Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/March

< Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Bejnar in topic City Names

Palestinian territories vs. occupied Palestine

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have a question about what to call the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In an isolated sentence mentioning them once I called them "occupied Palestine" since the international consensus is that they are occupied. Someone else feels this is inappropriate. But in standard usage many sources call them the "occupied territories" as you can see from a quick Google News search. Of course one could simply call them "the Palestinian territories" but could one not argue, somewhat similarly to the way that in international news we would not name "the Northwest Territories" of Canada without saying they are part of Canada, that a qualifier may be helpful for political context? —Khin2718 05:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Like “…of Israel” perhaps? ―AoV² 13:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
But are they "of Israel"? The territories occupied by Israel may indentify what you are writing about, without using anybody's shibboleths. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I was made aware of this policy towards the end of a debate at David Lloyd George. It seemed to resolve an issue so I implemented the policy on recent UK Prime Ministers namely David Lloyd George, Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to see it promptly reverted. That is par for the course for the editor involved who has a long record of disruptive editing (see here). That aside, if the policy stands it should be implemented, if not then it should be changed. I have posted to each of the talk pages to say I will raise the matter here. --Snowded TALK 07:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this guideline is relevant to your issue - this is about article titles, not what forms of placenames to use within articles.--Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Well it was the only starting point I could find for a centralised discussion, and the best precedent. Any other ideas? --Snowded TALK 09:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not clear what the issue is. But is there a Wikiproject for the UK? Maurreen (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Possible, I'm not fussed as long as something is agreed somewhere which we can then reference. As I pointed people here from the pages in question its probably best to see what other people think --Snowded TALK 10:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I think your (Snowded's) suggestion that the short form "UK" should be used for birthplace/place of death in bio articles is a sensible solution. I also don't really see what the big issue is. Irvine22 (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
That was a reluctant compromise before (i) I realised you had been editing other pages to support your "precedent" and (ii) I was pointed to this convention. Overall I think we should not clutter up information boxes. At the moment we need a venue to resolve this. --Snowded TALK 19:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I indicated in the discussion at Talk:David Lloyd George, I checked and most UK PMs had "UK" or "United Kingdom" in their infoboxes. I then added the short form to a number of others who did not. I'm happy with the short form, and happy to discuss at a centralized place. Irvine22 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The above in WP:UKPLACE is specifically, as stated, for disambiguation in the titles of articles not for other purposes. In the case of usage within an article then there should always be one of the four countries after the name for context. The consensus, as far as I can see at the moment, is not to use UK in any location names and not to link the country, though I would personally link the country al least on the first occurrence. Keith D (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

City Names

Latest comment: 14 years ago89 comments11 people in discussion

I just reverted a change which removed the following from the United States section:

No other American city may have its article named [[City]].

It seems to me that it is a good thing to have a hard and fast rule here. If I had been there when it was written I might have chosen the New York Times style guide (which lists 58 cities) versus the 30 in the AP guide, but what is done is done.

There are two reasons for the long form on most cities -- it avoids confusion with another city (e.g. Kansas City) and it avoids the reader saying, "Where?" when he or she sees it. I could certainly see endless arguments over whether Albany, New York (which is on the NYT list) deserves to be called [[Albany]] versus the other 50+ Albanies in the country. The hard rule avoids such battles.

Besides, it's largely moot unless someone wants to start moving articles. All of the cities that could by any stretch of the imagination deserve single name status already have articles using the [[City, State]] form.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So perhaps we can just say "No other American city has..." (rather than "may have"). That way we're just describing the practice, rather than appearing to legislate. (And the second part of the sentence could probably use rewording as well, to make the meaning clearer.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that if we say that, then we're opening the door for Nashville residents to jump up and down over the fact that they're on the NYT list but not the AP list. I think we should be clear that the matter is settled, for better or worse. Why not legislate? Wikipedia has rules. I don't like some of them, but I obey the rules. Why change this one?. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The rule is apparently being ignored even after consensus to not change the name, Albuquerque was moved today. Please see the discussion at Talk:Albuquerque. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I've moved Albuquerque, New Mexico back to the City, State format. This issue has always been controversial, and if it is to survive we need to be better about reverting moves that violate this guideline. I agree with Jim that the current exemptions are too limiting, but opening a debate on adding other cities to the list is probably going to cause more conflict than it resolves.DCmacnut<> 14:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
If there are two respectable lists, why not make our list the union of the two lists (i.e. we can use the bare name for a city if it appears in one list or the other)?--Kotniski (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My first thought about merging the two lists was that we were just asking for work, but if it solves a problem (e.g. Albuquerque, Virginia Beach), maybe it's a good idea. The NYT List:

Current DABs:

Current redirects to the city

Other

The question marks preface those that are of local interest to the Times but may not deserve special status here.

The RDs would be easy to change. The DABs should probably remain where they are. So, what do we think? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This might be opening a can of worms.
I think Iowa City is too small to deserve special status. Maybe NYT included it only because it's obvious that it's in Iowa.
I don't know whether people would be more likely to search for Buffalo the city or the animal.
Several of the NYT cities show NYT's bias toward the U.S. Northeast. That's appropriate for the NYT, not for us. Besides those already marked with a question mark, I think these include all the DAB's listed above, plus Hartford and New Haven. I believe many other U.S. places have higher population, whether as cities or metro areas. Atlantic City is borderline, probably not that big, but known more widely than New Haven. Maurreen (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To begin with the MOS is only a guideline. Next, it's not clear to me why Wikipedia would slavishly follow the AP Stylebook on this, when there are many other Stylebooks around, and in any event Wikipedia has its own naming guidelines. Finally, it's not clear to me the process by which it was decided that the guideline would mandate the use of the AP Stylebook. Can someone show where that discussion took place and consensus was decided? Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Prior to October 2008 the relevant guideline required that all US cities should use the [[city, state]] convention unless there was consensus to move to [[city]] and only if it was listed in the AP Stylebook.[1]. Discussions at that time led to enshrining the October 2008 status quo as the required format, without exception.[2] It would be more helpful if someone who participated would share the deeper history.
That status quo was reached by negotiation between a policy, Wikipedia:Article titles, and that guideline which was merged into this guideline in January 2009. The problem is that, except where the relevant policy is phrased in hard and fast terms, guidelines (which are meant to explain how policy is usually or should be implemented) aren't to be overly prescriptive and especially not more restrictive than the policies they are based on. WP:Article titles#Explicit conventions appears to allow guidelines like this to only make "recommendations", but strongly advises that the "practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia". It's unclear to me what the benefits of having a guideline that is incongruous with policy are.Synchronism (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify my own position ... I'm ambivalent about moving Albuquerque (actually, I'd like to move it to the beach). I am against straight replacement of the AP list by the NYT list. Maurreen (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
If what Synchronism quotes is "strong advice", I would appreciate his input in how to advise weakly, which is what I intended those words to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

It seems that there is no consensus to restrict Wikipedia to the AP Style Guide, and may never have been one. In addition, the guideline currently contradicts our policy, Wikipedia:Article titles. Unless there are further objections, I will remove the sentence in question. Jayjg (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There certainly was consensus; it was a compromise to still a handful of hotheaded dissidents. It is documented, at extreme length, in the last dozen pages of WT:Naming conventions (settlements), now merged here. If it is taken out, several editors will revert to the previous position: that all American municipalities should have the conventional form City, State. Please don't mess with it before reading the record. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, could you clarify where we could read the previous discussion(s)? Maurreen (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Like Maurreen, I'd like to see those previous discussion(s). Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Speaking as someone outside the US, I am still often used to seeing Alberquerque, New Mexico and many others with the states after them - it only starts looking odd when one gets to big cities like New York (without sounding some schmaltzy song...), and Los Angeles etc. We even often say Detroit, Michigan without batting an eyelid. As an aussie, Albany, WA (for Western Australia) is prominent...and what about the ancient Memphis? I'd go along with case by case basis. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
NB: MY concerns with using NYT is that it assumes a US and not world focus, hence names might be different. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it assumes that we write about Albuquerque, New Mexico (and New York and Chicago) in American English, which is WP:ENGVAR. It might be a lack of world focus if we assumed these are primary usage; but we are doing the opposite. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The NYT list assumes a Northeastern U.S. focus. Maurreen (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hold on everyone, why assume we must follow the NYT styleguide? Why follow any external styleguide? Wikipedia has its own standards. We don't mandate the use of a particular styleguide for, say, cities in Canada; rather, such decisions are apparently made by Wikipedia editors on this page: Wikipedia:Canadian_wikipedians'_notice_board/Cities. The same is true for most places in the United Kingdom; in the Northern Ireland section, for example they cite Omagh as a town that requires no disambiguation. Omagh is a town of under 20,000 people that gets 1.2 million ghits, whereas, say, Albuquerque, New Mexico has a population of well over half a million and gets 26.3 million ghits. Why do cities and towns in the United States require rulings by an outside styleguide? Are they far less-well known than cities in Canada or Northern Ireland? Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
For one chief reason: per WP:AT, we value consistency. During the long discussion of this matter, someone took a sample and concluded that 77% or so of American municipalities are named ambiguously; there are twenty-one Springfields. That being the case, it is helpful to the reader to have all the municipalities in Minnesota be titled in the style Marshall, Minnesota, rather than three-quarters of them, which would require editors and readers to find whether there is more than one Marshall; some people also liked a consistent look for categories. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:AT values many things, and there are many kinds of consistency. As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", and this is certainly a foolish consistency. There may indeed be 21 Springfields, which is why disambiguation is helpful for Springfield. There is, on the other hand, exactly one city/town named "Albuquerque" on Wikipedia, that is, Albuquerque, New Mexico, a fairly large and reasonably well-known American city. That is why disambiguating that article title is foolish. Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussions are at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive and the archives to which it links; that's the last talk page before it was merged here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not advocating either way. But my guess is that the United States has more communities with the same name, and drawing a line with the AP Stylebook was intended as a way to avoid controversies over whether, for instance Anytown in Foo state or Anytown in Bar state would get the page without the state in the title. Maurreen (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
For the sake of moving toward resolution, either way, should we open an RFC? It seems like the main rationale for keeping "No other American city may have its article named City," is that doing otherwise was controversial before. I don't know whether a change would still be controversial.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurreen (talk • contribs)
I don't know if we need to go so far. There doesn't appear to be any particular rationale for the current wording, nor any consensus for it, nor any Wikipedia precedent. Unless these appear fairly quickly, there's no issue with just bringing this guideline back into line with Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
What policy do you claim this conflicts with? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:AT of course, as I stated above at the top of this sub-thread. Specifically, at least in the case of the example Albuquerque, it violates:
  • Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
  • Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.)
Albuquerque is the only place with that name, and this is "as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously". Adding "New Mexico" makes the title more precise than necessary, thus violating the rule that it be "only as precise as is necessary". It also violates the "Concise" part of the rule, as is obvious, particularly as disambiguation is not necessary in this case, but only used in order to adhere to some arbitrary external Style Guide. Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. I drafted that; this was already in existence. They are perfectly compatible; if they were not, I would have taken steps to change one of them. It may be that the effort to phrase WP:AT as consisting of principles, not a set of blueprints to be applied mechanically, needs more work.
As for Albuquerque: it needs disambiguation - not for our programming constraints, but for the reader, forgotten in this doctrinaire explosion - to separate the city from the city and House of Alburquerque, for which it was named.
Even if it were genuinely unambiguous, consider Category:County seats in New Mexico. Most of them are ambiguous; if not with other places, with other subjects. I do not propose to set the reader the riddle of deducing why we use Albuquerque and Alamogordo, but Aztec, New Mexico; and which class coes Deming, New Mexico fall in? I know, because I looked; but the idea, implicit here, of needing an encyclopedia to find articles in Wikipedia is an absurdity. 02:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs)
WP:AT#Explicit conventions says that explicit conventions may make recommendations, the US's explicit convention goes beyond recommendations and uses the phrasing of rules, "no other city may use the City convention". That is the contradiction.
True, it does need some disambiguation to account for spelling and related articles but the article that set this off is the primary topic and so it only needs (and uses) a hotnote to disambiguate. Someone looking for information on Alburquerque is not likely to have intended to look for info on the major city in New Mexico, and it is unclear whether the Spanish city or noble house is more primary so it is the disambiguation page.
It's pretty clear what the primary topic for all of those examples would be (I don't think anyone would allege that Aztec, New Mexico is more primary than the Aztec civilization, and the southern New Mexico town is the only Alamogordo of note) except Deming, the people named Deming may be more primary. Where has it been implied that we need "an encyclopedia to find articles in Wikipedia"? I'm not sure if understand what that means, could you clarify?Synchronism (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It's odd that the WP:AT policy consists of "principles, not a set of blueprints", whereas this guideline mandates strict adherence to an outside style guide. Also Albuquerque is not Alburquerque, and the towns named Alburquerque are one-sixtieth to one-hundredth the size of Albuquerque. In this case, this guideline's mandate that all articles must follow the AP styleguide clearly violates "Precise", "Concise", and "Explicit conventions". Jayjg (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
PManderson, I wasn't able to find the discussion that produced the consensus that the guideline would mandate following the AP Stylebook. Could you please point it out to me? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
A consensus emerged between archive 9, when the AP book was first proposed, and archive 19, when it is discussed as the active standard, that we should either use City, State universally, or use it with at most those exceptions; for essentially the reasons Maureen outlines - if we don't have a bright line between those which may be known by City alone, we will be debating whether Matawan, New Jersey should be moved to Matawan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Another option would be to consider other potential dividing lines, such as the x number of largest cities in the country. Maurreen (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Which is essentially what the AP guide does. We don't want the hundred largest, which would include both Portlands; and this is a reasonable approach to about 20, without incurring the question "Why not 25? 30?" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a straw poll among ourselves, choosing among: 1) change, details to be decided, 2) no change, 3) neutral? Maurreen (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you any idea how many straw polls, with how many !votes, are in the archives? Why have another straw poll among the the three of us? Rather, look at the arguments, as set forth at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Summary of Discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you point me to any specific poll or !vote that decided that the AP Style Guide would take precedence over Wikipedia policy and editorial discretion? Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Mindful of the fact that 'Consensus can change' - just set up another one and make sure it is properly marked out into sections so it can be quantified, much like I have just done here after an earlier attemot here lacked structure and it was hard to tell who supported waht at times. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I doubt one is even needed; we're not recommending any changes from previous consensus, but rather bringing the wording of the consensus into line with policy. Jayjg (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this an accusation of bad faith? If not, search the pages yourself; there were several points at which (Serge Issakov/Born2Cycle standing out) there was unanimous agreement to use the AP poll, as a compromise between those who wanted a wider scope for exceptions and those who wanted no exceptions at all - or possibly the exceptional case of New York City, for which New York, New York = New York County is wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
That page is (a) 3 years old, and (b) extremely hard to navigate without some numbers and structure...erm....which ones of those were 'successful'? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. I can't find any explicit consensus, and apparently neither can anyone else. Bkonrad has now found a 2008 discussion that recommended moving a series of City articles to "City name-only" titles, based on the AP Styleguide. See more below. Jayjg (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
As another participant in several of these discussions, I can vouch for Pmanderson's claim that there was strong support for using the AP list. Multiple page moves and merges and redirects have made it difficult to locate the history, but it was the result of long and extensive discussion. Personally I don't care that much any more, but considering how contentious previous discussion were, I'd advise caution before treading that route. older ≠ wiser 17:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Guideline changed

I've modified this guideline to bring it into line with policy. It now encourages following the AP Styleguide, and notes that article names for U.S. places must follow WP:AT policy and should follow the WP:DAB guideline. That is how it should be; guidelines should recommend best practice, and support policy. Jayjg (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the concluding !vote in a prolonged discussion. The proposal to use the AP list was positioned as a limited number of exceptions to the city, state convention for U.S. cities. And even as a compromise, there was significant opposition to allowing any exceptions. older ≠ wiser 17:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Good find! My reading of the discussion is that the point was to actually allow deviations from the (City, State) naming convention based on the AP Styleguide, and there was consensus for that. The changes I've made in no way contradict that consensus, but rather support it, while bringing the guideline into line with policy. Jayjg (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jayjg's interpretation of the discussion pointed out shortly above. Also, a partial reading of that discussion suggests that the convention including the state was based on a bot, not discussion or reflecting practices of editors. Maurreen (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
@Jayjg, Perhaps you misunderstand the limited nature of that agreement. The standing consensus up to that time (and not one imposed by a bot, as Maureen suggests, although some such as Serge/Born2cycle liked to repeat like a mantra), was for all U.S. cities to use the city, state convention. The agreement allowed a very limited number of exceptions based on the AP list. In your edit, the sentence Other cities may have their articles named [[City]] provided they are the primary topic*, and the naming complies with Wikipedia:Article titles. undermines the limited provision of that agreement. older ≠ wiser 18:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly either way, but I think Jayjg's and my understanding would be advanced if we could see where a decision was made that U.S. cities should have the state, in contrast to cities elsewhere. Maurreen (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Way back, long ago, before Rambot created all the U.S. cities, there was some limited discussion that established a preference for using the city, state convention. Over the years since that time there were numerous proposals to change that convention. To my knowledge, the AP style list exception was the only one that garnered majority support. The consensus is implied by the on-going resistance to changing the convention. older ≠ wiser 18:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Bkonrad, a guideline cannot overrule a policy, nor can a specific consensus regarding a specific section in a guideline. WP:AT is policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is a guideline. The fact that previous editors may have resisted bringing article names into compliance with WP:AT, and therefore had to be brought to policy-compliance "in stages" so to speak, is an interesting historical note, but not really relevant today. The current wording respects the previous consensus, while ensuring that the guideline is a guideline, and that it complies with policy. Jayjg (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
There are a few things wrong with what you say. First, the status of WP:AT was never confirmed by any consensus. It was promoted by fiat without discussion by Raul long ago, and any attempts to demote it (and there have been many) were rebuffed for little good reason. The question has been raised again here most recently. Second, policies are not monolithic. If they were, WP:IAR would not be a foundational principle. There are always reasoned exceptions to most every policy, especially such guideline-like, pseudo-policies like WP:AT. Perhaps you'd like to try the same reasoning to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)‎, which routinely thumbs its nose at WP:AT or the explicit conventions adopted by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) enshrining conventions that would otherwise be barred by the so-called policy. older ≠ wiser 20:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the history, but WP:AT certainly is policy, unless and until it it demoted. As for other naming guidelines, there, as here, there appear to be a small number of editors who have gotten away with flouting policy, likely because of lack of interest in addressing it on the part of others. That's something to fix, not emulate. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
And, as one of the writers of the present wording of WP:AT, I deny that there is any inconsistency; it is carefully worded to permit exactly such systematic conventions as this page, WP:NCROY, and WP:FLORA. This guideline does, as WP:AT says, follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia. Whether the systems are well-judged is another question, to be debated on the merits; I await that discussion with interest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with you that WP:AT does allow exceptions. I don't particularly care for WP:NCROY, but that's another matter. My point was before trying to start ham-handed enforcement of WP:AT as policy, there are other similar situations to the U.S. cities exceptions that would also need to be treated similarly. older ≠ wiser 22:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems bizarre, again, that the WP:AT policy would "allow exceptions", but the WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) guideline would not. And, in fact, we all know that both allow exceptions, and guidelines particularly so. That why fixing the misleading wording in this guideline is helpful. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
You don't know the history, by your own admission; you read WP:AT contrary to its direct language, and in such a way as to make it pointless (if we had wanted to say all subject conventions must follow common name, we would have said so, and abolished the conventions); and nobody supports you.
Please stop now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Not knowing the "history" of WP:AT is not relevant to whether or not it is policy (it is), nor relevant to this discussion here. From what I can tell, in fact, "you read WP:AT contrary to its direct language, and in such a way as to make it pointless". Several people have supported me, whereas no-one here supports you. Your Talk: page comments and edits violate WP:CIVIL. Please stop now. Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As a gesture of eirenicism, I have rephrased to make the section less prescriptive; since this is a guideline, that is primarily a matter of style rather than substance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As a gesture of eirenicism, I've kept your change to the start of the paragraph, and rephrased the end of the paragraph to ensure the guideline stays a guideline, and is compliant with policy. If you have any objections, rather than reflexively reverting, please argue them here. Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
This guideline does comply with policy, as I was saying when the system crashed, except in Jayjg's perfervid imagination. It is a guideline; it guides. My edit seems to have become more sweeping than I intended; may or may not is intended to make it clear even to the inane that may represents possibility, not permission.
WP:AT does not say what Jayjg would like it to; there are others who disagree with it. But its talk page is the place to discuss that, not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, Pmanderson, WP:CIVIL is also policy. Discuss this guideline, not other editors. I'm glad we've all agreed now that this guideline, like all guidelines, may only guide, not mandate. Jayjg (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Often, civility complaints are an excuse to change the subject, as was the Wiki-lawyering above. But let us return to our mutton.
All guidelines guide, they should be treated with common sense, but all editors are expected to attempt to follow them. So much is common knowledge.
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't mandate either, any more than this guideline; both use should throughout, for what we recommend. But the intended scope of that paragraph is what happens when several articles have reason to use a name, not when one does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
In this case the civility complaint was not an excuse for anything, but rather a protest against astonishing incivility, which needs to stop voluntarily, lest much more serious action be taken to end it. Jayjg (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a tribute to how much Kotniski dislikes our conventions that he should regard a summary of the reasons that the convention was adopted as propaganda; this is why the convention was adopted, and why it is still in use. For my part, this is one of the purposes of Wikipedia space: to present an argument once, so it doesn't have to be repeated in every discussion (and so it can be discussed itself).
Kotniski should remember that Wikipedia space is not part of the encyclopedia; it is not intended to be neutral; it is intended to present our decisions when we have made some. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Pmanderson, discuss the content of this policy, not other editors. Jayjg (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
But not to present at excessive length the reasons for those decisions, especially when the reasons are inaccurate. If we wanted to tell the truth, we'd have to say that there was one group of editors who made it an article of faith that American city names must be accompanied by the state, there was another group that didn't accept that, and they eventually found a reasonable-looking compromise with the AP list. Implying that the ambiguity problem is somehow specific to the United States is quite wrong (look how many Nowa Wieś's we have here in Poland) - if there's a sensible rationale for treating US places differently from those in most other countries, it must surely be something about American English usage (that the state is somehow considered part of the name of the place, in a way that other countries' counties and provinces are not). It can't be the consensus of the WP community that the "patchwork" you talk about is in any way a problem, since that's the system we deliberately use almost everywhere (for places and for article titles in general).--Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
But those reasons are accurate; I was there: The patchwork argument was one of those that prevailed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
If they're accurate, then they contravene policy. And by "policy", in this case, I mean both written policy, and generally accepted editing conventions for all other countries besides the United States, as pointed out by both Kotniski and me. We cannot have a guideline (masquerading as uber-policy) for the United States that is at odds with the guidelines for every other country in the world. Jayjg (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Only in Jayjg's imagination; as is the offense at having the American convention differ from other countries. The convention for Australia differs from all other countries too; this is what specific national conventions may be expected to do. (In fact, the chief difference between the American and Australian conventions is that, in Australia, the great cities are State capitals; in the United States, they aren't.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski's text, however, is simply wrong: guesswork both at our rationale and at American idiom:

This standard was adopted because many editors consider it inappropriate to omit the name of the state in naming U.S. localities of this type. The AP list has been adopted by consensus as an reliable and objective source determining the cities for which omission of the state may be appropriate

This is not true. No-one called use of Springfield for Springfield, Illinois inappropriate; it is not - both are idiomatic American, used in different contexts. When an American wishes to specify which Springfield, Springfield, Illinois is idiom; when (as usually in the Chicago papers) he doesn't wish to or have to, Springfield is. We don't use Springfield for the article title because we can't; it's ambiguous with three dozen other Springfields, twenty of them in the United States - and despite its distinction, the capital of Illinois is not primary usage.

What was considered confusing (and, if you like, inappropriate, although I do not recall the word) was use of Springfield, Illinois and of Peoria in parallel contexts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, as that was way too much argumentative text for a guideline. The guideline shouldn't be an explanation of one's personal views of how a certain version of the guideline was arrived at. It's a guideline, which can advise that it's a good practice for editors use the AP Styleguide, but no more; that's all any guideline can do, advise on what is good practice. So, this guideline must reflect that reality. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
That's how it was arrived at, as Bkonrad will agree. Jayjg's efforts to rewrite our history are as false to fact as his inadequate readings of policy, contrary to their plain text, are false to consensus. 20:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs)
As noted above, this much argumentative detail is inappropriate for a guideline. Also, we're talking about a guideline here, not a policy, which appears to be part of the fundamental confusion here. Again, policies can mandate, guidelines can only advise on good practice. And finally, comment on the guideline, not on other editors. Jayjg (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that PMA's text is excessive (though it could go in a footnote). However, if the only argument for this rule is that it's "confusing" to have the two titles [City1] and [City2, State], then the rule should immediately be repealed, because the consensus of the community is clearly against that philosophy (see the way we name articles almost everywhere else). But in fact my recollection is that this was not the only argument for the rule - a popular one (even if not the one which happened to sway PMA personally) was that it was somehow wrong in encyclopedic register to omit the state on first mention of an American city (a bit like we don't omit forenames for people, I suppose).--Kotniski (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
But that is not expressed by appropriateness, unless context is mentioned. To continue my example above, New York papers will say "Springfield, Illinois" because it will not be clear to their readers which Springfield is meant; our leads often do the same thing. It's not a question of register, but of clarity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The context of a 2008 Talk: page discussion is neither relevant nor does it provide clarity. Jayjg (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
You're not really addressing the point - of course we know that names can be made less ambiguous by adding certain information to them, and we know that Wikipedia does this with its titles when there is ambiguity (except in primary topic cases). But now you're trying to explain why the situation with United States cities/towns/... is different from what it is with almost everything else. (Because it is different -in this case you're adding the information to the name even when there is no ambiguity.) So by what reasoning is this practice arrived at for U.S. places that would be invalid for (say) UK or Polish places? Whatever reasoning it is, it must be based on some predicate that holds of the U.S. but fails to hold of the UK and Poland. --Kotniski (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
We have explained some four times: Most placenames in the United States are ambiguous; this creates a de facto convention of City, State; it is generally agreed (and universal practice, except for a score of world-class cities) to apply this convention even where it may not be strictly necessary: so as not to set puzzles for the reader. It is up to the two of you whether you will ever listen./ Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromise?

Can we say something like this?

"Articles for U.S. municipalities are generally titled in the form 'City (State)'. Articles designated by the AP stylebook as not needing the state do not include the state in the title." Include the AP list; put any rationale for following AP in a footnote. Maurreen (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
We would have to add, at the very least, the condition that cities with stateless titles be the primary topic for that title. (But in any case, this won't be seen as a compromise by the factions - you perhaps don't realise what strong emotions this issue has aroused in some people in the past, and I suspect that many of those people will start to reemerge from the woodwork if an attempt is made to substantially change this guidance.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me, with Kotniski's proviso regarding primary topic. What I find is bizarre is that, as far as I know, none of the three of us is a member of any of those "factions", yet we apparently must get their "consent" anyway. Even more strangely, the factions themselves may have disappeared, aside from one lone representative on this Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


  • I was not unhappy with the way it was before you all got into it. --Bejnar (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Who is "you all" and are you saying that you are now unhappy about the recent changes to the guideline, the discussion or that you are/were ambivalent? Synchronism (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't feel that it was broke to start with, so "you all" would be whoever initiated the change that resulted in confusing and convoluted language. --Bejnar (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"No! City (State) is contrary to idiom.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 March 2010

No, what I liked was form for cities in the United States is City, State (the "comma convention"). --Bejnar (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Communities"

Part of the guideline was recently changed to "The canonical form for municipalities and communities in the United States ..."

I think I understand the intent, but I'm not sure whether "communities" is the best word here, because of the broad range of communities. That is, "community " can be applied to a metro area or a neighborhood within a city. Maurreen (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Unincorporated communities, perhaps? The next half-sentence should take care of the temptation to apply it to neighborhoods. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's better. I had overlooked "neighborhoods do not." Maurreen (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)/Archives/2010/March&oldid=1137425667"