.S. articles to the usual dab convention is discussed elsewhere (see previous sections); I have no strong opinion on that. The proposal I'm commenting on is changing the whole world to the U.S. convention, which is a bad idea. Eugène van der Pijll 23:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

One problem with the U.S. convention in the U.S. is that a title conforming to the city, state format does not clearly specify the most common name for the subject of that article. Is it city, or city, state? Is it San Francisco, California, or is it San Francisco? The reader has no way of knowing. If a dab is required, as for Portland (the one in Oregon is arguably as notable as the one in Maine), the titles using standard parethetic remarks for dabbing make the most common name clear: Portland (Oregon) and Portland (Maine). In other words, the fact that city, state is a common way to reference cities (particularly as parts of mailing addresses), makes it problematic to use as a title... because it is unclear if the , state part is part of the name, or disambiguation information (or so-called predisambiguation information). It's a mess, and needs to be changed anyway. --Serge 23:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is not very clear either, sir : ) I can say though that Wiki's demand for common usage is to adhere to a proper name form (such as not using "Province" where you should use "oblast"). I don't understand how "what the locals call it" has to do with a placename that should be recognizable internationally. thepromenader 00:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read stuff into my argument that is not there, then of course it's not going to very clear. I didn't say anything about "what the locals call it".

Are you saying that a title that adheres to the city, state format specifies that the "placename" (your term) is city, state; that the , state part of the title is part of the name of the city? Or is the , state part of the title just disambiguation information, and the name of the subject of the article is just city? Which is it? My point, of course, is that the city, name format leaves the answer to this question completely unclear. --Serge 00:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're mixing two different arguments. A naming convention is not only a city's name - it's the title it's built into. If you think the convention should be only the city name, then perhaps it would be best to say it as simply as that. thepromenader 08:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the naming convention for cities should be consistent with the naming convention for all Wikipedia articles, including compliance with WP:NC(CN). For cities, that means the article title should be only the city name (and any disambiguation information, if required, in a parenthetic remark). While cities are often referred to with addition place information (county, state, province, country, etc.), each city itself is most often referred to only by the name of the city, so, that should be the title of the article about it. It's not a personal preference or whim, as you seem to see it. It's the only logical/objective solution based on reason. --Serge 17:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of this discussion seems to revolve around "what it is known as", but I think even the very idea of trying to accomodate this into an international naming convention is impossible - a name and a conveintion are two different questions. Chicago may be known in the US as Chicago, Illinois, and Paris may be known locally and internationally as Paris, France, but neither should dictate a convention - It is most likely for this that most paper references use the single-name (disambiguate) convention.

So to decide on a convention, in keeping things as simple as possible, one must separately decide a) The proper name of the city (Danzig or Gdańsk), then (perhaps together) b) the disimbiguation to use and c) the convention (name or name, province, country etc).

Wiki is not a paper Encyclopedia. One must take into consideration the advantages the technology offers us - redirects, linking, etc - and we won't be wasting place nor ink with a longer title if the need be.

For an international convention, I see little use in anything between [[name]] and [[name, to the highest, administrative, entity]]. The latter may result in a "[[Paris, Île-de-France, France]]" title that may be even news to some, but this is an example of convention. thepromenader 09:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)