Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Is comma convention in conflict with other guidelines?

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was It has been established that the claim implied above -- that Serge is the only one claiming that following the city naming guidelines even for cities with names that do not require disambiguation results in article titles that are in conflict with general Wikipedia conventions and guidelines -- is false. Poll closed by consensus. --Serge 19:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Strawpoll: do current U.S. city guidelines violate WP:NAME and/or WP:DAB?

[edit]

It has been alleged that I am the only one claiming that the U.S. city naming convention is contrary to WP:NAME and/or WP:DAB. I find that hard to believe. WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things clearly states:

Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

Meanwhile, WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate clearly states:

When there is no risk of confusion [with another subject using the same name], do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page.

But the U.S. city guidelines dictate putting a city like Houston at Houston, Texas. Yet Houston is clearly the the most common name of the city, not Houston, Texas. Furthermore, this is no risk of confusion with anything else named Houston. Thus both guidelines are clearly violated. Who else agrees?

Clarification note: I thought it was obvious, but what I'm really asking is: Do you agree that following the U.S. city naming guideline causes each of those U.S. cities whose name alone (no state) does not conflict with any other subjects in Wikipedia per WP:DAB to be put at titles that are in conflict with WP:DAB and WP:NAME? --Serge 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - Agree that U.S. guideline is contrary to WP:NAME and/or WP:DAB

[edit]
  1. --Serge 19:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC) (but see comment below)[reply]
  4. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - Disagree that U.S. guideline is contrary to WP:NAME and/or WP:DAB

[edit]
  1. Vegaswikian 19:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. See comments below. older ≠ wiser 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. See my comments above. Septentrionalis 19:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AJD 03:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Inserting the state name really helps, because I'm not intelligent enough to remember all the cities in the U.S. If the state names weren't mentioned, there would be "risk of confusion".--Endroit 04:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if that's what's being asked. This guideline could be in "conflict" with the other guidelines, but still have support. In other words, saying that it is in conflict won't mean that you don't support what it says. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ned, I agree with the general sense of your comment, but point out that the question at hand is not merely whether one guideline conflicts with another, but whether the U.S. guideline is "contrary" to WP:NAME and/or WP:DAB. older ≠ wiser 04:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As for risk of confusion, how about Srinagar? I'll bet few outside India know where that is. Should we change the convention for every country then? Not knowing exactly what the article is referring to doesn't mean we should start pulling in context, like the state and country, into the article title. Otherwise, every book would need its author's name included, every galaxy name (like Messier 34) would need the word galaxy in it, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. State names are given along with city names by Americans specifically because there are so many cities and neighborhoods throughout the United States that share the same name. --Coolcaesar 06:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -Will Beback · † · 06:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'd also be curious to find out what percentage of settlement articles have a comma in their title. --Scott Davis Talk 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. In the US it is quite common to talk about City, State and is more related to its common use then to disambiguation issues so WP:DAB is not the issue. To state that calling an area with its City,State is "uncommon" is disingenuous and fails the burden of proof. Agne 07:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Clearly, not. I don't think I need to repeat my reasons, but I would have to say that the most common usage for most cities in conversation really does include the state name unless there is context provided to indicate the area. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But is it the job of article naming to provide context? Without a context, I wouldn't necessarily know that Carlisle refers to the city in northwest England. Is that an argument for moving Carlisle to Carlisle, Cumberland or Carlisle, England? It is the job of the article itself to provide context, ideally in its first line. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I 100% disagree with this for the larger cities being mentioned here. I have almost never used "Atlanta, Georgia", "Denver, Colorado", "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania", etc. in normal conversation. I say "Atlanta", "Denver", and "Philadelphia". Sure, for "Jackson, Mississippi", you include the state, but that's not what's at issue here. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - Voting is evil

[edit]
  1. We're actually voting on a fact here. That's not really helpful. The discussion section below is more useful. (Radiant) 15:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need a vote to determine if we're voting on fact above!  :) Seriously, this whole section is turning out to be kind of useless. I'm sure all of these opinions have been stated somewhere in the endless mire above, right? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I concur. It is question that asks for a "yes or no" answer to something that be answered neither yes or no.
    1. The "City, State" convention is not a name. The only real name in an article title is the subject of the article itself - anything added is disambiguation. So this is another problem than "common name" and is not "contrary" per se.
    2. Most disambiguation is done with parantheses, but there are guidelines allowing for comma disambiguation too. I cannot see how this is "contrary" to dab - what is odd is that some say that "City, State" convention is not disambiguation when it most obviously is. THEPROMENADER 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I absolutely disagree with the claim that the "City, State" convention is "disambiguation". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, but pre-disambiguation is still disambiguation. A state's name is not at all that of every placename within, so adding it such to cities is indeed disambiguation. THEPROMENADER 18:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, the recognition that city naming varies according to context seems to me an acknowledgement that using the state is a form of disambiguation. If you're in Virginia, you'll refer to Fredericksburg, Virginia as "Fredericksburg". If you're in Texas, you'll say "Fredericksburg, Virginia", to distinguish it from Fredericksburg, Texas. That much is clearly disambiguation, since by its very nature disambiguation is not necessary when context makes it clear. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      But, no matter where I am, I'm going to refer to "Seattle", not "Seattle, Washington". Whether we all know which state Seattle is in is somewhat immaterial. Most of us know what city we're referring to and the rest can click on the link to find out - just as is the case in any other category of article subjects. (Hell, in this case, the "Washington" part isn't even disambiguating - according to Seattle (disambiguation), this is apparently the only Seattle city in the world.) —Wknight94 (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree that this poll isn't very helpful, and said so below. I somewhat regret casting a "ballot" in it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Even I agree it's not very helpful to the overall discussion. However, it does help establish that I'm not the only one who sees that titling articles per the current U.S. city naming guidelines creates article titles that are in conflict with Wiki-wide naming conventions and guidelines. Just above the survey, Arthur threatened to invoke WP:SNOW to shut down the discussion based on the assertion that I was the only one making this claim. Now that this survey has established that Arthur's assertion is incorrect, I'm all for closing it. Any objections? --Serge 18:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(settlements)/Is_comma_convention_in_conflict_with_other_guidelines%3F&oldid=1079930297"