Misplaced Pages

talk:Naming conventions (geographic names): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:15, 24 January 2013 editBorn2cycle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,496 edits →Reword?: hidden archive← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:34, 23 October 2024 edit undoBlueboar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers53,181 edits →Primary topics and WP:USPLACE: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(180d)
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/
| archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archive %(counter)d
|format=Y/F
| counter = 8
|age=720
| maxarchivesize = 150K
|index=yes
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|archivebox=yes
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
|box-advert=yes
| minthreadsleft = 6
|minkeepthreads=4
}} }}
;<big>Please post discussions about Railway station names at ].</big>

{{faq}}
<div style="background:#eeeeee;border:thin solid black;padding:2pt;margin-bottom:4pt"> <div style="background:#eeeeee;border:thin solid black;padding:2pt;margin-bottom:4pt">
] ]
] &bull; ] &bull; ] (]) &bull; ] ] &bull; ] &bull;
] &bull; ]
&bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]

:<small>''']:''' ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ]</small>
<inputbox>
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
break=yes
width=60
searchbuttonlabel=Search archives
</inputbox>
</div> </div>
{{shortcut|WT:NCGN}} {{shortcut|WT:NCGN}}
{{Archives|bot=MiszaBot I|age=3|units=weeks}}


== Need for clarity on linking major American cities ==
== Tool to check for comma convention ==

I found https://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php
* depth: 1
* categories: Departments of Argentina, Provinces of Argentina
* templates: Infobox settlement.
This shows all provinces and all departments, if they use the template. There is only comma dab. I did this, because some user claimed that would normally be parenthetical dab. ] (]) 00:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

== Request for comment ==
{{rfc|style|rfcid=3C42910}}
Hi everyone. I propose that the common naming convention for places across the world be changed. It has already been done for Canadian places at ], but for other countries, the common naming consensus should be adjusted to remove the state, province, island name from the end if possible, because it is an unnecessary disambiguation, unless it is not a ]. At ], it states only specific ] communities in a ] guidebook show have no state names at the ending of the title, such as ]. However, other destinations, like ], should be allowed to be renamed to Tacoma in this case, as it is the primary topic. In any case, I do not understand why Canada would obtain an exception to this rule. <font face="Impact">]]]</font> <sup>(])</sup> 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
:As far as U.S. cities are concerned, there was a very extensive RFC within the last couple of months, with more than 50 participants (see above). It was closed as "maintain the status quo" - that is, add the state to all U.S. cities (]) except for named exceptions like ]. So the situation with U.S. cities is pretty well settled and I doubt if anyone wants to see it reopened so soon. For most other countries I believe it already follows the convention you are suggesting, namely, to add the state/province/départment/whatever only if needed for disambiguation. Maybe you could restate your request for comment to make that clearer, with non-U.S. examples of what you think needs to be changed. --] (]) 17:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

===Survey===
*'''Support'''. {{green|'''Brilliant'''}}. While this would of course affect USPLACE as did the previous RFC, it's quite a different proposal in at least two important respects:
*#The previous RFC offered multiple choices and was complicated. This is much simpler: ''disambiguate simple place names only when necessary'', period. Then, for each country, all the country-specific guidelines could be simplified to indicate only how places that require disambiguation should be disambiguated.
*#The scope here is all countries, not just the US. The proposal is to apply the basic naming principle already used in the vast majority of our titles, ''disambiguate names in titles only when necessary'', consistently across all place names, bringing them all in line much better with each other, other articles, ] and ].
*:Though the transition may take time, the experience with countries like Canada and Australia indicates it's not problematic. The key is to remove the ''requirement'' to add the higher-level geographic name in the titles. Then, with time, the titles will gradually migrate towards ''disambiguate only when necessary''.<p>Some might complain that this makes the titles unpredictable. Again, this has proven not to be problematic in any country that already follows this convention, and the lack of predictability is actually a good thing. In every case where the title must be known, it should be actually checked (which, let's face it, is no big deal). Having a naming convention that may or may not call for disambiguation in each individual case makes it much more likely that people will do the checking that they should, thus avoiding a variety of problems (See ] and ]). --] (]) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

*I also like this idea. I don't see any particular reason for pre-emptive disambiguation. ] (]) 18:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

*Oh, brother. Above I said "So the situation with U.S. cities is pretty well settled and I doubt if anyone wants to see it reopened so soon." What I should have said was, nobody EXCEPT BORN2CYCLE wants to see it reopened so soon. My reaction, and the reaction I suspect of most here is, we should accept the decision above regarding USPLACE, which was based on a very extensive discussion very recently, and spare us from another million words of repetitious debate on the subject. Accept the fact that "disambiguate only when necessary" is already the policy for most of the world, accept the consensus after multiple discussions that USPLACE is an exception, ]. PLEASE. --] (]) 18:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

* '''Strong Oppose''' – if the proposal seeks to overturn the recent consensus at the USPLACE RfC, it's a non-starter. And B2C should be slapped with a ] for going against his previous statement that he would accept a clear consensus. ] (]) 03:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', urge speedy close. The previous RFC is still on this page, and OMGTOOMANYOPTIONS is not a valid reason for overturning consensus. --] 04:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed at length quite recently on this very page, with clear consensus to keep the current convention. Let's move on. ] (]) 04:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

*'''Support''' there's an element of common sense that says all cities should be treated similarly. '''] ]''' 05:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose'''. We just had this discussion, and there was a consensus against this option there. You can look at that discussion if you want to see my reasons for opposing this idea. ] <sup>]•]</sup> 05:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
*:You expressed some concerns in that discussion, but weren't they all thoroughly addressed to your satisfaction? Was something missed? Thanks! --] (]) 18:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose''' -- been here, done this (see above). I would suggest the RfC be closed. ] (]) 14:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I don't understand why the opposers see this RfC primarily as an attempt to overturn USPLACE. Surely having "disambiguate only if necessary" as a formal ''general'' guideline is a sound idea; one which does not preclude it from co-existing with consensus-based ''exceptions'' such as USPLACE?—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); January&nbsp;10, 2013; 15:49 (UTC)
::The intent to disrupt the consensus at USPLACE is clear in the proposal and in B2C's reaction. There is already a general principle of disambiguating only when necessary, and it is already frequently given too much weight, for example where it is works counter to recognizability and precision. ] (]) 16:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:::"Disrupt consensus?" Surely you're familiar that ], aren't you? '''] ]''' 16:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Diclyon, my reaction is also that it's a suggestion brilliant in its simplicity, even though I don't necessarily agree that implementing it automatically precludes any and all exceptions. With that in mind, do you think I'm being disruptive as well, just because I disagree with your point of view?—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); January&nbsp;10, 2013; 17:49 (UTC)
:@Ezhiki, isn't "disambiguate only if necessary" ALREADY the guideline for most countries? My understanding is that it is, with USPLACE being a conscious exception. In other words, this RfC proposal is merely restating what is already the situation for most countries, while not allowing for the USPLACE exception. (I think the original proposer was laboring under a misunderstanding; they seemed to think "add the state" was the current rule for "places across the world", with Canada being an exception.) --] (]) 16:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::Yes, it is for all practical intents and purposes, but this is exactly why it's a good idea to formally document it as a general, top-level guideline (and if, as you think, the original proposer indeed though that "add the state" is the current rule for places across the world, then it's even more important to document the real state of the matters, lest someone else gets confused). Not everything has to be about USPLACE!—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); January&nbsp;10, 2013; 17:46 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the general principle, '''Oppose''' a complex and potentially disruptive way of going about it. As MelanieN says above, this is pretty much ''de facto'' policy for most of the world although it is clear that USPLACE is an exception, and by and large supported to remain as one. All that's really needed is to amend the ] so that it begins something like: "Ordinarily unique place names are not disambiguated by adding a state, region or other qualifier to the title. However, it is often the case that....". ] ]] 19:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose''' Since Born2cycle has made clear that he regards this proposal as specifically about overturning USPLACE, I strongly oppose it. The USPLACE issue was decided just a few weeks ago and should not be reopened. I have proposed another wording for an RfC below, if anyone wants to comment on it; otherwise let's just let it die. --] (]) 22:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
*:I said no such thing. The proposal is most certainly not ''"specifically about overturning USPLACE"''. In fact, the wording is quite clear that it is about "places across the world", which, last I checked, ''includes'' the US, but is not "specifically about" the US. It would affect all places that currently have unnecessarily disambiguated titles, including but not limited to many places in Japan as well as the US. This proposal is about bringing worldwide universal consistency in place naming. To see it as "specifically about" the US is missing the entire point! --] (]) 23:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. For the record, this RfC is invalid, as its effect appears to be solely to overturn ]. I've asked the proposer to return to clarify. — ] ] 14:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I wasn't aware of the previous RfC so didn't take part in it. I can't see any good reason why US cities should be an exception to this otherwise universal, sensible guideline. ''']''''']'' 14:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose'''. It seems there is nothing new to see here, folks. I can't say anyone is making any new arguments that weren't raised in the last RfC. While ], it is beyond merely not productive to have an identical discussion so soon after the last one was closed. Surely there are better things for us to do than to sit around six times per year arguing about the same issue. While there are a few new contributors, overall this discussion seems to be mainly driven by B2C, who I submit should know better than to be so tenditious over something so minor. Plus, as far as I can tell, the Canada and Australia convention isn't different anyway, which you can see if you click through to the articles underlying the first two lists I came up with, or , which I mentioned no less than twice in the last discussion without any response. So really this proposal is both poor form (the nominator should have reviewed past discussion before proposing it, and at least ''attempted'' to add something new) and based on a false premise. Let's all move along, shall we? ] ] 01:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''': It's basic ], and as a matter of policy at ], Misplaced Pages at large does not collectively care if some wikiproject decided to make up their own rules or how hard it was for that handful of people to come to a conclusion no one else got to participate in, in the project's ]. This is a really good case in point of why WP:LOCALCONSENSUS exists and why projects need to stop doing this, and then whining and crying when their blinkered, inconsistent solution conflicts with everyone else's expectations. It is ten times more ] of the information we provide them, than for a project to have things done their special way on the basis of nothing but ] ("our project prefers it this way") and ] ("it took a lot of argument for our project to agree on this"). PS: "disambiguate only if necessary" is already policy at ], and has been part of ] for years before AT (then WP:NC) was elevated to a policy anyway. The US placenames project knew better. PPS: MelanieN, you need to understand that to eveyrone on Misplaced Pages but you, {{em|you}} are the one ] and being tendentious; you are the one demanding a magically special exception, just for being American, to WP standard operating procedure. And I say that as an American. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 03:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
:: Not to put too fine a point on it, but I find this comment obnoxious for several reasons. First of all, there is no justification for personal attacks on MelanieN. Even if other people wrongly attacked B2C, rather than his comments, which I don't think is the case, that doesn't justify the tone of your comment. As you'd see if you cared to peruse the above discussion, Melanie is far from the only one that disagrees with B2C. Second of all, did you read the rest of the (admittedly thousands of words of) discussion? I think not. COMMONNAME is also a policy, I think. There was much discussion of how US readers are likely going to expect the state to be included based on how places are commonly written. There are also a ''lot'' of smaller towns with the same name in several states. While consistency is in the eye of the beholder, I guess, at least this way we dont have half of US towns with a state and half wihtout. Third, as I've noted three times now, but I guess you missed, the Canadian and Australian places also include the province in their article names. How is the consistent with your harsh comment about how this is a kind of dictatorship of US editors? I find the majority of your comments to be well-considered and insightful but this one missed the boat by a mile. ] ] 04:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
:::SMcCandlish, "everyone on Misplaced Pages but you"? Really? Why are you singling out one editor from this whole situation, and then speaking for literally everyone else against her? You've just thrown out the entire previous RfC which resulted in retention of the current convention, which (by the way) is by no means unique. During that RfC, the majority of commenting editors supported the current convention; are you suggesting that every single one was a member of some "US placenames project" conspiracy? You speak of common sense, but this isn't common sense. It's an arrogant assumption of bad faith. How does this advance the discussion? ] (]) 14:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
::::@SMcCandlish, thanks for crediting me with influence far beyond reality. (Am I notable yet?) But your math seems a little off. In this current discussion, <s>nine</s> ten (I missed one oppose added way at the bottom) people have formally voiced opposition to the proposal to eliminate USPLACE, seven in favor. I promise you those <s>nine</s> ten people were not all me under different names! In the previous (just archived) discussion, 58 people took part, which is a good big sample by Misplaced Pages standards; only 18 of them favored a "no unnecessary disambiguation" approach to the names of US cities, while 40 favored at least some exceptions; out of those, a plurality of 20 supported the current convention. Furthermore, none of these discussions took part in "some wikiproject" or were determined by a "handful" of "locals" in a "little fiefdom"; the discussions have been here, where titles are discussed, and with lengthy (the previous discussion ran to 200,000 bytes), policy-based arguments pro and con, by both Americans and non-Americans. As for your claim that I am the one "demanding some magical special exception": the current convention has been in place for many years, and it was worked out long before I became involved in the discussion. I defend it; so do many others. If you want to participate in this discussion, that's fine, but please don't do it by dismissing all previous discussion out of hand - or pretending that there's only a single person who disagrees with your perspective. --] (]) 15:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose.''' I stand as firmly against ] as the next citizen of the world, but I think the provisions for US place names are pretty good. Projects for various countries should not locally determine different levels of precision in titles for their own patch of ground: just details reflecting different administrative divisions. For me as an Australian, it seems ridiculous to have an article called ], when most of the world has no idea that it is a ''town'', let alone a town in the state of ]. Why ''not'' ]? A little long, but so the hell ''what''? What benefit is that loss of precision to anyone? How, in a worldwide encyclopedia, can such sheer Oodnadattic or South Australian chauvinism gain such traction? It bespeaks a certain insecurity, perhaps. "Oodnadatta is so notable, and so famous, that ''everyone knows'' it's in South Australia. And if they don't, they should!" I would be in favour of extending the present US guidelines universally (mutatis mutandis). ], ], ], perhaps even ]. But ], or ]? Nah. Let them stay as redirects. No use to abbreviate them. No point. Not helpful. Serve the readers, not your pet algorithms and tight-fisted insistence on brevity über alles. (As for agreeing with Born2cycle, these things can occasionally happen. Not for me this time, though.&nbsp;☺)<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

:: Actually, I would agree with you except for this: No reader is ever going to come across "Oodnadatta" without context. If it is another article it will almost certainly be obvious from the context that this is the name of a place. No-one is going to conduct a search on a random collection of letters that just happen to spell Oodnadatta, there will always be a context. Even if this were not so, one click would reveal to the reader just exactly what Oodnadatta is. If for some reason a wikilink in a given context requires amplification for clarity, then the link can be made using the form <nowiki>]</nowiki>. That would address any potential confusion for readers. It does not require everyone to immediately recognise what an article is about just from its title. In fact policy states that the title should be that which anyone ''familiar with the topic'' would commonly call it. Don't know what Oodnadatta is? No problem, you're not familiar with it, so your view does not count when choosing the article title. I am sure that there are thousands, possibly millions, of articles that I would have no idea what they are about from their titles. Is this a problem? No, because if I am interested I can click on the link and have my ignorance resolved, at least to some extent, and certainly to an extent far beyond what any addition of a word or two to the title would make. BTW, I have chosen Oodnadatta as an example because it was used in the post above and it is a non-US example, however, the same logic applies to US place names and as I have stated elsewhere, I remain unimpressed by the arguments for the current US place name policy which is just another form of special pleading with no supporting arguments that don't essentially reduce to US exceptionalism. - ] ] 02:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
:::And in the cases where there is context, it might imply that this is a city somewhere. What is wrong with providing information for the reader so that they don't look for it? How does providing more information hurt the readers? ] (]) 03:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

::::Because if the location of Oodnadatta was at all important within the context it is being used it will be explicit ''in context''. In other words, if where it was was important it might say something like "the South Australian town of ]" of even <nowiki>]</nowiki>, as I already stated above. Otherwise should we include additional information every time we use a wikilinked term that has other possible uses than the one intended? No, we do not. If people are not sure what is meant within a given context they can follow the link. This works for everything else in Misplaced Pages, literally millions of articles. There is no rational reason to push this exception: there is nothing special about place names that requires this dumbing down of the encyclopaedia. - ] ] 03:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

:" Why ''not'' ]?" Serious question: How does adding "South Australia" to the title indicate to a reader unfamiliar with the topic that Oodnadatta is a town? -- ] (]) 02:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
::::'''Nick:''' I disagree. People come across words and phrases in all sorts of contexts, or none at all. Could be a crossword puzzle, or the title of a chapter where the term is not defined till much later (or the full text is not available, online). Or someone just asks them: "Who or what is an Oodnadatta?" Sometimes it is enough to learn that it is a place of some kind, and not a singer from the 1930s, not an Aboriginal ], not a style of rock art, and so on. Added precision that uses a comma tells us ''that'', even if what comes after the comma means nothing to us. For that reason, even ] is better than ] (which could for all we know be a variant of standard batik, or a form of the Renaissance sonnet used in Catalonia). So readers may not even have to do that click, and load a whole article they don't need&nbsp;– just because they are now informed. It's geographical! As for your other observations, I think it's not so simple. The nature of recognisability (which in fact you mis-cite WP:TITLE concerning) is hotly contested at WT:TITLE (Born2cycle has been very active there, limiting its scope); and it is after all just one factor among several. You give no reason against my reasoning (and Vegaswikian's, and lots of other people's) for supplying a handy hint to the general topic of the article. In the case of geographical articles, that's easy, natural, helpful, and rational. Compare Britannica's practice; and consider the crucial question of how WP articles turn up in Google searches.
::::'''Vegaswikian:''' Excellent questions! Serve the readers (the core policy objective enshrined at WP:TITLE), not editors&nbsp;– nor the pet aversion that some have to useful precision, nor their insistence on the shortest possible title regardless of usefulness and the real world.
::::'''Mattinbgn:''' see my answers above. At least the reader then knows that Oodnadatta is something geographical! And indeed, most likely a town and not a city that might more reasonably be exempt from such added precision.
::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

:::::'''Noetica''' firstly, the convention used in ''Britannica'' arose when it was a paper based encyclopaedia. In those circumstances it made sense. On a purely electronic encyclopedia, such conventions need not apply and we are free to make the most intelligent use of the resource. I fail to see how giving the reader the option to make a single click if the meaning of a word is unknown or not obvious to him or her is such an imposition - that is exactly what Wikilinking is for after all! If we provide a "handy hint" for every term that we use in every article then the encyclopaedia would soon become unreadable. All this "added information" distracts from whatever the subject is about and, as I have already said twice in this discussion, if in a given context some guidance is needed about what a particular term is about then providing alternate text to the link will satisfy that need. We don't need to provide it every time we use the term. What applies for every other article in Misplaced Pages without any problems can surely apply to geographical subjects. You have provided absolutely no compelling reason why geography is any different to, say, physics, or fish, or patchwork quilting so that we need to treat it differently. - ] ] 07:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::Nick, I invited you to compare Britannica's practice. Did you do so? What they have online is quite different from what they had in print. In a typical print edition (15th, 1988) there is the entry "Mittenwald". But go to and type in "mittenwald" slowly. By the time you get to "mitte", "Mittenwald ''(Germany)''" appears among the prompts. That's where you need it! (Not at the article; that's arranged differently. By the time you get there, you have been informed that Mittenwald is in Germany so you don't need it in the heading.) Try also a raw unformatted Google search on ; see the helpful precision there also. Try the same on Google with ; and again, type just "ood" at , and see the prompt "Oodnadatta ''(South Australia, Australia)''". Now ''that's'' how to help your readers! But type even the whole string "oodnadatta" in the WP search box (top right of the screen), and you ''still'' aren't told where or what kind of a thing it is. There are only indirect clues, and in many cases even they would be absent. Google rescues Misplaced Pages this time: a simple Google search on gets our article at the very top; but without "South Australia" highlighted, and often there is no such luck. Contrast, by the way, very many small Australian towns, like Mittagong. Type just "mitta" in the WP search box, and the prompt "Mittagong, New South Wales" comes up as first prompt. And try the corresponding one-word Google search. Inconsistent! Why? Because none of this is thought through properly on Misplaced Pages (unlike Britannica), and politics works against precision. And against the standard practices that are elsewhere taken for granted, to help readers find what they want.
::::::Why are geographical entities more important, capable of unique special treatment with additions after a comma? Well, that reflects the structure of the world (literally) and our deep-rooted expectations. For the same reason, Britannica does not ''have'' to produce a large-format glossy guide to physics, fish, or patchwork quilting. (It does though, except in the case of patchwork quilting.) But it is absolutely ''de rigueur'' for it to produce a .
::::::So much is taken for granted in setting up policy and guidelines for titles on Misplaced Pages. Unlike ], which sifts through dozens of "reliable sources" to derive guidelines by consensual process. Practically all of ], ], and the suite of naming conventions are tossed around on a sea of whim and scarcely informed opinion and unshakable political conviction, often favouring "conciseness" at any price. Hardly ever counting the cost, in fact; or bothering to measure it. Where are the "reliable sources" for all this? That's a serious question, and overdue for an answer.
::::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Use the same rules that apply without problem for the rest of Misplaced Pages. - ] ] 02:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' While USPLACE stands outside the guidelines that apply uniformly across the encyclopedia, this issue will continue to raise its head. The whole concept is entirely unnecessary and if the proposal was reversed (i.e. US places were at their plain name expect where disambiguation was required, and someone proposed to append the state name to every US place name) it wouldn't pass the common sense test. This convention may have had some use in Misplaced Pages's infancy but it has no value now. It should go. -- ] (]) 02:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
* '''Strong oppose''', for the record. Rationale for the current convention was thoroughly discussed in the very recent preceding RfC, which concluded to maintain it. ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 11:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. I had thought this would die a quick death since it comes so soon after the earlier discussion. ] ≠ ] 15:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This rule is simple and Misplaced Pages-wide. I don't see the problem of using the shortest common name as the article title. People who oppose seem to overstate the effect this guideline change will do. Mostly nothing will change since many U.S. place names are ambiguous. I don't see a problem with this principle. --] | ] 19:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

===Rolling Summary of !votes===
While looking at the support/oppose !vote count summary is no substitute for reading, evaluating and weighing the arguments associated with each !vote, it can give us an idea of whether the ''status quo'' or ''proposal to change'' has consensus support.<p>I will add that, in general, when a long-standing ''status quo'' in a given situation repeatedly fails to garner consensus support, even though a ''proposal to change'' may even appear to have less support in terms of !vote counting, because of the natural human bias towards opposing change, if the ''proposal'' is well supported by policy and conventions, and opposed mostly by ] arguments, the change is likely to gain support and even strong consensus support if it is adopted. I urge the closing admin to take this under advisement when evaluating the comments and arguments above, especially in the context of how long the exceptions to ''disambiguate only when necessary'' in place names have been controversial.<p>The lists below are intended to be updated accordingly, by anyone as appropriate, as more participate. --] (]) 20:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
<p>Support:
# TBrandley (proposer)
# Born2cycle
# Hot Stop
# Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
# WaggersTALK
# SMcCandlish
# Nick Thorne
# Mattinbgn
# Polaron
Oppose:
# Dicklyon
# SarekOfVulcan
# TheCatalyst31
# Omnedon
# MelanieN
# Ben MacDui
# Arthur Rubin
# AgnosticAphid
# Noetica
# Huwmanbeing
# Bkonrad

===Recommend closure or rescoping===
{{hat|Suggestion to close or rescope the RfC and discussion - did not have consensus support}}
TBrandley: This RfC would affect US placename convention, which (as other editors rightly point out) was already the subject of a very recent and very lengthy RfC – one which closed as "maintain status quo". I see no reason to reopen the question again so soon. I would strongly recommend either:
* closing this RfC in deference to the recently-completed one, or
* changing the scope of the RfC to address specific conventions elsewhere exclusive of the US.
Thanks ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 17:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:For what it's worth, I think that the very insecurity of those who itch to close this RfC is an indication that the consensus around USPLACE isn't really as strong as it's purported to be. Anyway, forget about USPLACE for a while and look at this suggestion on its own merits, with the ''whole'' of Misplaced Pages in mind. Overall, it's a good formal ''general'' guideline which represents fairly accurately the practices followed for most countries in the world, so we might as well document it. I, for one, see no good reason to speedily close this RfC just because some USPLACE supporters are scared to death it will overtake USPLACE if implemented! If the consensus is indeed strong that USPLACE should stand, then implementing the guideline proposed in this RfC will have absolutely no effect on it.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); January&nbsp;10, 2013; 17:59 (UTC)
::The consensus is indeed strong, and I don't think anyone is "scared to death" of this RfC. For myself, I simply see no point in re-hashing this less than two months after closing the previous RfC. The examples given in this latest RfC relates directly to USPLACE, so the focus seems pretty clear. ] (]) 18:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::: Indeed. Further, "Maintain status quo" is the default result when there is "no consensus" on an issue, which was the case with the previous RFC (not to mention that determining any kind of consensus from such a poorly structured proposal would be very difficult). As consensus is developed through discussion, efforts to stifle civil discussion (including refusals to discuss, and calls for closing, this clear and simple RFC), and thus development of consensus, are inherently disruptive. --] (]) 18:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:::: B2C, the consensus was to maintain the current practice. It was discussed extensively very recently, and the new RfC only gives United States places as examples. What's disruptive is the inability or unwillingness of some editors to accept the consensus. ] (]) 18:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::::: The finding of ''consensus'' for maintaining the current practice from that discussion is without basis by any definition of consensus, but most notably ]. Consensus was ''never'' established for the practice of unnecessary disambiguation for US Places, and the fact that previously uninvolved editors, like the one who started this RFC, keep proposing it be changed, is just more evidence of that. --] (]) 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::Ezhiki: In what way is wishing to avoid duplicating an already completed recent discussion a sign of weakness in anyone's position? To suggest ulterior motives on the part of others who ''do'' wish to avoid such a rehash (myself included) is not in good faith.

::B2C: How is it "disruptive" or "stifling civil discussion" to consider avoiding another lengthy debate on questions already exhaustively discussed in a previous RfC only weeks ago? I'm happy to participate in civil discussion, but at the same time express my preference to ]. ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 18:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Huw, as I explained in several places above, I disagree this RfC as a "duplication" of the USPLACE RfC at all (even considering the examples used). While it is, of course, your right to disagree with this assessment, please respect the right of other people to have opinions which differ from your own. For my part, I was merely pointing out that every single plea urging to ''speedily'' close this RfC came from the folks who were vehement to keep USPLACE up and running during the previous RfC. And while this fact alone isn't indicative of any "ulterior motives" (not even my words), it's most certainly curious.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); January&nbsp;10, 2013; 19:16 (UTC)
::::The only examples given -- "Seattle" and "Tacoma, Washington" -- are indeed exactly what USPLACE deals with. I say once more: this was discussed at great length just recently. Given the clear focus of this new RfC, it is indeed at least partly duplication. ] (]) 19:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::So why focus on the duplicative part and completely disregard the substance of the proposal? Do you (or other opposers) ''really'' object to documenting the "disambiguate only when necessary" practice as a formal guideline, providing that consensus-based exceptions (which USPLACE claims to be) are explicitly recognized?—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); January&nbsp;10, 2013; 19:45 (UTC)
:::Huw, a previously uninvolved editor has made a proposal and requested commentary. The community, including you, should respect that. Not engaging in substantive discussion about the proposal (no one has responded to anything I said in support of it, for example), based on dubious claims about there being a consensus opposed to the proposal, is not only disrespectful, but disruptive. If you can't see how or why, I can't help you. --] (]) 20:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::::The "previously uninvolved editor" made the proposal and vanished. They have not been here to respond to comments, specifically to my comment that their proposal is based on a misunderstanding of the current situation. --] (]) 20:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::No idea who this editor is or where they went, but I don't see how that matters. The only demonstrated misunderstanding associated with this RfC has been yours, first by inexplicably thinking the proposal might be referring specifically to Canadian cities, and later thinking it applied only to US cites apparently based on the erroneous assumption that places in all other countries already are consistent with ''disambiguate only when necessary''. After all that to say the proposal is "based on a misunderstanding" takes some chutzpah. --] (]) 21:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::Perhaps you should ]? ] (]) 21:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Would love too, instead of dealing with all this ]. But nobody has addressed any of the points I made in favor of the proposal in my first comment on it above. --] (]) 21:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::No stonewalling is occurring. Many editors had input on the USPLACE RfC and a huge amount of discussion took place, leading to the result that the current practice stands. This new RfC clearly involves USPLACE. You stated that this RfC would involve all countries, not just the US; and clearly this depends upon overturning established consensus on USPLACE. You claim there was no consensus. Certainly there was not unanimous agreement; but that's not required for consensus. We simply do not need to discuss this again mere weeks after closure of the last discussion. ] (]) 21:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Again, by no definition of consensus that I know, certainly not per the one given at ] or in any dictionary, has there ever been anything close to consensus regarding the unnecessary disambiguation of US place names. Of course unanimity is not required to have consensus. But you also can't have strong arguments and large numbers on both sides and still claim some kind of consensus. That's quintessential "no consensus", which is what we have here, and that makes for fertile ground for ''more'' discussion, not less, including the consideration of broader/simpler proposals, like the one made here. --] (]) 22:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::B2C: It's true that there's clearly no consensus for changing the current convention. The last RfC on the subject demonstrated that very clearly, which is why it was closed with a determination to keep the current convention. What puzzles me is why you consider that result problematic or unacceptable. If I understand correctly, you seem to be suggesting that reaching no consensus to change a convention means that discussions to change it must therefor continue to be repeated (and indeed increase) until the change you seek is made, but I don't think that's quite how things work.
::::::::::That said, I'm perfectly happy to discuss new matters that we haven't already beaten to death during our recent very lengthy debates, but am less inclined to keep retreading the same ground over and over every few weeks. Again, it seems like a ]. ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 01:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Omnedon: Quite so -- I don't know what "stonewalling" B2C is referring to. All I'm asserting is this: that having just gone through a lengthy and elaborate discussion of the pros and cons of placename disambiguation as part of the previous RfC (which reached no consensus for any change), it's probably not necessary to immediately rehash it all again. ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 01:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::The previous discussion went way beyond "no consensus to change". In fact, there was a clear consensus AGAINST moving to a "no unnecessary disambiguation" rule for US cities. Out of the 58 people who posted opinions there, only 18 (31%) expressed a preference for the method proposed by this RfC and endlessly endorsed by B2C, namely, "no unnecessary disambiguation in US placenames". The remaining 69% of editors wanted at least some "unnecessary disambiguation" for US cities. A plurality, 34%, wanted to keep the existing "compromise" position of listing the state name except for 40 named cities where the state name is omitted. A significant minority, 26%, wanted to disambiguate ALL US city names, no exceptions. A few (8%) wanted a larger list of cities where the the state name is omitted. The bottom line is that the consensus, by more than 2 to 1, was that US city names should NOT follow the "no unnecessary disambiguation" rule. It's hard to see what B2C would accept as consensus, if 2 to 1 is not enough. --] (]) 03:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
B2C, as far as I can see, you want one thing regarding this issue: no "unnecessary disambiguation" in titles, ever. No compromise. There are reasons why many of us do not feel this is best for the encyclopedia or its users. They've been stated again and again. You say, "...the only way the problem here -- place name titles inconsistent with disambiguate only when necessary -- is ever going to be resolved, ..." So are you saying that you will never accept any other solution? If so, how are we supposed to discuss this and try to reach compromise? There are other solutions. One is to acknowledge that the principle you support isn't the only principle involved in article titles, that the "one size fits all" approach may simply not work in such a diverse environment, and that Misplaced Pages, like the world, is more complicated than that. ] (]) 23:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:Why are you making this about me? This is not about what I will accept! Who cares about what I will accept or not? <p>I didn't start this proposal. I'm just the messenger. I'm just pointing out that as long titles remain unnnecessarily disambiguated, they will remain an obvious problem for many. You may not like that. You may not like me pointing it out. Sorry. But don't blame me for it. That's just the way it is, and you, I nor anyone else has the power or ability to change that. What we can change is the titles so that they're not so obviously inconsistent and problematic. --] (]) 23:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::Articles titled according to USPLACE are neither problematic nor inconsistent. I am asking you because you are involved in the discussion. You are not "the messenger", but an active participant. So I ask you again if you can accept any solution aside from absolute adherence to this one principle. I think it is a fair question. This is not about you; but you are the one insisting that there will be problems unless we go your way on this. ] (]) 23:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Yes, I'm a participant, and one of those who recognizes that unnecessary disambiguation is inconsistent and therefore problematic. But I'm not the only one, nor only part of a small minority (if that were the case I would not be a participant). And I'm pointing out that even if I quit WP for good as soon as I finish this post, there will be problems as long as this problem remains unresolved. That fact has nothing to do with me. Again, what I will accept or not is irrelevant. It's like me asking if you'll accept that the problem will not be resolved until the problem is fixed. What is the point? --] (]) 23:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::::The point is this: you wish to discuss this further, but if you have no intention of accepting any solution but your own, then where is the hope of compromise? I believe you have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. But this issue was just discussed very extensively just recently, and mere weeks later we are here again; the one who opened the RfC hasn't commented further, but you are again pushing the same agenda. ] (]) 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
:::B2C: To suggest that unnecessary disambiguation must always be "problematic" is certainly an opinion you're entitled to, and one that we've already explored in great depth. Your position is clear. However, you must understand that there's no agreement on that in this forum, and no consensus on changing the current convention (as clearly demonstrated by the results of the recent RfC on the subject). I understand you consider it "unresolved" since it didn't produce the result you personally sought; however, the last RfC '''did''' resolve... with a determination to retain the current convention. I know you dislike that outcome, but that is indeed the outcome that it reached. ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 02:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
::::''"I understand you consider it "unresolved" since it didn't produce the result you personally sought"''. No. The reason it's unresolved is not because it didn't produce the result I personally sought. The lack of resolution here has nothing to do with me. <p> It's unresolved because this convention remains inconsistent with other conventions and this inconsistency will continue to cause people like Roman Spinner , Marcus Qwertyus, Unreal7, Kauffner (RFC above), TBrandley (this RFC) and countless others to seek to have it rectified via guideline or one article at a time, year after year, until it ''is'' resolved. It's the actions of all these people, not my words, that establishes the lack of resolution here. If they didn't take those actions, then we would have nothing to talk about.<p>Conversely, once the issue is resolved -- the convention is changed to make all place names disambiguated only when necessary, exactly as has been proposed here -- peace and tranquility will ensue. That is, it will be resolved, finally. Just as it has been resolved for Canada and Australia place names. --] (]) 19:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

:::::B2C: You say, "it's unresolved because this convention remains inconsistent with other conventions."
:::::The question remains: '''Why does that mean anything is unresolved?'''

:::::Conventions will always vary from one another &ndash; that's why Misplaced Pages has more than one convention. Believe me when I say that Misplaced Pages does indeed recognize that it's appropriate for different, varied classes of article to follow somewhat different and varied conventions, and that ] in particular may indeed sometimes vary from broader guidelines in order to satisfy other interests.

:::::As for the "countless" others whom you claim want this rectified: as of the last RfC there were 18 (less than a third of respondents) who favored exceptionless minimum disambiguation for US placenames.

:::::You of course have a right to dislike the current convention, and you have a right to try to change it. However, you also have a responsibility as an editor to work constructively with others &ndash; and a sizable majority of other involved editors do not favor the alternative you support. If there are indeed unconsidered issues that you or others would like to bring to the community, then those matters can and should be civilly discussed... but to assert that "peace and tranquility" will only ensue if your favored change is made (or until the "little minds" who oppose it "finally realize how silly their position is") is unconstructive. Peace and tranquility can also be achieved by working cooperatively with the community, and by understanding that other views have merit and should be fairly and respectfully considered. ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 19:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::I didn't start this proposal. I did put in my 2 cents, and made a comment correcting what someone wrote about me. Everything since has been under the umbrellas of discussing whether to close this RFC/proposal (this subsection) or start a new one (next subsection). <p>While it's true that theoretically "peace and tranquility" could ensue if we could force everyone who brings up RM requests and RFCs contrary to this convention to stop, but last I checked we have no such power. The same argument was made, for years, at Yogurt. And my response to that here is the same: We have a fundamental problem of inconsistency with other rules/articles that gives basis to those who favor change. If that change occurs, then the result will be consistent with how we do things, and so nobody will have basis to justify the change in reverse. And, so, peace and tranquility will actually ensue. I was right about that at Yogurt, and I'm confident I'm right about that here too, because fundamentally it's the same problem, with the same solution. It is that simple. --] (]) 23:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

:::::::You again assert we have a "fundamental problem of inconsistency", but don't answer the question of ''why''. For what reason is variation between this convention and other conventions a fundamental problem?

:::::::If the concern is with the very notion of inconsistency among conventions, then that's a discussion that might best be held in a broader policy forum, since it challenges a pretty fundamental Misplaced Pages practice: creating conventions to address differences among varied sets of articles.

:::::::If the concern is that variation between conventions leads to debates, it may, but I'm not sure why that's a problem. So long as debates are productive and civil, rather than merely ] or ], then discussion is fine. (And if the latter occurs, that's simply an issue of editor behavior.) ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 12:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Frankly, I don't know why it creates a problem. Perhaps because people like consistency. Anyway, the creation of this RFC by an experienced editor demonstrates the existence of the problem. --] (]) 15:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::No, the RfC demonstrates that the requester feels there's a problem on which he seeks broader input; others may not consider it a problem. ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 11:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::Sorry. I didn't mean to say that the creation of the RfC alone demonstrates the problem. Taken in isolation from many other similar actions (Comments and other RFCs supporting change to the guideline, moves and RM proposals, etc. from countless other experienced editors) all it demonstrates is something about this requester. But the demonstration of the problem comes from the fact that this RfC creation is neither unusual or surprising. It's typical, and is part of a pattern that is almost a decade old. See the archives of this page. They are dominated by discussion about this one guideline. --] (]) 23:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::This is a first for me, but I actually have to agree with Born2cycle. And with Ëzhiki, at the top of this subsection. The fact that random Wikipedians, with no connection to each other, or who don't even often agree, are repeatedly challenging with ] of one wikiproject that no one buts is own participants pays any attention to, is clear indication that there is, in fact, no Misplaced Pages consensus to do what this project insists on, which violates ] and ]. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 03:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
{{hab}}

===Reword?===
{{hat|Suggestion to reword the RfC, and discussion. - Did not have consensus support}}
So let's reword it (after all, the proposal as made<s> doesn't make any sense</s> ''(striking as unduly harsh)'' and reflects an incorrect understanding of the actual situation). How about this: RfC to affirm that the names of cities should be listed in the most concise way, without adding unnecessary disambiguation, except when a different rule has been formally agreed to for a particular country. (I put it that way because I don't know if there are other countries that have stated a preference to add the state/province/départment to the city name, or if it is just the U.S.) --] (]) 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:That's a very different proposal. There is nothing nonsensical about the current proposal, nor does it reflect an incorrect understanding of the actual situation. If you really think it does, please explain how. --] (]) 20:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::It certainly does. The proposal states "I propose that the common naming convention for places across the world be '''changed.''' It has already been done for Canadian places at WP:CAN, but for other countries, the common naming consensus should be adjusted to remove the state, province, island name from the end if possible, because it is an unnecessary disambiguation, unless it is not a primary term." But this would not be a change, it is already the current understanding; the "unnecessary disambiguation" has already been removed from countries other than the U.S. The proposer then goes on to give US cities as examples, thus wanting to reopen USPLACE, which is the reason for the "strong oppose" !votes to the proposal as stated. If the proposer has examples from countries other than the US where this policy would represent a change, let them show an example. Without such examples, it is asking for a reaffirmation of the current situation, and the only "change" would be to eliminate the specific exception of USPLACE. --] (]) 20:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Even if the proposal affected only the US, it would be a change, of course. The point is to make all place names consistent with ''disambiguate only if necessary''. Whether that affects the places in 10, 5, 3, 2 or just 1 country that remain inconsistent with ''disambiguate only if necessary'' doesn't matter.<p>Anyway, your assumption that ''"the "unnecessary disambiguation" has already been removed from countries other than the U.S."'' is incorrect. The examples provided in the proposal are obviously meant to be illustrative. It's not unreasonable to assume that people should be able to grasp the concept from just one example. But if you need another...
::::] → ]
:::If you still think the proposal does not make sense, or reflects an incorrect understanding of the current situation, please explain how. --] (]) 21:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::::OK, good, thanks. There's an example of a place that could get affected by reaffirming the "no unnecessary disambiguation" policy, and suggests there is a need to reaffirm it. That was certainly not the place that the original proposer had in mind here - they were targeting American cities - but it does show a need for a reaffirmation such as the one I am proposing here. It appears that ] is not an anomaly but is the result of a preference by the Project:Japan people. Looking at ], it appears that the Japan folks DO want the prefecture added to cities; if that is based on consensus, then Japan could be specified as another exception. <br>The rewording I have proposed would address this and similar cases. I really don't see why you are objecting to my proposed wording. Is it because my version specifically allows for exceptions like USPLACE, while the original proposal was worded so as to cast doubt on USPLACE? Face it, the only type of RfC that is going to pass here is one that specifically does not reopen the USPLACE discussion. Not because people are "insecure" about an exception for US cities (which was reviewed by more than 50 people only 6 weeks ago and reaffirmed by a 2-to-1 ratio), but because we are sick and tired of the endless haggling about it, and would like to see that issue put to rest (or allowed to remain at rest) so that we can get back to improving the encyclopedia. --] (]) 21:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::I'm not (necessarily) objecting to your proposed wording (that's not support either). I'm pointing out that it's a completely different proposal, and that nothing which you've said is wrong with the current proposal is actually wrong. Whether the proposer knew which if any places besides the examples listed would be affected is irrelevant. The proposal is to simply bring all place names that currently unnecessarily disambiguate in compliance with ''disambiguate only when necessary'', period, whatever/whereever they may be. That's what we're supposed to be discussing. I'm sorry you and so many others are stick and tired of the haggling about it, but the fact is that the current unnatural/inconsistent situation is obviously problematic not only to many of us regulars, but to many previously uninvolved editors. Until this gets resolved, by actually fixing it, proposals like this are going to be made. The situation is very reminiscent of what happened at Yogurt/Yoghurt. Those favoring restoring the original title were blamed by those favoring the status qho for all the consternation, but it was new uninvolved editors that kept raising the issue over and over, and the issue was finally resolved, as we had predicted, only when the original title was restored.<p>Similarly, the only way the problem here -- place name titles inconsistent with ''disambiguate only when necessary'' -- is ever going to be resolved, is by making all the place name titles consistent with ''disambiguate only when necessary''. Don't blame the messenger. That's not a threat. It's a simple prediction based on facts and years of observation. --] (]) 22:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::In other words, yes, the original proposal here IS an attempt to overturn the recent discussion and reopen discussion on USPLACE, and you are supporting it on that basis. Thank you for confirming that. In that case, I will go back up to that proposal and make my opposition clear. I'm disappointed that you are unable to accept the result of the previous discussion, but there WAS a discussion and consensus was reached (whether or not you agree with it), and the clear feeling here is that people don't want to reopen it. IMO it would have been decent to allow for some kind of grace period (at least longer than six weeks?) before attempting to overturn that decision. --] (]) 22:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Again, by no reasonable standard of consensus could the result in the previous discussion be construed as "consensus". The closing admin notably did not use that word. The result was "maintain status quo", and I agree with that being a reasonable result of that discussion, given the preference for status quo when there is no consensus. But that should not preclude further discussion. To the contrary - we need more discussion to actually achieve consensus. Indeed, discussion is how we develop consensus on WP. And now, perhaps to that end, someone has made another proposal. A related but simpler and broader proposal. I applaud that, and so should you. --] (]) 23:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

::::::B2C: You describe the current convention as "obviously problematic", but that view isn't one shared by most involved editors. Most of them (indeed more than two-thirds, based on the many responses to the last RfC) actually favor some form of exceptional disambiguation in this case.

::::::That said, I understand that you do consider any exception to the broad rule of minimum disambiguation as a "problem" to be solved, but by no means is that necessarily so. Indeed, Misplaced Pages acknowledges that to follow a rule just because it's a rule is ]; instead one must determine how and whether to apply a rule based on ], reasonability, previous agreements, the best interests of readers, and other unique considerations of the case. We've openly considered such things in this forum many times, and explored at great length the pros and cons of current and alternative proposals &ndash; and the outcome has been the continued retention of the current convention. That's a valid result.

::::::Might consensus emerge in the future to change the convention? Of course. But it hasn't yet, nor has it even come close. Certainly if editors raise points that haven't already been talked to death, it'd be very good to discuss them; however, merely repeating the same debate over and over every few weeks simply because a vocal minority are unhappy with the status quo seems (again) like unnecessarily beating a dead horse. ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 11:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

:::::::Years and years of discussion of an issue (by hundreds of people) without resolution is a problem. Ultimately, that's what makes the current convention "obviously problematic". The root problem (not quite as obvious) is that unnecessary disambiguation is inconsistent with how we choose most of our other titles on WP, including the titles of most our other articles about places. That inconsistency makes the problem ''inherent'' to this convention. If others choose to ignore or deny these problems, that doesn't mean they don't exist, or are not obvious. For years people also claimed there was no problem with the ] title - but the discussions (by dozens if not hundreds) persisted, averaging about one RM per year, and countless other intervening discussions, for over eight years. But as soon as the title was changed, that "nonexistent" problem was resolved, finally and permanently. We saw similar and arguably more analogous situations when the conventions for Canada and Australia place names were loosened to no longer require unnecessary disambiguation... years of pointless discussion were replaced by a few short and productive renames in a sea of peace and tranquility. That experience with Canada is what apparently motivated this proposal, by the way.

:::::::Choosing to continue the convention is indeed a "valid" result, just as "valid" as was the result, RM after RM after RM, to retain the ] title, and the early decisions to retain the unnecessary disambiguation conventions for Canada and Australia. But these "valid" results didn't address their respective problems, much less solve them. Only results that actually changed the situations to address the respective root problems were the problems solved.

:::::::I stopped raising this issue myself years ago. That doesn't mean I refrain from participating when others raise the issue, as was the case in the previous RFC, and this one, not only by sharing my opinion, but also by explaining the reasons I hold my opinion, and by pointing out the flaws in other arguments. I do this because I believe it will help us achieve the only way to resolve the issue sooner.

:::::::I didn't understand why people were so enamored with the ''h'' in ] that they fought tooth and nail to retain it year after year, all along claiming "there is no problem" and those seeking change were beating a dead horse, etc. But no change was possible until enough finally realized how silly their position was. The same kind of thing happened with TV episode names (where one contingent insisted on adding the TV series name to the title of articles about TV episodes even if the episode had a unique name), though in that case it had to go to Arbcom before sanity and consistency finally prevailed. I'm similarly perplexed by why people here are so insistent on keeping an exceptional (and obviously problematic) inconsistent convention. And I realize no change is possible here also until enough finally realize how silly their position is. Since it took eight years with Yoghurt, I'm in no position to predict how long it will take here. But it will finally occur, I'm fairly confident about that. --] (]) 18:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::] --]''''']''''' 19:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::Perfect! Indeed, blind conformance with the ''City, State'' convention was the hobgloblin of the little minds of those who supported it even for cities like San Francisco and Chicago, and remains for those who continue to support it for cities with unique names. --] (]) 20:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::"Blind conformance"? Many reasonable points have repeatedly been raised in favor of the convention; to sweepingly deny the validity of such points, and to suggest that mere "blind conformance" is what motivates "those who continue to support it", is highly unproductive. Merit can indeed exist in opinions other than your own; please try to recognize that. ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 12:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Years and years without a resolution? A resolution to what? The convention has been used stably and successfully for many years, and there's no consensus to change it. It seems that what you're actually lamenting is that years and years have gone by without your preferred alternative being adopted, but that in itself is not "obviously problematic".
::::::::You also suggest that not following exceptionless minimum disambiguation is an "inherent" problem: ''but why?'' It's '''never''' been Misplaced Pages policy that the broad guideline of minimum disambiguation must be applied universally; indeed, Misplaced Pages makes it clear that ], reasonability, previous agreements, the best interests of readers, and other relevant considerations are just as important. ] aren't meant to be followed for rules' sake.
::::::::And finally: if you do wish to adhere strictly to Misplaced Pages standards, then please consider adhering to the precepts of ]. Taking the position that the only solution here is to wait for everyone else to "finally realize how silly their position is" is uncooperative, unconstructive, and in bad faith. ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 02:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C, you seem to assume bad faith on the part of those that disagree with you. You speak of pointing out flaws in arguments, insanity, inconsistency, silliness, little minds, pointless discussion, et cetera. You continue to communicate, in various ways, that you will not stop until you get the result you want, and that you have no respect for any opposing view. The previous RfC discussion produced a strong majority result, but you say there was no resolution. All this makes it difficult to have a productive discussion, when it seems so clear that you will not compromise. There is another way: accept that article naming is more complicated than you make it seem. ] (]) 20:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
:B2C, it is totally inappropriate for you to dismiss as "silly" the considered and policy-based arguments of all those who don't share your interpretation of the naming conventions. Sure, the controversy over how to spell yogurt was "silly" (or rather "lame"; I just noticed that it is a featured discussion at ]), which didn't stop you from pursuing it single-mindedly for eight years, and doesn't stop you now from repeated gloating over the fact that you finally got your way in that case. And that controversy was not "resolved finally and permanently" as you claim; in fact there is a ], as you well know. But the issue here is not a argument about how to spell "yogurt". It is about how to name thousands of cities, where millions of people live. Dozens of editors have stated positions in opposition to yours, offering reasoned arguments and citing policy, but you dismiss them all as "silly", while you continue your crusade. (Interesting that you couldn't recognize yourself in the quote cited above, about those who demand a "foolish consistency".) Your attitude that only you are right, and that this issue will only be settled when it is done your way, and that you will continue hammering on it for years and years until that happens - these attitudes on your part are not in accord with Misplaced Pages traditions and are not beneficial to the project. --] (]) 20:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
::What she said. --]''''']''''' 21:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

:Omnedon, for the record, I don't think anyone involved here is operating in bad faith, and I apologize if any of my words implied I thought they were. I assure that was not the intent. If anyone is being silly, for example, I suspect they don't realize it.<p>The creation of this RFC/proposal, before I commented on it, along with various similar actions by others, indicates a lack of resolution regarding this issue, not my words. <p>You claim, ''There is another way: accept that article naming is more complicated than you make it seem.'' How can I accept something that none of the evidence supports, and all of the evidence contradicts? I've seen this and similar "beating a dead horse" arguments made time after time after time, always in defense of some status quo, and time after time after time, it's eventually proven wrong.<p>Article naming does not have to be complicated. We ''can'' have clear and simple rules that lead to obvious non-controversial titles. Of course there will always be a few difficult individual cases here and there, but there is no justification for creating an unnatural and inherent conflict by having a rule that treats a whole category of titles differently from all others. --] (]) 21:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
:::''If anyone is being silly, for example, I suspect they don't realize it.'' That's the most backhanded "apology" I ever heard. --] (]) 21:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
::Melanie, it's not "my way" to ''disambiguate only when necessary''. It's the ''Misplaced Pages way''. --] (]) 21:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
:::It's only PART of the Misplaced Pages way, and not the most important part. According to the nutshell summary at ], "This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." USPLACE is based on those criteria, particularly the Reliable Source criterion. You seem to believe that the MOST IMPORTANT criterion is "no unnecessary disambiguation", but that opinion is not supported by that page, or by WP usage generally. --] (]) 21:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
::::Not true, Melanie. I don't believe following usage in RS is less important, or that "no unnecessary disambiguation" is most important. There is no conflict in guidance here for which weighing different considerations to make a compromise must be made.<p> Your argument that using the city, state convention is following usage in RS might sound reasonable at first, but it's actually clearly wrong.<p>For any given city, it's true that both "cityname" alone and "cityname, statename" are commonly used to refer to the city in reliable sources, but in contexts where the location of the city is known the statename is rarely included, indicating sources include statename as information, not as part of the name. --] (]) 23:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::You seem to suggest that the fact that the state may be dropped in cases where the state is already known from context means that the state must not be part of the name, but that doesn't follow. If it's understood that I'm talking about John Smith, I'll likely just refer to him as John... but that doesn't indicate that Smith is not part of his name. ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 01:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::"John", "Smith" and "John Smith" are all names for the same person, and all are reasonable answers to " what is his name?". "San Francisco" is the name of a city in the state with the name "California", but "California" is not a name for that city, and neither is "San Francisco, California". While "San Francisco, California" might reasonably answer " where are you from?", it's never the answer to " what is the NAME of the city that..." --] (]) 07:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::I simply note that it's incorrect to claim that the elimination in common usage of part of an identifier, in a context where that part is already understood, must necessarily indicate that that part is merely informational, as demonstrated by the counterexample of the personal name. ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 12:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Nothing I said was based on the premise that "elimination in common usage of part of an identifier, in a context where that part is already understood, must '''necessarily''' indicate that that part is merely informational". That's not the case for names of persons with respect to first/last names, as you point out, but it is the case with respect to place names when specified with the name of the larger geographical area in which it is. I mean, "Smith" and "John Smith" are also names of the person. "California" and "San Francisco, California" are not ''names'' of the city. --] (]) 15:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

:::B2C: No, minimum disambiguation is often ''but not always'' the way. Misplaced Pages frequently recognizes that exceptions to minimum disambiguation are indeed desirable and beneficial. (], for instance, has guidelines for redirecting even unambiguous short names to full ones, like ] redirecting to ].)
:::It ''is'', however, the Misplaced Pages way not to be bound to rules simply for rules' sake: ].
::::Exceptions should be limited to individual situations or articles. They should not apply to an entire class of 1000s of articles. That's not an exception. That's creating a new rule. --] (]) 07:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::That's your opinion, not Misplaced Pages policy.
:::::In fact, Misplaced Pages supports a host of class conventions that vary in some way from other broad guidelines. ], for example, states: "Don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used." It doesn't merely make exceptions for an explicit, static list of individual articles, but rather it creates a ''convention'' that applies to ''any articles in that class'': ]→], ]→], ]→], etc. More broadly, WP:NCP itself exists for the purpose of defining exceptional conventions to the broader guideline of "Firstname Lastname"; many other conventions operate similarly.
:::::Put simply, naming conventions in general recognize and serve an important purpose that merely applying broad and exceptionless guidelines (like "never exceed minimum disambiguation") would not, which is why we have them. ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 12:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::Again, since both the first and last names of people are both names of the subject in question, as is their combination, that's a very different situation. It's more of a clarification of what to do in an ambiguous situation, not an exception. There is no ambiguity in the case of (for example) ] as neither "California" nor the two names in combination are the ''name'' of that subject. Very different. --] (]) 15:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::So you are saying that different types of articles may need different naming conventions. USPLACE works. It is not an "exception" to a "rule", but a convention based on the particular subject -- in this case, United States places. There are many such situations throughout Misplaced Pages. We've been over all of this. Do you have anything new to offer that hasn't been discussed over and over just recently? ] (]) 16:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

::::::B2C: Again, as I said above, Misplaced Pages recognizes a great many conventions that vary in some ways from broader guidelines, of which NCP is one. Misplaced Pages considers it appropriate for ] to be handled in somewhat different and varied ways in order to accommodate the needs of different and varied sets of articles. That's what specific conventions are for. You may dislike that that is so, but it is so. ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 18:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Omnedon and Huwman, this is a response to both of your comments. <p>First, please stop referring to what you believe I like or dislike. Personal likes/dislikes, including mine, whatever they may be, are irrelevant here, of course. <p>Now, clarifying an otherwise ambiguous situation with specific conventions in a way that does not contradict general conventions shared by most other articles is one thing, and not a problem. Establishing specific conventions that are contrary to general conventions shared by most other articles is quite another, and usually creates problems. Doing so does not necessarily create problems, but the evidence in this case regarding how problematic this convention is, years and years of controversy involving hundreds of editors on this page and countless talk pages of US city articles, is overwhelming. Until the root problem is identified and rectified, that won't change. That's not a threat, it's an educated prediction based on years of reams of data.<p>Also, ]. Just because there are other problematic conventions that contradict basic titling principles like ''disambiguate only when necessary'' is not an excuse to not solve that problem elsewhere, like here. --] (]) 23:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::B2C: You seem to suggest that conventions should merely "clarify ambiguity", but I don't see where that's established. For titling in some areas to vary from titling in others is not necessarily problematic, and accords with Misplaced Pages policies such as ] which assert that favoring some goals (like naturalness or consistency) over other goals (like precision or conciseness, to which the guideline of minimum disambiguation relates) may indeed be necessary and appropriate. The community in this case seemingly does not recognize such variation as a problem either, with proposals to implement the alternative of exceptionless minimum disambiguation gaining only a mixed and largely unfavorable response.

::::::::Will there still be debate? Probably. That's normal. Any convention affecting many thousands of articles edited and maintained by many hundreds of editors (like USPLACE) is almost bound to include some who dissent, and that's fine. Proposing alternatives is good, and discussing them is desirable. We do that. However, if debates cease to be productive and civil and instead become ] or ] (as some editors have suggested they've grown), then ''that'' is certainly a problem... but it's a problem with editor behavior that can be solved by better adhering to the principles of responsible, civil, and constructive interaction. ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 11:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Unfortunately it's not explicitly stated, but it's common sense that the ] principles are prioritized. For example, ''naturalness'' is a higher priority than ''conciseness''. Always, not just in some cases. Otherwise, someone could reasonably argue moving ] to ]. Now, if two names are approximately equal in naturalness, then ''concision'' has a role to play. That is, a title that is not natural is never a consideration, no matter how concise.<p>As an aside, we would be a lot better off if the priorities were completely worked out and clearly stated for consistent/objective application. It would end most RM debates which are usually about a reasonable title and a reasonable alternative, and are dominated by JDLI arguments based on each person prioritizing the principles in a manner that happens to favor his or her personal preference. <p>Resolving the underlying reasons for having these never-ending disagreements is what is at stake here. And years and years of having different experienced editors repeatedly bring up the same objections to a given situation is about the strongest evidence there can be in favor of needing a change. --] (]) 18:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::There is no indication whatsoever that the five titling goals presented at WP:AT are listed in any sort of priority order, nor does common sense indicate that. In fact the text below indicates the reverse. First of all it says these are goals, not rules; and, "It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others." This allows some flexibility, which is positive, not negative. ] (]) 18:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::If in fact there is any implication of priority of goals at ], it would be that the most important are listed in the nutshell. That nutshell summary states "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." In other words, the highest priority goals are recognizability, lack of ambiguity, and consistency with Reliable Sources. See anything in there to suggest that "concision" is a top priority? Neither do I. In fact, concision clearly takes second place to the three listed there. One reason why so many editors support USPLACE, is because it meets these three objectives. --] (]) 19:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::If <s>you</s> someone can't see the inherent common sense priority everyone, <s>including you,</s> gives naturalness over conciseness, especially after my explanation above, I can't help <s>you.</s> --] (]) 19:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC) {{small|totally misread Melanie's comment. made statement general. --] (]) 19:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)}}
:::::::::::::I was merely quoting the nutshell, which presumably reflects consensus about titling conventions; their words, not mine. The nutshell does not address the relative priorities of "naturalness" and "conciseness", and in fact implies that the three goals it does mention are more important than either - unless "naturalness" is a synonym for "recognizability"? --] (]) 19:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The problem is that for a given city with an unambiguous name, the short and long (state qualified) title meet recognizability (remember, that's not general recognizability, but recognizability to those familiar with the topic), and are unambiguous and consistent with usage. Since those high priority nutshell principles don't favor either one, we go to the lower priority criteria to break the tie, where concision indicates we should go with the shorter. Not to mention that only the short one is actually the ''name'' of the topic. --] (]) 19:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::All the "flexibility" enables is the rationalization of JDLI arguments. If everyone assigns the relative weights of each principle in each situation however they wish, practically any title can be justified. Why have principles at all?<p> The flexibility, which dilutes if not defeats the value of the principles, is negative, not positive. The result is that in any given situation in deciding between titles A and B, instead of looking at the principles to decide which is best, one can decide which he likes best, and then decide how to weigh the principle priorities in order to favor that preference. It's ridiculous. That's not positive. --] (]) 19:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::This encyclopedia covers so many different kinds of subjects that some degree of flexibility is not just positive, it's '''vital'''. Different situations may call for different solutions, and it is done by consensus. The principles of article titling are being followed here. As I have said before, article titling is not about the single rule that you continually state (least disambiguation). ] (]) 19:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I see no evidence for the need for this kind of wide open flexibility. Exceptions for individual unusual cases in less than half of 1% of cases (like two nearby cities in same region with same name - see below)? Yes, absolutely. But a broad flexibility that allows for assigning the priorities differently for each article title? No way. I'm confident a slightly tightened down consistently prioritized criteria could determine titles clearly and objectively for the vast, vast majority of our articles without any need for any kind of flexibility at all. It's not that hard. <p>To be clear, I'm talking about determining the undisambiguated title of all articles - where disambiguation is required additional rules (special conventions) are often required beyond the general principles/criteria. --] (]) 20:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I see no evidence of "wide open flexibility". ] (]) 20:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Melanie quoted the nutshell of WP:AT earlier, but here it is again: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." How does your tight focus on least disambiguation fit into this? I don't believe it serves the reader, as Noetica stated very well above. As for the list of goals, it is bulleted, not numbered, which is yet another indication that they are in no particular order. Are you actually saying we should not have any flexibility in article titling? ] (]) 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Born2Cycle: No one's suggesting that "everyone assigns the relative weights of each principle in each situation however they wish". The matter at hand is one particular convention where the community of involved editors weighs relevant principles by publicly debating all reasonable considerations. I see nothing ridiculous about that. Further, current convention is not about handling "each article title" differently; quite the reverse &ndash; it applies a single, consistent form to the broad class of articles it addresses.

:::::::::::::If you do honestly think that flexibility in Misplaced Pages rules serves no other purpose than the "rationalization of JDLI" arguments, then (to quote a phrase) I can't help you. ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:smaller"><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></span> 11:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

:So, nothing new, then? ] (]) 01:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
::This was very thoughouhly hashed out just two months ago with a strong consensus to keep the current guidelines. No, there's nothing new here. Nor will there likely be when it is brought up again next quarter by people who apparently enjoy this kind of wankery. ] (]) 16:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Are you suggesting the person who brought it up this quarter "enjoys this kind of wankery"? If not, please clarify.<p>And there was no consensus to keep or change the guidelines; ''no consensus'' favored the status quo. --] (]) 18:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
::::It is more accurate to say that there was no consensus to make a change to the well-established convention. ] (]) 18:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::yes, about two-thirds of participants supported either the status quo or a proposal similar to it. It's not as if it was a wash. ] ] 11:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Request for Comment - Additional Guideline ==

I recently found a curiosity when scanning through the activity feed that wasn't covered by this guideline. Apparently, in Andika County, Khuzestan Province, Iran, there are ''two'' villages named Hoseynabad. One is titled ], the other ]. I propose an addition to the guideline that states:

{{divbox|orange||
When two or more places share an identical name in close proximity so that they cannot be disambiguated by region, province, county, or any other reasonable territorial subdivision, their Misplaced Pages article titles shall include a reasonably accurate geographical coordinate such as:


Consensus is sought as to the correct way to refer and link to major American cities such as ] and ]. The discussion is being held at ].
*], a village in Andika County
*], a village in Andika County


== Capitalisation of "oblast" when used as the name of a Ukrainian administrative division ==
and they shall be listed in order from smallest coordinate north to south to largest.}}


I have made an ngram review of "X O|oblast" for the oblasts listed at ]. While many of these do not give an ngram result, where they do, they do not show that ''oblast'' is consistently capitalised in sources (per ] and ]) that would lead us to a conclusion that we should cap these names on WP. See , , , , (no result for Kyiv Oblast), , and - others retured no result. A cursory look at Google Scholar results would confirm mixed capitalisation - , and . For these names in Cyrillic, oblast (о́бласть) is not capitalised. There is therefore no to argument that capitalisation from the native language gives rise to a need to capitalise the term in English. The same would be true for other administrative divisions (eg raion). The same is likely true where the same terms are used for other nations (eg Russia). ] (]) 02:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Let me know what you think. -- ''']''' (''''']''''') 23:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
:I agree, but see ], ], and especially ]. —⁠ ⁠] (]) 06:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
:This is such an uncommon situation it shouldn't require a convention. The coordinates are a horrible way to distinguish them. I suggest we look at how sources distinguish the places. Finally, especially since there appears to be almost nothing to say about either of these tiny villages, I recommend we have one article at ] which covers both. --] (]) 23:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
::RM results that boil down to "capitalize because the sources I prefer and cherrypicked like to do so" are pretty common when people deeply involved in some topic show up in force to dogpile an RM (or one or two bloviate at tremendous length with their personal ] about why something "is" a "proper name" despite numerous RS not treating it as one by capitalizing it). As our editorial pool shrinks, the entire RM process is starting to fail because too few editors pay any attention to it at all, and those who show up to comment too often have a "screw the guidelines and policies, I want capitalization in {{em|my}} topic else" attitude with no regard to sourcing and guidelines. The way to get around this is to do a bunch of source research beforehand showing that the capitalization level is nowhere near what we'd expect for WP to be capitalizing. Not just n-grams but Google News and Google Scholar and IA Scholar results – e.g. showing that lowercase "oblast" clearly dominates in journals, but do more such searches for all these terms so the evidence is unassailable. Then do a mass RM that is "advertised" at various higher profile venues like ] and here and ] and even ] and ] if it seems to warrant that. Make it clear that the earlier RMs were based on false claims about the capitalization level in the source material and that you can prove it. This is basically the same situation as all that sports raft stuff: topic-devoted editors are hell-bent on over-capitalizing, but do not have the sourcing to justify it. Same with the state panhandles (an RM saga that still continues). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
::Well, admittedly, I didn't realize this and moved the article by mistake to a more sensible title, but was warned off by an admin. -- ''']''' (''''']''''') 23:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure practices in other languages should be used to decide what to do in English; different languages just have different conventions. French, for example, capitalizes noun forms (like ''Amérique'' for America) but definitely not demonyms (like ''américain'' for American). French does ''Amérique centrale'' for Central America but ''Amérique du Sud'' for South America, though that may be similar to the difference between "North America" and "northern America".
:::I guess in English there's disagreement or uncertainty over whether the type descriptor is part of a proper noun or a separate noun being modified by a proper ]. ] says "station" is lowercase except where "Station" is already part of the name, leaving that question up to sourcing. Conductors say ] and not "South", and "Penn Station" not "Penn" (which means the university). But they might say "Back Bay" or "Yonkers", so we have ] and ]. But many people write e.g. "Back Bay Station" as if "Back Bay" is a short version of the full proper name, just as "New York" is a short version of "New York City", which is never written "New York city". This is somewhat unsatisfying, but so is the difference in pronunciation between "Kansas" and "Arkansas", so ''c'est la vie''.
:::Given sometimes the type descriptor is incorporated into the name and sometimes it's not, and given that capitalization of type descriptors in general seems to be common in English though not always universal, I think declaring as a style choice that English Misplaced Pages always capitalizes would be acceptable as an arbitrary choice between two common conventions, and also safer in that we'd never mistakenly lowercase a name where the descriptor ''has'' been incorporated, which seems to happen over time or for words where the short version is already taken.
:::It looks like ] already favors the capitalized version, and given that ''some'' professional English sources use that convention, it's not wrong for Misplaced Pages to choose it arbitrarily. Especially given that the short versions of these names are already taken by city names, it seems likely that the type descriptors have or will some day be firmly incorporated by English speakers. -- ] (]) 19:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::::To be fair, the naming convention page is silent on capitalisation except for the usage. Weirdly the Ukrainian English-language newspapers I can find use the word "region" instead of oblast in their reporting... ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 21:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


== Region-specific guidance for Turkish cities ==
:I agree with B2C; these are lame titles, not corresponding to any of the usual guidelines, and we ought to find a better way. A single article is one way. Or delete and list both in a list of villages, since neither appears to be notable. ] (]) 23:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
::Must be getting mighty cold down in Hades. ;-) --] (]) 00:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


Can we add some specific guidance for Turkish cities? For some cities, this is almost getting to ridiculous levels. For example, count how many Smyrna's are in the lead of ] in this version (there's one extra in the footnote as well). Btw, there's also ] and ] articles. Historic names should usually be presented in "Names" or "Etymology" sections, except significant ones such as Constantinople in the lead of Istanbul for example. However, non-English alphabet versions should also be in "Names" or "Etymology" sections. Turkish is spoken by 85-90% of the population. The rest is mostly Kurdish. Except Arabic, other languages would be less than 0.1% ] (]) 16:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
*Or perhaps we could say "...{{em|Northern}} Andika" for one and Southern for the other? (Or whatever the appropriate cardinal directions are.) ] ] 00:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
**If reliable sources did that it would be fine, but we shouldn't invent titles that wrongly imply those are the respective names. That said, north/south as parenthetic qualifiers might be okay, but I still think covering both in one article makes the most sense. If they ever grow in significance, coverage in sources will probably take care of the problem for us, and we'll just follow suit. --] (]) 01:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


== Türkiye ==
One article might be a problem... The {{code|Infobox settlement}} template seems to not work for two boxes on one page. What a pain. There is not even enough information in source (actually, there is virtually none) to establish which is the older/original. Maybe have one combined infobox? --] (]) 01:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


Could we get a section addressing users adding Türkiye or replacing Turkey with Türkiye? I usually revert those edits and point to ] or another MOS-related guideline, but it would be helpful to point here. ] (])<span style="font-size:85%;">&nbsp;If you reply here, please ].</span> 05:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
*A single article is a terrible way to group articles like this. I doubt anyone would suggest putting two distinct settlements in a single article if they had different names; there's no reason to do it just because whoever named these places wasn't especially creative. (As for the notability issues, they're both recognized by the Iranian census, and since Misplaced Pages serves as a gazetteer this is generally considered to make them notable.) As for the original issue, I've seen at least three different ways to disambiguate these: coordinates, nearby large cities/geographic features (e.g. ] and ], and proximity (e.g. ] and ]). They all have their advantages and disadvantages; coordinates are precise but ugly-looking, and the other two have a certain degree of subjectivity. I prefer proximity when it makes sense, but it sometimes doesn't, and these are odd enough cases that we don't really need a hard-and-fast guideline. ] <sup>]•]</sup> 01:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
:Probably easier to have a generic “use the main articles title”; we may eventually move the article to Türkiye, and even we do we will have the problem in the opposite direction. ] (]) 06:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
**I agree. Putting issues with notability aside, putting two distinct articles into one article is a bad direction. Lacking reliable sources for a difference of names, the something like ] and ] would seem like reasonable choices. The current names are horrid and any change would be an improvement. ] (]) 02:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
***Since both places are small, obscure, and located in the vicinity of one another, and the articles are very short, why not write about ''both'' in one article titled ]? I know of several similar cases in Russia (none, however, have articles yet), and I don't see why bundling them together into one page would be a problem. Sure beats including coordinates or relative positions into the titles!—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); January&nbsp;24, 2013; 19:51 (UTC)


==]", ] or an English exonym, if there is one ?==
== names may appear in alphabetic order ==
A discussion at ], regarding a mountain on the Polish—Czech border, may be of interest.&nbsp;—] <small>] • ]</small> 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


== Primary topics and ] ==
I apologise if this has been discussed before; I found a discussion way back in ] of whether "alphabetic order" meant the ''languages'' should be ordered (Finnish: B, Swedish: A) or the ''terms'' should (Swedish: A, Finnish: B), and I see the former was decided upon. But if there's been a discussion of ''this'', I missed it:


How should we decide the primary topics of "{{xt|Placename, Country}}", "{{xt|Placename (city)}}", "{{xt|Placename (town)}}", etc., especially for some countries (like the ]) whose cities cannot have articles named {{xt|Placename, Country}}? ] may be useful references. ] (]) 15:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
] says "Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages — i.e., (Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken; Estonian: Soome laht)." Am I missing something, or is that example of "alphabetic order" not in alphabetic order? Wouldn't alphabetical order be "Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken" (by language name; or "Swedish: Finska viken; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti" by term)? Should the example be reordered? Or if it is corrct as-is, can it be clarified? ] (]) 20:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
:{{ping|John Smith Ri}} There is a difference between naming conventions and eligibility as a primary topic, i.e. a page name does not need to be eligible to be the preferred title of an article in order to be in contention for primary topic; it is sufficient for the page name to be eligible either for preferred title or redirect. For example, ] is the primary topic of ] even though the latter would never be allowed as the title of the article. And so ] is a primary redirect to ] even though ] exist in the US. (Note that ], England, is not in contention for primary topic since ] is neither a valid title nor redirect to that topic.) -- ]]]] 16:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::However, ], England is the primary article for “Birmingham”. ] (]) 17:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:34, 23 October 2024

Please post discussions about Railway station names at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (stations).
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Why is the article on Georgia named Georgia (country), and Georgia is instead a disambiguation page? The consensus is that there is no primary topic for the term "Georgia". Supporters of that position successfully argued that since the country is not significantly more commonly searched for than the US state of the same name, it cannot have primary topic over the US state. Opponents argued that internationally recognized countries should take precedence over sub-national units like the US state. Some opponents argued that the current setup conveys a US-centric bias. Attempts to rename the articles to a natural disambiguation title like "Republic of Georgia" or "State of Georgia" have not reached any consensus (see the list of archived discussions). Why is the Ireland article about the island, while the article on the country is named Republic of Ireland? The naming of Ireland articles dates back to 2002. Previously, content for both the island and country appeared on the same page, but it was then decided to move content and the page history about the country to its official "Republic of Ireland" description, while keeping content about the island at "Ireland". Ever since, this issue has been heavily disputed, but there has not been any consensus to change this status quo. Previous failed proposals have included making the country the primary topic of "Ireland" instead, or using parenthetical disambiguation titles like "Ireland (island)" and "Ireland (country)". According to an ArbCom ruling in 2009, discussions relating to the naming of these Ireland articles had to occur at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. In 2023 this requirement was withdrawn so discussions can take place on the talk pages as normal. Why do articles on populated places in the United States primarily use the ] "comma convention" format? Why is there an exemption for cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring a state? This is an issue where different rules of Misplaced Pages:Article titles can conflict with each other, thus consensus determines which ones to follow. Most of these articles were created by User:Rambot, a Misplaced Pages bot, back in 2002 based on US Census Bureau records. When creating these pages, Rambot used the "Placename, State" naming format, initially setting a consistent naming convention for these articles. Supporters of keeping the "Placename, State" format argue that this is generally the most common naming convention used by American reliable sources. Opponents argue that this format is neither precise nor concise, and results in short titles like Nashville redirecting to longer titles like Nashville, Tennessee. After a series of discussions since 2004, a compromise was reached in 2008 that established the Associated Press Stylebook exception rule for only those handful of cities listed in that style guide (the dominant US newswriting guide) as not requiring the state modifier. There has been since no consensus to do a massive page move on the other articles on US places (although individual requested move proposals have been initiated on different pages from time to time).
Archive
Archive

Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive (settlements) • Archive (places) • September 2012 archives • September 2013 archives • October 2013 archives; February 2014 archives; Archive 3; Archive 4; Archive 5; Archive 6

WP:USPLACE: May 2004 discussion • June 2004 discussion • July 2005 proposal (not passed) • December 2005 proposal (not passed) • August 2006 proposals (not passed) • Aug 2006 proposal to use one international convention (not passed) • September 2006 proposals (not passed) • October 2006 proposal to use the AP Stylebook for major US cities (not passed) • November 2006 proposal to mirror Canadian city conventions (not passed) • November 2006 straw poll • December 2006 proposal (not passed) • January 2007 proposal to use the AP Stylebook for major US cities (not passed) • January 2007 discussion • July 2007 discussion • July 2007 proposal to use one international convention (not passed) • October 2008 decision to use the AP Stylebook for major US cities (passed) • March 2010 discussion • June 2010 discussion • January 2011 RFC (consensus to maintain status quo) • April 2012 discussion • October 2012 discussion on whether to initiate another RFC • December 2012 Collaborative Workspace • December 2012 RFC (consensus to maintain status quo) • February 2013 RFC (no consensus) • June 2013 discussion • January 2014 discussion • February 2014 moratorium discussion • 2018 discussion on state capitals • 2019 discussion on subpages • November 2019 discussion • August 2020 discussion • February 2023 RFC (no consensus to change)

Shortcut
Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

Need for clarity on linking major American cities

Consensus is sought as to the correct way to refer and link to major American cities such as Los Angeles and Boston. The discussion is being held at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Need for clarity on linking major American cities.

Capitalisation of "oblast" when used as the name of a Ukrainian administrative division

I have made an ngram review of "X O|oblast" for the oblasts listed at Oblasts of Ukraine#List. While many of these do not give an ngram result, where they do, they do not show that oblast is consistently capitalised in sources (per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS) that would lead us to a conclusion that we should cap these names on WP. See Chernivtsi Oblast, Donetsk Oblast, Kharkiv Oblast, Kherson Oblast, Kiev Oblast (no result for Kyiv Oblast), Lviv Oblast, Poltava Oblast and Sumy Oblast - others retured no result. A cursory look at Google Scholar results would confirm mixed capitalisation - Sumy Oblast, Donetsk Oblast and Kharkiv Oblast. For these names in Cyrillic, oblast (о́бласть) is not capitalised. There is therefore no to argument that capitalisation from the native language gives rise to a need to capitalise the term in English. The same would be true for other administrative divisions (eg raion). The same is likely true where the same terms are used for other nations (eg Russia). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but see Talk:Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast/Archive 1#Requested move 29 April 2022, Talk:Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast/Archive 1#Requested move 11 June 2022, and especially Talk:Cherkasy Oblast#Requested move 12 May 2022. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
RM results that boil down to "capitalize because the sources I prefer and cherrypicked like to do so" are pretty common when people deeply involved in some topic show up in force to dogpile an RM (or one or two bloviate at tremendous length with their personal WP:OR about why something "is" a "proper name" despite numerous RS not treating it as one by capitalizing it). As our editorial pool shrinks, the entire RM process is starting to fail because too few editors pay any attention to it at all, and those who show up to comment too often have a "screw the guidelines and policies, I want capitalization in my topic else" attitude with no regard to sourcing and guidelines. The way to get around this is to do a bunch of source research beforehand showing that the capitalization level is nowhere near what we'd expect for WP to be capitalizing. Not just n-grams but Google News and Google Scholar and IA Scholar results – e.g. here showing that lowercase "oblast" clearly dominates in journals, but do more such searches for all these terms so the evidence is unassailable. Then do a mass RM that is "advertised" at various higher profile venues like WT:MOSCAPS and here and WT:NCCAPS and even WT:AT and WP:VPPOL if it seems to warrant that. Make it clear that the earlier RMs were based on false claims about the capitalization level in the source material and that you can prove it. This is basically the same situation as all that sports raft stuff: topic-devoted editors are hell-bent on over-capitalizing, but do not have the sourcing to justify it. Same with the state panhandles (an RM saga that still continues).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure practices in other languages should be used to decide what to do in English; different languages just have different conventions. French, for example, capitalizes noun forms (like Amérique for America) but definitely not demonyms (like américain for American). French does Amérique centrale for Central America but Amérique du Sud for South America, though that may be similar to the difference between "North America" and "northern America".
I guess in English there's disagreement or uncertainty over whether the type descriptor is part of a proper noun or a separate noun being modified by a proper noun adjunct. Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (US stations) says "station" is lowercase except where "Station" is already part of the name, leaving that question up to sourcing. Conductors say South Station and not "South", and "Penn Station" not "Penn" (which means the university). But they might say "Back Bay" or "Yonkers", so we have Back Bay station and Yonkers station. But many people write e.g. "Back Bay Station" as if "Back Bay" is a short version of the full proper name, just as "New York" is a short version of "New York City", which is never written "New York city". This is somewhat unsatisfying, but so is the difference in pronunciation between "Kansas" and "Arkansas", so c'est la vie.
Given sometimes the type descriptor is incorporated into the name and sometimes it's not, and given that capitalization of type descriptors in general seems to be common in English though not always universal, I think declaring as a style choice that English Misplaced Pages always capitalizes would be acceptable as an arbitrary choice between two common conventions, and also safer in that we'd never mistakenly lowercase a name where the descriptor has been incorporated, which seems to happen over time or for words where the short version is already taken.
It looks like Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places) already favors the capitalized version, and given that some professional English sources use that convention, it's not wrong for Misplaced Pages to choose it arbitrarily. Especially given that the short versions of these names are already taken by city names, it seems likely that the type descriptors have or will some day be firmly incorporated by English speakers. -- Beland (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
To be fair, the naming convention page is silent on capitalisation except for the usage. Weirdly the Ukrainian English-language newspapers I can find use the word "region" instead of oblast in their reporting... SportingFlyer T·C 21:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Region-specific guidance for Turkish cities

Can we add some specific guidance for Turkish cities? For some cities, this is almost getting to ridiculous levels. For example, count how many Smyrna's are in the lead of İzmir in this version (there's one extra in the footnote as well). Btw, there's also Smyrna and Old Smyrna articles. Historic names should usually be presented in "Names" or "Etymology" sections, except significant ones such as Constantinople in the lead of Istanbul for example. However, non-English alphabet versions should also be in "Names" or "Etymology" sections. Turkish is spoken by 85-90% of the population. The rest is mostly Kurdish. Except Arabic, other languages would be less than 0.1% Bogazicili (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Türkiye

Could we get a section addressing users adding Türkiye or replacing Turkey with Türkiye? I usually revert those edits and point to wp:commonname or another MOS-related guideline, but it would be helpful to point here. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably easier to have a generic “use the main articles title”; we may eventually move the article to Türkiye, and even we do we will have the problem in the opposite direction. BilledMammal (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Sněžka", Śnieżka or an English exonym, if there is one ?

A discussion at Talk:Sněžka#Requested move 17 July 2024, regarding a mountain on the Polish—Czech border, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Primary topics and WP:USPLACE

How should we decide the primary topics of "Placename, Country", "Placename (city)", "Placename (town)", etc., especially for some countries (like the United States) whose cities cannot have articles named Placename, Country? The existing rules applied to Canada may be useful references. John Smith Ri (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@John Smith Ri: There is a difference between naming conventions and eligibility as a primary topic, i.e. a page name does not need to be eligible to be the preferred title of an article in order to be in contention for primary topic; it is sufficient for the page name to be eligible either for preferred title or redirect. For example, Barack Obama is the primary topic of Obama even though the latter would never be allowed as the title of the article. And so Birmingham, United States is a primary redirect to Birmingham, Alabama even though other Birminghams exist in the US. (Note that Birmingham, England, is not in contention for primary topic since Birmingham, United States is neither a valid title nor redirect to that topic.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
However, Birmingham, England is the primary article for “Birmingham”. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names): Difference between revisions Add topic