Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) and User talk:Rlevse: Difference between pages

Revision as of 18:54, 6 December 2006

Revision as of 16:48, 17 April 2007

Line 1:

{{User:Rlevse/Talk Template}}

{{shortcut|[[WT:NC:CITY]]}}

<br>

{{archive box|

[[/Archive 1]],

[[/Archive 2]],

[[/Archive 3]],

[[/Archive 4]]<br />

[[/Archive 5]]<br />

[[/Archive 6]] - "City" vs. "City, State" arguments<br />

[[/Archive 7]],

[[/Archive 8]],

[[/Archive 9]],

[[/Archive 10]]<br />

[[/Archive 11]]<br />

[[/Archive 12]]<br />

[[/U.S. convention change (August 2006)]]<br />

[[/One international convention]] (August 2006) <br />

[[/Is comma convention in conflict with other guidelines?]] (November 2006)

}}

{{User:Rlevse/linkbox}}

__TOC__

{{User:Rlevse/Admin policy}}

==Tariq's Proposal==

;Part I:

:''The canonical form for cities in the United States is [[City, State]] (the "comma convention"). However, if a major city has a unique name or is unquestionably the most significant subject sharing its name, such as [[Chicago]] and [[Philadelphia]], it can reside at a disambiguated ___location, without the state. Those cities that need additional disambiguation include their county<!-- 48 states -->, borough<!-- Alaska --> or parish<!-- Louisiana --> (for example [[Elgin, Lancaster County, South Carolina]] and [[Elgin, Kershaw County, South Carolina]]). Smaller locations, those which are not well-known outside their immediate vicinity, such as Walla Walla, Washington and Garrett Park, Maryland, '''should not''' be moved from "City, State"; they should remain disambiguated with their respective state names, regardless of the uniqueness of the names of the cities.''

<!---

:''An U.S. city's article, however, should ''never'' be titled simply "city, United States" (e.g "Houston, United States"), although it is permissible to create a title of this type as a ''redirect'' to the properly titled article. Similarly, a title that uses the state's two-letter postal abbreviation should never be the primary article title, although creating a redirect is permitted.''

{| class="messagebox standard-talk"

;Part II:

|-

Additionally, can we agree to move the twenty-seven cities mentioned by john k in his AP-related proposal, as they would abide by the requirements needed for disambiguation.

|[[Image:Scout woodbadge beads.jpg|75px]]

|'''Rlevse will be where a Scouter should be in the Autumn - at an OA function until mid-day, Sunday, Oct 29th, 2006...and unable to access the 'net.'''

{|cellpadding=15

|}

--->

*[[Atlanta, Georgia|Atlanta]]

{| class="infobox" width="270px"

*[[Baltimore, Maryland|Baltimore]]

|-

*[[Boston, Massachusetts|Boston]]

!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br/>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]

*[[Chicago]]

----

*[[Cincinnati, Ohio|Cincinnati]]

|-

*[[Cleveland, Ohio|Cleveland]]

*[[Dallas, Texas|Dallas]]

*[[Denver, Colorado|Denver]]

*[[Detroit, Michigan|Detroit]]

|

*[[Honolulu, Hawaii|Honolulu]]

*[[Houston, Texas|Houston]]

*[[Indianapolis, Indiana|Indianapolis]]

*[[Las Vegas, Nevada|Las Vegas]]

*[[Los Angeles, California|Los Angeles]]

*[[Miami, Florida|Miami]]

*[[Milwaukee, Wisconsin|Milwaukee]]

*[[Minneapolis, Minnesota|Minneapolis]]

*[[New Orleans, Louisiana|New Orleans]]

|

* [[/RlevseTalkArchive1| 15 Nov 2005 &ndash; 28 Feb 2006]]

*[[New York City]]

* [[/RlevseTalkArchive2| 01 Mar 2006 &ndash; 30 Jun 2006]]

*[[Oklahoma City, Oklahoma|Oklahoma City]]

* [[/RlevseTalkArchive3| 01 Jul 2006 &ndash; 30 Sep 2006]]

*[[Philadelphia]]

* [[/RlevseTalkArchive4| 01 Oct 2006 &ndash; 31 Dec 2006]]

*[[Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania|Pittsburgh]]

* [[/RlevseTalkArchive5| 01 Jan 2007 &ndash; 31 Mar 2007]]

*[[Salt Lake City, Utah|Salt Lake City]]

*[[San Antonio, Texas|San Antonio]]

*[[San Diego, California|San Diego]]

*[[San Francisco, California|San Francisco]]

*[[Seattle, Washington|Seattle]]

|}

==Vital articles and Release Version==

I can easily see agreeing with Part I and disputing some of Part II; it is possible to agree with Part II for other reasons, and oppose Part I. {{unsigned|Pmanderson}}

Hi, I debated about the articles in [[Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Eurocentreism]]. How can we add the results in the Release Version.--<font face="monospace">[[User:Sa.vakilian|Sa.vakilian]]([[User talk:Sa.vakilian|t]]-[[Special:Contributions/Sa.vakilian|c]])</font> 15:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

:Why are you asking me this? I haven't worked that area. What exactly are you looking for?[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 17:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

== The BBC source ==

===Survey -3===

:''This is for later use; but if anyone has decided, fine. If you want fine-tuning, please comment below.

The BBC source which you have removed from the article was not a part of the conflict. It was removed by Dahn by mistake. See my talkpage for confirmation. --[[User:Anittas|Thus Spake Anittas]] 20:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

====Support Votes -3====

#:I don'''Support'''.t Isee supportanything anyby proposalDahn that movessays U.Sit was a mistake. citiesThe inprotection theis directionfor of24hours, ''disambiguateit onlycan whenbe necessary''worked out then. --[[User:Serge IssakovRlevse|SergeRlevse]] 0620:3158, 31 NovemberApril 20062007 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anittas#Sorry He said the source was okay], but even if he didn't, could you please use some common sense? BBC is usually reliable, is it not? --[[User:Anittas|Thus Spake Anittas]] 20:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

#'''Support''' I'm okay with this as-is. This would a) create a brief statement for the guideline, b) leave the Canadian guideline alone, c) provide a starting point for moves according to the guideline, d) still leave the possibility of future moves open, and e) make sure very small cities like [[Garrett Park, Maryland]] retain the state disambiguation. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 16:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::I am, you are in the middle of a bitter edit war and I'm forcing a time out hoping to get cooler heads to prevail, everyone needs to calm down. And your "could you please use some common sense" comment isn't going to score you any points. You have a long block history, hopefully you've learned something. If you prefer, I can unprotect the page and then block both of you from all editing.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

#'''Support'''. I've also implemented the wording change Septentrionalis proposes below. But I agree that discussion needs to continue. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 12:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

:::How long would the block last? --[[User:Anittas|Thus Spake Anittas]] 21:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

#'''Support''' the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28settlements%29&oldid=85651495 current phrasing]. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 13:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

::Anonimu -- 1 week, Annittas -- one month due to multiple prior blocks and long history of this sort of editing. Take your pick, but note the page is only protected for 24 hours and it such edit wars reoccur you could get blocked indef again. [[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

#'''Support'''. Anything to end the ridiculous convention we have now. --[[User:DaveOinSF|DaveOinSF]] 01:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC) (I suppose I have to change my UID to DaveOinSF,CA)

:::I don't think that would be fair. For starters, it was he who removed my sources (vandalism) and committed the first 3RV; secondly, I was the one who asked the moderators to step in, but no one did; thirdly, my block history only contains one such incident, while his block history contains two such incidents -- altough I don't really see the relevancy in that. Anyway, I just wanted to say that both Dahn and he seems to accept the BBC source. If you check the Nicolae Ceausescu article, Anonimu accepted the source, but added his own version of "show trial," which I can also accept. I don't know why, but you moderators come to salvation at exactly the wrong time: when everything is solved, you show up. I'm not trying to be ungrateful, I just think it's funny. In my opinion, I should get 3 days and he should get 6 days, because he was also rude, making a sexual insultive remark by saying "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elena_Ceau%C5%9Fescu&action=history let's get blown]." What he means is that I need to get laid. He often insults me this way in another forum and this time, he made this remark on Wiki -- and yet I don't complain about that. But okay, I can wait 24 hours and readd the BBC source, but I don't think you, or any other administrator, have -- or should have --, the authority to place indef blocks on anyone for a simple matter such as this one. --[[User:Anittas|Thus Spake Anittas]] 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

#'''Support''', It's about time we had some common sense on this. [[User:G-Man|<font color="blue">G-Man</font>]] [[User talk:G-Man|*]] 16:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

::It's fair based on your prior block history and follows wiki policy--you have 7 or so prior blocks and he two and you were indef blocked once for several months, all the way to Jimbo. If he and you have a long history of such conflicts, you may want to consider mediation or [[WP:ANI]].[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 21:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

#'''Support''' for now. I think this is strong enough to make clear that we only disambiguate cases like [[Chicago]]. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I think you're using the American rationale on this; as when one committs three crimes, they go to jail for some 30 years or so. I have read about a kid who stole a bike and got some 20 or 30 years in jail, because it was his third felony. I think this is madness, but what I think doesn't matter so much. Can you show me where this policy says that one can get indef block in a scenario like this one, or can you take actions as you wish?

#'''Support''' for now. Sounds as a sensible attempt to achive peace. [[User:Duja|Duja]]^{[[User talk:Duja|►]]} 11:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Support''' per a nice balance of common sense moves and put-the-brakes guidelines. I worry this straw poll will be invalidated due to the numerous earlier polls, but it's worth a try.. -- ''[[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]]'' 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Support'''. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Support'''. Makes sense to me. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 02:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Support''': per previous my points in archived talk or Seattle talk page. —[[User:Asatruer|Asatruer]]— 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Support''' --[[User:joshurtree|josh]] ([[User talk:joshurtree|talk]]) 22:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Support''' with reservations about definition of "well-known." At this point, I'd prefer to move forward and hope for a Part III, but these discussions (including this one) need to take a break. This is a "good enough for now" compromise. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 04:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Support''': I've supported this before. If it's a compromise, so be it. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 03:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Support''': per above. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 03:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Support''' --[[User:Polaron|Polaron]] | [[User talk:Polaron|Talk]] 23:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Support''': My preference is to simplify bureaucracy by referring only to [[WP:NC]] for disputes, but since everybody loves to make new rules, this is better than the "city, state" requirement. --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 18:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Support''': It's worked quite well for every other country (including countries with states and provinces), so why not the US? Wikipedia doesn't pre-disambiguate articles beforehand unless absolutely necessary; why should this be any different? Canadian articles are moving away from the CITY, PROVINCE convention, and it hasn't caused many problems at all (in fact, problems seem to be reduced in ways). -→[[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<font color="#FF8233">'''Buchanan-Hermit'''</font>]][[WP:EA|<font color="#948663">™</font>]]/[[User talk:Buchanan-Hermit|<font color="#948663" size="1">?!</font>]] 07:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Support''': Per nom. I forget, what's the WP guideline that says that for articles should be under the commonly known name where possible? E.g. [[Edson Arantes do Nascimento]] -- same principle applies to places, I would think. Regarding [[Tarzana]] and the California discussion below, if those names are not commonly understood to the preponderance of English speakers (as Tarzana is not) then they should include the state. - [[User:PhilipR|PhilipR]] 00:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Support''' SEATTLE SEATTLE SEATTLE. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 10:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:::As for my past block history, two of my blocks were reverted and Jimbo's block, as I had said earlier, was for something totally different; altough, I'm not sure that would make any difference in your book. --[[User:Anittas|Thus Spake Anittas]] 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

====Not Yet Votes (please specify change, if any, required for you to support)====

==Block==

1. '''Not Yet''' Previously I was opposed because I believe in uniformity, but now I'm thinking if I can get other Californian Wikipedians to join me, we can create a new California voter block that can demand that all California place names be considered Unique or the most well known and therefore all California cities will no longer need a (City, State) disambiguation. [[User:Gohiking|Gohiking]] 17:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why have you blocked me? I was not involved in war edits, and I have not broken the 3RR. [User:Afrika_paprika]] did many mass reverts, against my referencied edits. I've defended 4 articles against the vandalism of a notorius troll. That's my right: Afrika is a multi banned user. It was [[User:AjdemiPopushi]], a sockpuupet of him, to report me a a breaker of the 2RR. So I am clean and I did not "plus edit warring". Meanwhile I ws blcoked this usere did sever other vandalism against severe articles. Best regard.--[[User:Giovanni Giove|Giovanni Giove]] 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A list of cities (incomplete) that meet the Unique criteria are:

:Ademji has now been id'd as a sock of afrika and indefinitely blocked, but this was not known and in the 3RR report filed. If I'd known that, the result would certainly have been different as there was definitely an edit war on the Ragusa article. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I went on what was known at the time and in the 3RR report.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

:: I was sure you was just doing your work. Please copy this message on my page. Not there is again the same problem, and the article should be sprotected. It is true; there is a war about Ragusa: that why I did several edits on each single points. All the edits must be referncied: that what I did. Thank you.--[[User:Giovanni Giove|Giovanni Giove]] 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

== Removing warnings from talk pages ==

*<s>Banning</s> See [[Banning]] for other notable uses.

*[[Barstow]] ''Verified''

*<s>Berkeley</s> See [[Berkeley]] for other notable uses.

*[[Big Bear City]] ''Verified''

*<s>Blythe</s> See [[Blythe]] for other notable use.

*[[Calistoga]] Currently a [[Calistoga|dab page]], but is arguably the primary topic.

*[[Carmel-by-the-Sea]]. ''Verified''

*[[Chinese Camp]] ''Verified''

*[[Coalinga]] ''Verified''

* <s>Compton</s> See [[Compton]] for other notable uses.

*<s>Cudahy</s> See [[Cudahy]] for other notable uses.

*[[Desert Hot Springs]] ''Verified''

*<s>Eureka</s> See [[Eureka]] for other notable uses.

*[[Frazier Park]] ''Verified''

*<s>Fresno</s> See [[Fresno]] for other notable uses.

*[[Gilroy]] Currently a [[Gilroy|dab page]], but is arguably the primary topic (other use is place in Montana without even an article).

*<s>Indio</s> See [[Indio]] for other notable uses.

*[[Lompoc]] ''Verified''

*<s>Los Banos</s> See [[Los Banos]] for other notable use.

*<s>Ludlow</s> ''(See [[Ludlow]] for other notable uses.)''

*[[Modesto]] ''Verified''

*<s>Mojave</s> ''(See [[Mojave]] for other notable uses.)''

*<s>Monterey</s> ''(See [[Monterey]] for other uses)''

*[[Napa]] ''Verified''

*[[Needles]] ''Verified''

*[[Solvang]] ''Verified''

*[[Ojai]] ''Verified''

*[[Oxnard]] ''Verified''

*<s>Palm Springs</s> ''(See [[Palm Springs]] for other uses)''

*<s>Ripon</s> (corrected) ''(See [[Ripon (disambiguation)|Ripon]] for other notable uses.)''

*[[Sacramento]] ''Verified''

*[[Sausalito]] ''Verified''

*[[Simi Valley]] ''Verified''

*[[South Lake Tahoe]] ''Verified''

*[[Tarzana]] ''Verified'' (a community of L.A.)

*[[Thousand Oaks]] Currently a [[Thousand Oaks|dab page]], but is arguably the primary topic (other use is place in Missouri without an article).

*<s>Vallejo</s> ''(See [[Vallejo]] for other uses)''

*<s>Weed</s> ''See [[Weed]].''

*[[Yuba City]] ''Verified''

----

Have the rules changed on removing warnings from one's own talk page? According to [[WP:UP]], "On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon."

Excellent idea! I wikified them, added [[Carmel-by-the-Sea]], and fixed the spelling of [[Coalinga]] and [[Sacramento]]. Also, striked out those that are not the primary meanings of their respective names, need to be disambiguated, and so don't belong on this list. But I would certainly support moving those that are verified to be unique above to be at the names by which they are most commonly referenced per [[WP:NAME]]. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 19:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The way I read it, it is neither against policy nor considered vandalism for one to remove warnings from his own user talk page. It is merely ''frowned upon.'' Has this policy changed? If so, perhaps a change to the guideline page is in order. --[[User:Tjsynkral|Tjsynkral]] 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

:If this is the likely consequence, change to '''strongly oppose''', unless some criteria can be incorporated to strike a number of those which clearly '''are not''' the most prominent ''article'' that should have that name. If [[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] can find so many ambiguities that [[User:Gohiking|Gohiking]] didn't (and although ''I'' know that [[Tarzana]] is a place, it's unlikely that someone even from Northern [[California]] would. I would not be at all surprised if there were other communities named [[Tarzana]] as a back-formation from [[Tarzan]], even if we don't have them listed in Wikipedia.) However, [[Tarzana]] shouldn't have even been on the table, as it's a region within [[Los Angeles]]. Similarly, we need (even in the present Wikipedia) disambiguation (or, at least, {{tl|otheruses}}) pages between [[Desert Hot Springs, California]] and [[hot spring]]s which are in a [[desert]]. &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 20:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::Think of it this way, if you remove warnings, what is it you're trying to hide? You would merely be putting yourself in an even worse position.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 23:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

:::If the warning were to be used against me later, it could be easily retrieved from the history page. I reserve the right to perform "housekeeping" on my own user page. Furthermore when users make incorrect allegations am I supposed to leave them on my User Talk page even though they are false? --[[User:Tjsynkral|Tjsynkral]] 23:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: Note: An [[WP:AN/I#Administrator_inaction_toward_3RR_Talk_Page_Vandalism.2C_or_clarification_of_User_Talk_Page_policy|incident has been opened]] regarding this matter. --[[User:Tjsynkral|Tjsynkral]] 23:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

::For the life of me I do not understand the relevance of the fact that hardly anyone, even someone from Northern California, would know that [[Tarzana]] is a place to the issue of whether [[Tarzana]] should be at [[Tarzana]] or [[Tarzana, California]]. The broader and much more important general issue is: '''is there any precedence within Wikipedia of adding more information to a title of a subject, not because of an ambiguity issue, but just to make it more clear what a relatively obscure subject is?''' I'm sorry, but I'm simply unaware of any such precedent or convention, much less a guideline. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But I'm pretty sure that we don't put additional information in the title of an article about a relatively obscure book just to make it more obvious that the article is about a book. I don't think we put any kind of additional identifying information in the title of articles about relatively obscure actors, authors, politicians, CEOs, etc., beyond just their names, unless their names are not unique. I just don't understand where this compulsion to do so for city names comes form. There is a small minority of TV episode editors that wants to do this for articles about TV episodes with unique names, but that effort is being soundly rejected (and rightly so). Can someone (Arthur?) explain this to me, please? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 20:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I lean toward adding pre-disambiguation for TV episodes, as well, although I don't care enough about it to comment in those polls. In most cases, a person's name is ''clearly'' a person's name, although one cannot tell what kind of a person it is, so the situations are not at all similar. Similarly, a title is usually ''clearly'' a title, although whether of a book, film, TV show, TV episode, play, music album, song, or poem, is often unclear. I feel that a ''place'' should also be clearly a ''place'', and possibly even a human-defined place should be easily separated from a geographic feature by the name alone.

:::Furthermore, people tend to name places after other places, so that a non-particularly-notable place may very well collect namesakes, and unless an automated system generates the articles for named settlements, the potential ambiguities may never be caught. Over the past few decades, new ''cities'' have formed in Southern California at a rate of about 2 or 3 a decade, and someone trying to reference the new city of [[Lake Forest, California]] might very well have accidently linked to [[Lake Forest, Illinois]], without realizing there was a problem. Settlements really '''are''' different than people, in that people generally assume that the names are fixed and unique, while, in fact, they are not. In the case of people, no one would be surprised if there was another [[Arthur Rubin]] (in fact, there is a fairly notable actor in the [[1940s]] through at least the [[1970s]] with that name), but people would be (falsely) surprised if there was another [[Tarzana]] or [[Lake Forest]]. &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 20:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Serge asked ''is there any precedence within Wikipedia of adding more information to a title of a subject, not because of an ambiguity issue, but just to make it more clear what a relatively obscure subject is?'' and has been answered a number of times previously, but conveniently neglects to remember them. I know of at least three: 1) royalty, 2) Ship names, and 3) State highways in the US. There are articles within each of these types where a simpler unique name is possible, but where additional information is encoded as a matter of style. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 22:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Possibly Provincial highways in Canada, as well; at least officially, the "Kings Highways", secondary, and tertiary roads in [[Ontario]] are distinguished, even if '''Ontario Route ''nn''''' would be unique. &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 22:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. {{User:Brain40/Sig.}}

:::::I ''do'' remember, and each time I have to remind you: in all of those cases while a "simpler unique name is [theoretically] possible", in almost all of the articles in all of those categories that "common name" is not nearly as clear and obvious as it is for city names. When a category exists for which for most articles the "common name" is unclear, I don't have a problem with using a consistent naming convention that produces a plausible common name for each member of the category. But in a category where the most common name is obvious (place name, people's names, book and movie titles, etc., etc.), no "work-a-round" for the common names ''policy'' is needed, because the common name is known, and, so, it alone should be used as the title of the article, unless there is an ambiguity issue, in which case an appropriate disambiguator should be added to the title. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 23:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:Well, in my opinion, warnings should be left on a talk page to make referencing easier for the administrators. Well, back to patrolling the recent changes area. Good luck with things. {{User:Brain40/Sig.}}

::Thanks for wikifying my city list Serge - but I noticed that most ambiguity where noted still shows that the California city name is the primary reference (in the English language, anyway) and that the other uses are less common.

::Could you direct me to the template that says "this article uses content from the 1999 Encyclopedia Americana"? {{User:Brain40/Sig.}}

::*Fresno shouldn't be an issue, as the Fresno, TX only has 6,000 residents and Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a word translator, because Fresno has an entry for it's spanish meaning of "Ash Tree".

::I don't know myself and a quick search didn't reveal it.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 23:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

::*only 2 Los Banos in the world, in California and the Philipines (next to a volcano no less, so it might not be around too much longer)

::*only 2 Cudahy's in the world also, both cities (CA and WI) founded by the same man. --Interesting

::*Indio is the only city with this name, althrough it's used both as someone's name (as are many cities!) and a brand of beer. [[User:Gohiking|Gohiking]] 22:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::: ''... '''major''' city has a unique name or is '''unquestionably''' the most significant subject sharing its name...'' (emphasis added) &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 22:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

== Removal of warnings on user talk pages ==

::::I agree with Arthur. I only marked "verified" those for whom the name redirected already - all the others had a dab page and were not ''unquestionably'' the most significant usage of that name. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 23:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen in discussions on the administrator's forums, the new, but apparently unwritten policy is that editors are allowed to remove warnings from their user talk pages if they want to. Removing a warning is considered acknowledgement by the editor in question that they have seen the warning. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] 02:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

:So someone gets a valid vandism notice, removes it, gets reported to AIV and the admin checks to see if they have been warned and has to dig through history pages to find it? Ha, I'll stop fighting vandals if I have to do that.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 02:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with new "rule" or not, just letting you know what seems to be the situation now from what I've read on the admin pages. One of the reasons may be due to instances of editors harrassing other editors with warning banners and then arguing back and forth about whether the warning was justified or not. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there rlevse...I appreciate your work on this, as tj continually removed the warning I attempted to post on his user page...which, ironically, was the 3rr rule on another page. [[User:TotallyTempo|TotallyTempo]] 02:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Arthur, we have a few outstanding issues to discuss.

* Desert Hot Springs. Whether [[Desert hot springs]] should be a dab page with links to the city and to [[Hot springs]] is a good question. Currently, it just redirects to the city. If it's appropriate to redirect to the city (and I'm not saying it is), then the city should just be at the name. If it's appropriate to have it go to the dab page, then, of course, the article about the city needs disambiguation. The point is, the way you decide whether an article title in Wikipedia needs disambiguation depends on the use of that name by other subjects. I don't see why cities should be any different.

* Tarzana. Let's say we didn't know Tarzana was a community of L.A. It ''could'' be the title of a book or a movie, a toy name, a wrestler's name, a model of a car, bicycle or motorcycle, a hotel, a city, town or community in almost any country besides the U.S., a TV episode, etc., etc. If '''Tarzana''' was the name ''any of those'', and unique, per Wikipedia general naming guidelines it would be at [[Tarzana]]. Why, simply because it happens to be the name of a city or community in the U.S., should the applicable naming rules be any different? The supposed requirement to be able to identify the "kind" of thing a Wikipedia article subject is from the title alone has no basis in convention, guideline or policy. Trying to meet this non-existent requirement only leads to conflict with ''actual'' Wikipedia conventions, guidelines and policies. Why? Don't get me wrong, I can see the benefit of having "type-identifying titles", if you will. And if it were a Wikipedia value, goal, convention, guideline and/or policy to have "type-identifying titles", I'd be with you 100%. But having "type-identifying titles" is ''not'' a Wikipedia goal, convention, guideline and/or policy, so far as I know, and, so, I don't see the point of trying to have them for U.S. cities.

* ''I feel that a place should also be clearly a place, and possibly even a human-defined place should be easily separated from a geographic feature by the name alone.'' Thanks for sharing your feelings with us. That's great. But, again, so far as I know, satisfying your feelings is not a Wikipedia value, goal, convention, guideline and/or policy. Nor is having "type-identifying titles".

* ''New cities''. The potential new conflicts caused by the tiny number of new cities each year can easily be handled by conventional disambiguation guidelines. Whenever any new article is added to Wikipedia, the editor must check for any existing uses of the name, and deal with the disambiguation issues accordingly. This is no big deal.

* Accidental links. There is a "Show preview" button for a reason. Editors are responsible to make sure their links work, including making sure their links go to the pages they're supposed to go too. The last thing we want to do is encourage editors to develop bad habits like not following their links from a preview because they "know" they go to the right page. Reducing the possibility of making links accidently to the wrong page is a very weak point in favor of predisambiguating anything. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 00:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, as a student of the Charter School of Wilmington, I appreciate your help in banning that vandal.

:*''Desert Hot Springs''. I disagree that a redirect from <nowiki>[[City]]</nowiki> to <nowiki>[[Citi, State]]</nowiki> necessary means the article should be at <nowiki>[[City]]</nowiki>. That's what this convention is supposed to address, even though it ''differs'' from the general guideline on naming things. (The question of whether it should be a redirect is not relevant to this page, except to note that if it ''were'' at [[Desert Hot Springs]], and then changed to a disambiguation page, the disambiguator might not know to move the article to [[Desert Hot Springs, California]]. I'll mention it at [[Talk:Desert Hot Springs, California]]....)

--[[User:CmaccompH89|CmaccompH89]] 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

:*''Tarzana''. The details of the name of ''Tarzana'' is covered by multiple contradictory guidelines. You say the name should be [[Tarzana]], under the general guidelines at [[WP:NC(CN)]]. Most of the guidelines we're discussing here would put it at [[Tarzana, California]], but, under yet another (working) guideline, it's at [[Tarzana, Los Angeles, California]]. Which of the latter two it should be at is out-of-scope for ''this'' guideline. (And it clearly ''dosn't'' go there under tariq's proposed guideline; it's not major, nor a city.)

::No problem.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

:*A place should be a place; that's just an additional justification for my reasoning — IMHO, it doesn't conflict with general Wikipedia policy, and provides reasons why the existing policy, including tariq's proposal, and the Australian proposal, are better than the ''qualify'' with "your" ''qualify'' with the state only if necessary proposal. When discussing proposals, the question should be "is it good for Wikipedia", not "does it conflict with other Wikipedia guidelines" (even though it doesn't).

:*''New cities''. The potential new conflicts caused by new cities, although small in number, do not have a project or team watching them, so are likely to persist. The proposals with predisambiguation or qualification make the conflicts less likely.

:*Accidental links. I see your point. I just don't agree with it. However, there's little difference to new editors if the <nowiki>[[City, State]]</nowiki> redirects to <nowiki>[[City]]</nowiki> are '''always''' created and the guidelines encourage creating links in the form <nowiki>[[City, State|]]</nowiki>. It causes a little effort on the part of part of the software, but that's better than confusing new editors.

: &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 17:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

== Scouting / child abuse / censorship ==

====Oppose Votes -3====

''To facilitate moving towards consensus, please consider a "Not Yet" vote in the section above, including suggesting a change to the proposal that would allow you to support it, rather than an all-out "oppose" vote.''

Just seen your note calling me a troll. This is uncalled for:

#'''Oppose''' Once again, don't see the point. Another attempt at changing the policy, since all the previous attempts have failed. Hey, keep trying! Eventually, the opposition will forget to vote! [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 04:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' let's get out the laundry list...

#:-Introduces a needless inconsistency into the US naming convention. There is no practical benefit to having ''some'' cities at CITYNAME and other at City, State. On the flip side, there is no harm to having every US city consistently at City, State.

#:-As an "objective criteria" the AP guideline is flawed in the fundamental difference between a newspaper dateline and an Encyclopedia article entry. The sole purpose of a [[dateline]] is to state where the store was filed and may have little or no relevance to the subject matter of the article itself. An encyclopedia entry article title, however, '''DOES''' have mark relevance to what the article is about. Additionally, even AP reports don't rely on the single CITY dateline alone to convey the full context of the ___location as evident by these article titles. The fundamental difference is that we are writing encyclopedia articles ''about a ___location'', not filing the report ''from that ___location''.

#:::[http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=87084 Georgia Early Voting Numbers Up] - AP ATLANTA

#:::[http://www.newschannel5.tv/News/Other/4575/-Dinosaur-City-planned-for-Texas-in-2008 Dinosaur City planned for Texas in 2008] - AP HOUSTON

#:::[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6190649,00.html VFW Passes Over Veteran in Illinois] - AP CHICAGO

#:::[http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/15913170.htm Pennsylvania business news in brief] - AP Philadelphia

#:::[http://www.gazetteextra.com/eln_govracehank102006.asp Doyle adds Aaron's big bat to Wisconsin campaign lineup] - AP Milwaukee

#:-'''Furthermore''', the AP style guidelines is not even used consistently on AP news reports with several instances City, State datelines even for the 27 cities listed above. Like [http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/11/02/villanova.stolen.laptop.ap/ Philadelphia], [http://cbs4boston.com/health/local_story_277154716.html Baltimore], [http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/11/04/doogie.ap/ Los Angeles], and [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/03/host.fired.ap/ Boston].

#:-Does nothing to curb the endless debate and page move request because of its reliance on subjective criteria which editors are obviously bound to disagree over- namely the potentially unstable criteria for determining what ''"is unquestionably the most significant subject sharing its name."'' To whom? For the Irish and others the city of [[Cork (city)|Cork]] is ''unquestionably the most significant subject'' and they were quite passionate and vocal about that with attempts to move it to what ''other editors'' felt was ''"unquestionably the most significant subject"'' of the material Cork. Considering the absence of a practical benefit to have these "exception inconsistencies" the continued opening for constant debate and endless debate on Page Moves is high price to pay for little or no gain.

#:-Similarly, this subject criteria goes over to the "smaller locations" as editors are just as open to argue that Walla Walla IS well known for its onions (or its propensity in the alphabet drinking game which adds to its fame for my German friends) or that [[Tallahassee]] should considered "well known" because it's a state capital or [[Kingsburg, California]] should be at just Kingsburg and worthy of world reknown because it home not only to the World's largest raisin box but also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World%27s_Largest_Roadside_Attractions#California the World's largest teapot to boot]. Of course my little sister and her "worldwide friends" on Myspace would be aghast at the lack of recognition for the world renown of [[Kentwood, Louisiana]] birthplace of Britney Spears. The subjective nature of this criteria does nothing to stop the continued onslaught of page moves. As Serge himself wondered outloud during the previous proposal as to why even unincorporated areas like [[Assawoman, Virginia]] should be City, State so to can other editors do the same wondering and do the same page move request.

#:There is more to be said but now I'm tired though I'm sure I'll have another opportunity once the rebuttals come. [[User:Agne27|Agne]] 09:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

#::The point of the AP list is that those are the cities they consider to be significant enough to not require the state name. Usage is datelines is not different from usage in text. In fact, I believe the AP guideline applies to text (I don't have a stylebook with me so maybe someone can check). You can propose a different set of criteria if you think the AP list is still too subjective. The onslaught of page moves you are saying is unlikely to occur in practice. It is a self-limiting mechanism. The lesser known a city is, the more people will oppose moving it. In the end, I think you'll find that whatever reasonable criteria one chooses for what a major city is, we'll end up with something more or less the same as the AP list. --[[User:Polaron|Polaron]] | [[User talk:Polaron|Talk]] 15:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

#:::If there is reason to fear an onslaught of page moves after this wording, my amendment wasn't strong enough. How can it be strengthened? [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 22:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

#::As I reminded folks [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)|elsewhere]], "[[Self-Reliance|a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds]]". "Consistency" within a given category (say, U.S. cities) is less important than consistency with the general Wikipedia guidelines on article naming and disambiguation. The city of [[Los Angeles, California]] is undeniably the most common meaning for [[Los Angeles]] — and indeed, [[Los Angeles]] redirects there. Why shouldn't the article be at the simplest name for such a clear-cut case? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

#::The practical benefit of having all American cities consistently titled the same way is completely eviscerated by the practical ''deficit'' of having the American convention be so radically different from the conventions in use for ''any other country on the planet''. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 03:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' as usual. See my arguments posted on other proposals. [[User:Ajd|AJD]] 23:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose'''. This vote would apparently override the votes held recently, such as [[talk:Los Angeles, California]] and [[Talk:Oklahoma City, Oklahoma]]. I also strongly disapprove of "legislating" an inconsistent convention. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 22:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose'''. I see no value in ''creating'' unnecessary exceptions to a straightforward, sensible convention. [[New York City]] is the only case with some justification. [[User:Wwoods|—wwoods]] 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

#:Yet you see a reason for a U.S. city specific convention that is itself an unnecessary exception to the straightforward and sensible conventions used throughout Wikipedia? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 01:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose'''. "Major" city is far too subjective a description and depends on your point of view. Even with this change, we'd still see debates on talk pages about whether or not a particular city is "Major". I don't think this particular proposal would accomplish much other change the focus of the current debates. -- [[User:Bethling |<font color="#BB45AA">The Bethling</font>]][[User Talk:Bethling|^(Talk)]] 20:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

#:Would you prefer a specific list? The AP list is one concept of what a major city is. If you have other thoughts, please do share them. Also, naming debates in Canada died down when they allowed some cities to be exempted. --[[User:Polaron|Polaron]] | [[User talk:Polaron|Talk]] 20:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

#::I don't like the idea of a list (for example the AP one), since it strikes me as arbitrary. A defintion of what makes a city "major" would be something that I'd consider. --- [[User:Bethling |<font color="#BB45AA">The Bethling</font>]][[User Talk:Bethling|^(Talk)]] 20:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose'''. For completeness in case somebody just counts edits here, I '''oppose''' the idea of exceptions to the US city article naming convention. If the supporters win the case for exceptions, then the AP List with non-city ambiguity removed (part II above) is by far the best list I have seen discussed here so far. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 06:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' per Will B and others. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose.''' Having ''two'' conventions (with no clear purpose or method) would be confusing to the reader - one convention or the other for clarity. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 12:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

#::There are ''already'' two different conventions, with no clear purpose or method for the difference: one for the United States, one for the entire rest of the world. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 17:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' Among other things, it would make two conventions for city names in the U.S., and the decision on which cities don't need the state to be specified would be arbitrary and the source of much contention. -- '''<font color="navy">[[User talk:Dalbury|Donald Albury]]</font>''' 23:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

#Leave them all at City, State. [[User:FairHair|FairHair]] 20:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' - It is important to have clear standards that are consistent. [[User:Ludahai|Ludahai]] 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' - For all the great reasons stated above. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 07:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' - see opinion below. [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 00:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' - There would be an endless debate on what cities are important/unique enough, what criteria to use, etc. The current city, state format keeps it clean, and also automatically informs visitors what state a city is in, should they have gone there by redirect. There is no negative impact of city, state. -[[User:Newkai|newkai]] <font size="1">[[User_talk:Newkai|t]]-[[Special:Contributions/Newkai|c]]</font> 06:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''', as suggested this will just create useless debate on what cities fall under the criteria for not having their state. [[User:JohnnyBGood|<font color="Green">'''JohnnyBGood'''</font>]] [[User talk:JohnnyBGood|<font color="Red">'''t'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/JohnnyBGood|<font color="Red">'''c'''</font>]] <b>VIVA!</b> 22:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' - I agree with JohnnyBGood. [[User:FairHair|FairHair]] 20:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' - for the excellent reasons already well expressed by so many. [[User:Whyaduck|Whyaduck]] 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

#'''Oppose''' - per Agne, Will B, and others above and per Coolcaesar below.--[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1) My (extremely cautious) raising of the controversial issue of child abuse on the scouting page is what brought about your comment. The subsequent discussion seems mature and thoughtful so far - by contrast your comment seems unfair and (just possibly) defensive.

===Discussion -3 ===

:''comments here, please.

We would need to resolve any possible issues about the redirect target for LA and LV. I think those are the only two that might still be an issue. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 06:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

2) What exactly did I do to deserve your abuse? Was it raising the issue in the first place? Providing a reference to what seems to be a major US news story? Or was it (and here I may have been a little naive) noticing a book being cited by another editor (on child abuse and scouting) and believing the simple addition of a mention of this book would improve the comprehensiveness of the scouting page (I had not come across the book before it was mentioned in discussion - but I see there is something of a technical problem, in that there is no easy way to list this book, the scouting page having no "Further reading" section, where it might most comfortably belong)?

:Can someone explain how this proposal differs or is similar to previous proposals? Can we have a summary of some kind? -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 08:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::It is different from Serge's proposal in that it explicitly states that very small cities should not be included in the change. It also proposes immediate moves for the 27 largely non-ambiguous cities from the AP list. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 15:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:I don't see any serious problem for LA. When Los Angeles County is meant, one says "Los Angeles County," e.g. "Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department." The issue of metro area vs. city proper is not unique to Los Angeles, or to American cities. Las Vegas is more problematic, but I don't see how [[Las Vegas, Nevada]] any more clearly indicates the city proper than [[Las Vegas]] would. I think it's a ''very bad idea'' to say that it does on the basis of postal usage, because wikipedia articles on American localities are based not on postal usage, but on formal municipality boundaries and census designations, which are often very different from postal usage. [[City of Las Vegas]] would be the only completely clear way to indicate the city proper, I think.

:It's probably worth mentioning that another vaguely possible confusion might relate to Honolulu. There are no municipalities in Hawaii. The formal name of Honlulu County, which includes the entire island of Oahu, is the "City and County of Honolulu," or something similar. Our [[Honolulu, Hawaii]] refers to the Census-designated place, which apparently corresponds fairly closely to common usage of "Honolulu" in Hawaii itself. I don't think this is a serious issue, but I think it's more liable to cause confusion than Los Angeles.

:That being said, I don't think ''any'' of the moves will lead to the creation of any greater confusion than already exists. Not only do [[Los Angeles]], [[Las Vegas]], and [[Honolulu]] currently redirect to the articles on the cities (or, in the latter case, CDP), but attempts in the pass to make the simple title in similar cases redirect to the disambiguation page have always been miserable failures. The Las Vegas issue is certain to cause some confusion unless the article is called "City of Las Vegas," which is an awkward title. But [[Las Vegas]] is no worse than [[Las Vegas, Nevada]]. The important thing is that the article clarify the situation. I might change my opinion if Vegaswikian can explain how [[Los Angeles, California]] and [[Las Vegas, Nevada]] indicate more clearly that the city proper is meant than simple [[Los Angeles]] and [[Las Vegas]] do without resorting to the post office. I think this proposal is sensible, makes fair allowances for the reluctance expressed by many users towards a wholesale change in the convention, and would lead to a reasonable solution that I, at least, can live with. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 15:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:: It would be best to keep things simple and understandable to all (no matter what country) in designating "cityname" as an article on the ''census definition'' of cityname - or the "city proper" - as anything outside of this is a grey-area "concept" with many many different possible meanings and interpretations. It is of course that the "cityname" article speak of an area greater than "cityname" within the article, but only through the context of "cityname" core. In other words, a "cityname" article should cover the area spoken of in a textbook definition of "cityname". Naming practices may differ from country to country, but at least this method will conform with each's existing practices, methods and - surtout - references. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 12:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:Reluctant support, provided that we go "on record" that any extension of this policy to undisambiguate minor cities would be '''strongly''' discouraged. (This means you, Serge.) As for Las Vegas, perhaps we should move [[Las Vegas metropolitan area]] to [[Las Vegas]], and move the article presently at [[Las Vegas, Nevada]] to [[City of Las Vegas, Nevada]] or [[Las Vegas, Nevada (city)]], with [[Las Vegas, Nevada]] changed to a sub-disambiguation page of [[Las Vegas (disambiguation)]]. (I feel that, in common usage, [[Las Vegas, Nevada]] does indicate the city, while [[Las Vegas]] indicates the area or gambling in general &mdash; just as the most common usage of [[Hollywood]] is to refer to the [[Los Angeles County]]-based) entertainment industry, rather than the community within the city of [[Los Angeles]].) Although the most common usage of [[Los Angeles]] is to refer to the metropolitan area, I don't think it's as confusing, as the city is also an important referent. &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 17:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::Change to "smaller locations, those which are not well-known to the majority of the world's population, such as [[Walla Walla, Washington]] and [[Garrett Park, Maryland]], should '''not''' be moved from "City, State"; they should remain disambiguated..."? [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 17:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::Metonymy should not be considered for primary topic status. The [[White House]] is both the building the president of the United States lives in, and a metonymy for "the current administration." Both usages are very common, but [[White House]] is still about the building. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

3) The W page on Trolls says "The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits, than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality." I believe my actions to have been properly motivated: it is inaccurate to ignore the child abuse question; it is true to say there are/have been child abusers attracted to scouting; and the addition of the book mentioned by others would have improved the comprehensiveness of the entry.

Just to be clear, am I correct that this proposal states, on the one hand, places that "are not known to the majority of the world's population" shall be disambiguated; and on the other hand that (based on the AP guidelines) 27 cities shall use city only, whether or not these places are known to the majority of the world's population. I was in Europe once, and a group of German tourists asked me what state I was from. When I said I was from Maryland, one replied, "no, no, what ''state'' are you from?" I question whether these folks would have recognized Baltimore. (One could argue that they are in the minority of the world's population, but that's a thought exercise.) I'm inclined to support this proposal, but I just want to be clear on how it works. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 05:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:: Well that is partly because of the US-centric nature of the AP guidelines and also the fundamental difference between a guideline for a newspaper dateline and an encyclopedia article entry. A dateline is not as directly relevant to the newspaper article as the title of an encyclopedia entry is to its subject matter. [[User:Agne27|Agne]] 07:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Because the majority of the world's population knows about [[Hildburghausen]] and [[Caserta]]? The idea that this is "US-centric" is absurd. This proposal would allow for far fewer American cities to be moved to just "City" than cities in other countries. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 13:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:*One is a proposal for the guideline; the other a proposed ''implementation'' of the guideline. If you dispute that the AP list is "known to the majority of world's population", support Part I and Oppose Part II; or vice versa. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:*:I would suggest that "well-known to the majority of the world's population" is perhaps an infelicitous way of phrasing it. How many American cities are known to 3 billion people? There's obviously a lot of people who are ignorant, especially about geography. I'd suggest that what is meant is "well-known to the majority of people who are reasonably well-educated about geography," or something similar. Perhaps some modification of the phrasing could be made. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 13:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:*::Do tweak at will; I don't think it will make much difference to the declared !votes. Certainly "English-speaking" would be justified by general policy. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 19:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:*::''There's obviously a lot of people who are ignorant, especially about geography. I'd suggest that what is meant is "well-known to the majority of people who are reasonably well-educated about geography," or something similar. '' I agree that many people are ignorant about geography, but that's not a verifiable population. [[WP:NC]] states that article names should be governed by "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." It's not ''U.S.'' English speakers, but English speakers. Since 1.7 billion live in the [[Commonwealth of Nations|British Commonwealth]], any way you count ''English speakers'', a majority of live outside the U.S. I really want to support this proposal, so as to reduce these discussions, but the guidelines should be coherent, and I'm just not convinced that they are. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 20:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:*:::Pretty much every self-described non-American who has participated in this debate over the years has generally expressed the opinion that they are only vaguely aware, at best, of what states most American cities are in, and that places like Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, and so forth are much better known to them than the states in which they are located. You yourself mentioned your German acquaintances who had never heard of Maryland. In terms of who are "English-speakers", I think traditionally this has been interpreted to mean "native-speakers". Once you include the entire population of India, the whole exercise becomes somewhat pointless. "Would an Indian peasant recognize Baltimore?" This gets to the point of silliness. Americans are probably a slight majority, or nearly so, of ''native'' English-speakers, and adding in Canadians, who are reasonably familiar with American geography, you have a fairly solid margin. At any rate, your own comment suggests that your German friends would have been just as baffled by [[Baltimore, Maryland]] as by [[Baltimore]], if not more so. What argument exactly are you looking for here? [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 01:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:*::::When I wrote "any way you count," I meant that literally--including using conservative criteria. Canada (30M) + UK (60M) + Australia (20M) = 110M; toss in a mere 10% of the commonwealth, and you're already at 280M, and I suspect the English speaking pop'n in the commonwealth is significantly higher than 10%, given 300M "middle class" Indians (although many of these are marginally English speaking). There's nothing silly about looking about it this way.

:*::::I'm not looking for an argument, just a coherent guideline. The AP test conflicts with [[WP:NC]] and Part I of the proposal as I described. The point is not whether the German tourists would be baffled by [[Baltimore, Maryland]] but whether [[Baltimore]] would be recognized by "the majority of English speakers." --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 01:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:*:::::What '''is''' silly is the comment I added in my edit summary (2 billion English speakers). My apologies. Shouldn't have done it that way. Sorry, John. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 07:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:For what it's worth, a contestant on ''[[Jeopardy!]]'' once proffered "What is [[Calgary]]?" for the answer "[[Ottawa]], the capital of [[Canada]], is located in this province." I don't personally think other people's lack of geographical knowledge needs to circumscribe our naming conventions. But YMMV. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 11:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also prefer a different way of phrasing it. Why don't we say something along the lines of small cities that are not well known to people from outside their immediate area, or something similar? Baltimore may not be well known to the majority of the world, or even the majority of English-speakers, but it well known to people not from it. [[Garrett Park]], on the other hand, is not even known by most people who live in the Washington, DC area, much less to outsiders. Would this be an acceptable substitute? [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:This goes back to my original concern, that any such phrasing is difficult to verify, and would conflict with [[WP:NC]]. I'd agree that most English-speaking people know Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington, DC. On the basis of their roles in popular culture, I'd toss in Chicago, Miami, and maybe even Boston. But the other 21 AP cities are a stretch, since most English-speaking people ''don't know '''anything''' about them''... yet this is also true of '''most''' topics in Wikipedia, for what that's worth. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 07:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::I don't see where verifiability comes into it. Verifiability is a requirement for article content, not for conventions. The name "Baltimore" is verifiable, and is commonly used for the place. That's all that [[WP:V]] would require, as far as I can gather. I'm not sure why it would conflict with [[WP:NC]]. I also notice that you're still arguing about most English-speaking people, which is not what I proposed at all. I said that we should change the wording to refer to whether the city was well known outside its immediate vicinity. ''Obviously'', this judgment is subjective. But ''any'' basis would have to be either a) subjective; or b) completely arbitrary. I'd prefer a subjective judgment that more or less conforms to most of our instincts on this to an arbitrary one. The response to my AP proposal suggests that an arbitrary basis does not have a great deal of support. ''Any'' judgment of a primary topic has to be ultimately subjective, so I don't see why this is any more problematic. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 13:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Might I suggest a slightly different take on which US cities are known outside the US -- Cities that are international ports of entry. This was mentioned earlier (by [[User:Tinlinkin|Tinlinkin]] I think) but never formally proposed. Hopefully, this removes some of the subjectiveness in choosing which cities to include. --[[User:Polaron|Polaron]] | [[User talk:Polaron|Talk]] 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::::What does that mean exactly? What about "cities that appear on maps of the world published by major map-making companies like Rand McNally"? There's any number of possible ways of judging this. I think something vague and subjective is the best way to go, which would allow any individuals to apply whatever specific criteria they want to. I think that "widely known outside their immediate vicinity" is the closest to what we've generally meant. If people want to apply clearer, more stricter standards in applying such a rule, that is, of course, perfectly appropriate. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 14:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::There is actually such a specific list by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyway, it was just a suggestion since some people seemed to think the AP list does not necessarily mean well-known outside the US. As I said before, the list we would end up will be more or less the same no matter what criteria for being well-known we use. --[[User:Polaron|Polaron]] | [[User talk:Polaron|Talk]] 15:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::Can you post a link to this list? I would support that proposal, since it would overlap onto significant portions of the AP list, while also being grounded in some meaningful international relationships. People may enter the country via Baltimore or Seattle without ever setting foot there or learning any more about the place beyond its role as a port of entry. Of course, they would never enter through Garrett Park, or Kansas City, Kansas. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 16:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Do most Indian peasants speak ''English''? If so, please document. [[Mumbai]] is not, I think, supportable as majority English usage; it's supportable because Indian English is a national variety of English, like Australian, American or British English, and IE usage is clear. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 15:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:The issue is not whether a majority of Indian "peasants" speak English. The issue is: ''Who is included in "the majority of English-speaking" people'', as per [[WP:NC]]. Secondarily, of these people, ''how many'' would recognize ''which cities'' by cityname only? Most likely, a significant majority of the 1.1B Indians ''do not'' speak conversational English (say, an arbitrary 50% or more of the conversation). However, I am claiming that a significant '''minority''' of them can be included as "English-speaking people," which weighs against Americans (or even Americans+Canadians) as being a majority by themselves. Much of this discussion is threaded with the American assumption, and that's not what [[WP:NC]] states. (It also does not specify native English speakers, but second-language people would be difficult to quantify.) --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 16:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::Ishu, I think you're confusing two separate issues. [[WP:NC]] merely says that articles should be at names that are recognizable to "a majority of English speakers." Since many things that have articles on wikipedia are things that most English-speakers have never heard of, this can't mean what you are arguing it means. What it means is recognizable to a majority of English speakers ''who have heard of the place''. This is a rule designed so as to mean that articles can't be at foreign language names that English-speakers are unfamiliar with - [[Cologne]] rather than [Köln]], [[Florence]] rather than [[Firenze]]. It has no role here. The other issue is what the proposal ''here'' says. We can make it say whatever we want. There is no requirement that cities that get moved be ones that the "majority of English-speakers have heard of. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 20:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I believe John's interpretation about the intent of the [[WP:NC]] requirement to choose names that are recognizable to "a majority of English speakers" is correct. It cannot possibly mean that any Wikipedia article title must be recognizable to "a majority of English speakers" because so many subjects are unrecognizable to "a majority of English speakers", not matter what you call it. It has to do with preferring English to foreign spellings. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

::::I see your point. Having said that, I would fully support the proposal if we add the following:

:::::Part III: Further exceptions will be made if '''both''' of the following conditions are met:

:::::# The city has an ''airport'' on the [http://www.dhs.gov/xtrvlsec/programs/editorial_0685.shtm list of international ports-of-entry] published by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

:::::#A consensus can be reached per the existing request-for-move policy.

::::The benefit is that the DHS list (150+ cities) is much longer than the AP list, and provides an outer boundary to the number of possible moves. Many of the cities on that list (e.g., [[Ontario, California]]) are simply inappropriate on dab grounds, while others (e.g., [[Teterboro, New Jersey]]) are clearly not well-known internationally. Again, Garrett Park and Kansas City, KS would not be eligible for move because they fail test #1. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 21:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

4) Part of the subsequent discussion focuses on questions of culture. I am British, and certainly within my culture (perhaps restricted to my age group, young middle-aged) references to "dodgy scout masters" are legion. No doubt other cultures experience things differently. (My being British also inevitably means that "separated by a common language" problems may arise between you and me.)

:::::I could accept the AP list, but not the DHS list as a claim of "well-known" outside the USA. I consider myself reasonably geographically aware. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::The DHS list is an objective "floor", meaning that a city '''must''' be on the DHS list even to be considered for a move. Subjective criteria of "well-known" would be used '''only''' for cities on that list. Any other city would be ineligible for a non-disambiguated article name. This would limit the '''potential''' candidates (and discussions) to just over 100 cities. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 04:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

5) Finally, you call me a troll - and as your experience of W is quite astonishingly greater than mine, presumably this greater experience increases the offensiveness of what must therefore be taken as a carefully considered insult by you. But I do not want to trade blows, which makes it very hard to raise my final (and possibly most significant point) without appearing just to be getting back at you. Please assume the best of intentions when I ask whether there is not, to put it at its lowest, something of a potential conflict of interest in having you (and it seems [[User:Jergen|Jergen]], to whose attention I hope you will draw this note) so heavily committed to and experienced in both scouting and W? Is there not a risk of a certain slackening of objectivity? I am not making conspiratorial claims - but questions come to mind of subconscious self-censorship and the wish to protect something you respect greatly, indeed maintain "group norms", despite the potential conflicts between the two groups (W and scouts) concerned. If this comment is old news, apologies: the entries on scouting are so large, long and numerous I haven't checked everything.

:::::::How do we decide which cities are "well-known"? -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 06:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[[User:Testbed|Testbed]]

== Disruptive editor / revert war / I have reached three so can engage no more ==

:::::::: If I may: This is exactly where I find this discussion to be narrow-minded - it does not treat the issue on a global scale. Few of the world's people outside the US know where a state is, let alone the city spoken of, or even the fact that that city is in that state... and this separating cities into "having this or not, this big or not" status will make things even more complicated. Although having the state name in the title would have some informative value, the administrative heirarchy perhaps would be more practical elsewhere, say in the article introduction and as the article categories. <br /><br />This naming discussion really should not be about ''convention'' - it should be about finding a correct form of ''disambiguation''. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 11:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you please review [[Panties]] in which the editor [[User:Robotman1974]] has repeatedly reverted my edits, calling them "unsourced" and "OR." I have moved the objectionably material to the discussion page until it can be sourced, but Robotman continues to revert my other changes to the page regardless. Robotman will not respond to posts I made on his talk page. He refuses to discuss or reach consensus. [[User:67.101.243.74|67.101.243.74]] 22:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

*Ishu, I think the DHS list is problematic. I've made a (not quite complete) list of the cities it would cover at [[User:John Kenney/Airports]]. It is heavily biased towards airports near the Canadian and Mexican borders. I would think that [[Baton Rouge, Louisiana]], or [[Des Moines, Iowa]], are much better candidates for a move than [[International Falls, Minnesota]], or [[Del Rio, Texas]]. The basis on which the airports are chosen is also odd. Teeterboro Airport in New Jersey but not La Guardia? I'm not really sure I quite understand what is going on with that list. If we are going to have a floor of places to consider, I would prefer if there were a number of different potential qualifiers. If we must have a series of objective criteria, the airport business would be okay as ''one'' criteria, but I'd suggest having other potential "minimum" criteria which would allow a city to be considered even if it didn't have an airport on the last. I'd notably suggest that status as a state capital, and probably that a certain agreed upon minimum size of either the city or the metropolitan area of which it is the center, or both, should qualify a place to be considered, if we're going to go that route. But I'm not sure that's necessary. There is no need for this convention to be tied to what "the majority of English-speakers" or "the majority of people in the world" would recognize. I still think that the simplest way to do this would be to use the criterion of whether a city is well-known outside its own vicinity. I've suggested this a number of times, and nobody has really responded. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 11:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

*[[User:Robotman1974]] has now posted three different warnings. We both warned the other initially, and after he removed his, I removed mine. Now, however, he has reverted all my edits to the article in question and added these three different warnings to my talk page. ---- I apologize if this is not the usual way to report such activity. Please let me know how I should do so better in the future if that is the case. [[User:67.101.243.74|67.101.243.74]] 22:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

**Remember that the DHS list '''is not''' the '''sole''' determinant of whether a city '''may''' be moved. The border airports like Teeterboro (as I mentioned), Del Rio and International Falls aren't eligible because they '''are not well-known'''. La Guardia isn't a concern because [[New York City]] would be eligible for unqualified article name thanks to JFK airport. I think most of us agree that we wouldn't want ''more than'' 150 move requests. This list accomplishes that goal while also referring to a list of "less well-known" cities that people abroad '''might actually have reason to know''' since they could have traveled to/through/from them. Other people in the U.S. might know them for the same reasons. We don't have to guess (or worse, argue over) whether Garrett Park is "well-known" because it isn't a port of entry. Of course, we '''would''' have to discuss whether [[International Falls, Minnesota]] is "well-known," but that's a pretty simple discussion in my opinion. Even if legions of International Fallsians disagree with me, the Garrett Parkians would automatically be disqualified. In other words, while we may have disagreements over what "well-known" means, one couldn't apply "well-known" to any random city, only those on the DHS list. And the not-at-all-well-known cities on the DHS list aren't frequently used as ports of entry/exit by most people. I think this is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 12:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:Hi Rlevse, I have left an explanation of my actions [[User talk:John Reaves#Disruptive revert editor / will not respond to discussion page / I have reverted three times so can do no more|here]]. [[User:Robotman1974|Robotman]][[User talk:Robotman1974|¹⁹⁷⁴]] 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

***Ishu, my point was that I don't see why we should ''a priori'' exclude relatively unique and well known places like [[Baton Rouge]] and [[Des Moines]], while starting from a list that includes many much less well known and less important places. I don't see why there is this obsession with cities that people from abroad might be familiar with. There is absolutely nothing requiring that this should be our criterion. The AP list, at least, represents the efforts of a well known organization which is trying to do something that is at least comparable to what we are trying to do. Ths DHS list is completely arbitrary. It excludes many worthy, fairly obvious candidates while including a fairly substantial number of places that don't qualify under ''any'' reasonable definition of "well known." [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 13:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

*I agree that the DHS list is not particularly useful to sorting out what is "well known" or "world class". Any article which currently redirects from [[City Name]] to [[City Name, State]] would be eligible in my view per the "common name" convention, but I understand that's probably a minority view on this page. Failing that, the AP list isn't bad, or the [[Global city]] list. -- ''[[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]]'' 18:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

**I agree that the AP list is a good starting point, as indicated in my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28settlements%29&diff=86353051&oldid=86340664 original proposal], which stated "I would fully support the proposal if we add" the DHS list as a "Part III" to Part I (the comma convention) and Part II (the AP list). The intent of the DHS list '''is not to determine whether a city is "well-known."''' The '''separate''' "well-known" test would also be required for a move. The DHS list is intended to limit the list of '''candidates''' for "well-known" cities. My <strike>"obsession"</strike> strong preference is to find an objective list of features that would assure a city is indeed "well-known." A place that is familiar to people abroad is likely to be "well-known outside its immediate vicinity" '''and''' can be identified with the two-part test I have suggested. To this point in this discussion, '''no one''' has even claimed to be able to define "well-known." The best suggestion is to limit the definition to "not well-known outside their immediate vicinity," but that is still pretty squishy. Can we use this discussion to '''set guidelines''' around what defines "well-known?" For example, we have discussed two criteria, (1) being a state capital, and (2) being an international port of entry. If we can build some additional '''example''' criteria into the guideline as to what characterizes "well-known" I'd support the proposal. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 22:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

== Reply ==

:::At least twice on this page, I have suggested the objective criteria of being

:::#The capital of a state '''and'''

:::#The largest city in that state.

:::I recognise this rules out a number of the cities other participants would like included, and may introduce some odd choices, but it '''is''' objective and has been suggested, so the claim that no-one has attempted to define objective criteria is unfair. So far, the AP list is by far the best suggestion I have noticed. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 23:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

::::It ''would'' be unfair if we were talking about the same thing. But on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28settlements%29&diff=prev&oldid=84061722 both] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28settlements%29&diff=prev&oldid=84167288 occasions], you appear to be referring to the criteria for allowing unqualified cityname. I did a search on this page for ''well-known'' and found no instances where someone defined "well-known," which is the term that has been suggested repeatedly as a criterion for unqualified cityname. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 05:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Scott, true, although I think that's very problematic unless there are additional criteria. A criterion by which [[Columbia, South Carolina]] is eligible to be moved, but [[Los Angeles, California]] and [[Chicago, Illinois]] are not, is very problematic. Effectively, your proposal would allow [[Boston, Massachusetts]], [[Atlanta, Georgia]] and [[Honolulu, Hawaii]] to be moved. Possibly also [[Des Moines, Iowa]] and [[Nashville, Tennessee]] (I'm not sure if they're the largest cities). I can't think of any other - Charleston, WV; Columbia, SC; Providence, RI; etc. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 12:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::I don't think Scott is presenting these as exhaustive criteria, but John has a good point. I'm going to continue this discussion under the "Objective Criteria" section below in hopes of attracting a few more participants. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 12:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

*If I'm reading the oppose votes correctly, I sense a problem with the definition of what the exceptions would be for the reasons to oppose. Either major is not well defined or there are problems with the proposed list. If that's the case, then maybe we are close to consensus. There is support for the concept of the current proposal but the method for selecting the exceptions still needs additional refinement. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:*It's also possible that those who are attached to the comma convention for irrational/emotional reasons will rationalize all kinds of reasons to oppose it (because they have no identifiable consistent rational reasoned argument to present). So if you try to satisfy one such objection they'll just conjure another and another... Not that I'm cynical or anything, but I've just seen it too much... --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 20:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

::*Serge, I really wish you'd calm down and scale back your cynicism. Your [[WP:OWN|ownership]] issues over this process appear to be driving some supporters away through voting fatigue, and hardening the positions of some opponents. Can you consider allowing other people to take the lead on this for a while? -- ''[[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]]'' 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

*:Vegaswikian, I agree that this seems to be the sticking point, although even ironing out will certainly not lead to unanimity, so far as I can tell.

Could someone explain what will happen to the city articles where recent surveys decided to keep their current names if this proposal passes? Does this proposal override those votes? Could a small survey here override a larger survey in a city article? Does the override work both ways in the case of a city that is not on the AP list? -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

::Will, those surveys generally did not "decide to keep" the current name. They had no consensus either way, and thus the current name was kept by default. I think this is worth noting. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 12:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

:Considering that many of the oppose votes on the individual city votes cited the guideline as the reason for opposing, I would say a change to the guidelines changes everything. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it pointless to create a page just to put a tag on it, whatever is on the talk page is good enough. [[User:John Reaves|John Reaves]] [[User talk:John Reaves|(talk)]] 03:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

::It seems unfair that we could use a survey that gets perhaps 16 responses to override a recent survey that got [[Talk:Los Angeles, California#Requested move #3|35 responses]], a survey that got [[Talk:Seattle, Washington#Requested move|27 responses]], one that got [[Talk:Oklahoma City, Oklahoma#Requested move|24 responses]], and another that got [[Talk:Houston, Texas#Requested move|30 responses]]. That precedent could mean that sometime in the future a handful of people could respond to a survey that would move cities like [[Chicago]] back to [[Chicago, Illinois]]. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 00:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

==Interesting articles==

*[http://www.scouting.org/media/press/2000/000404/index.html BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA WELCOMES ITS 100 MILLIONTH MEMBER SINCE ITS ESTABLISHMENT 90 YEARS AGO]

*[http://www.scouting.org/media/press/1998/981221/index.html 1999 Tournament of Roses, Rose Queen is Member of Boy Scout Program]

--[[User:evrik|evrik]]&nbsp;^{([[User talk:evrik|talk]])} 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

== RfA thanks ==

::: The logical and fair thing to do is to call all those participating in all former concerned motions to participate in this one. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 01:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

{| style="border: 2px solid {{{border|blue}}}; background-color: {{{color|#cebdff}}};"

::::I believe notifications about these surveys have been made at most if not all of the relevant city talk pages. Have any been missed? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 01:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

!colspan="2" align="center" | Thank you for your support on my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Meno25|Request for adminship]], which finished successfully, with unanimous support of 40/0/0.

I will do my best to serve Wikipedia and the community. Again thanks.

:::::I suspect that many editors are suffering from survey-fatigue. The notifications that were sent out were for the previous survey, which did not find a consensus. There were no notifications made for this new survey, at least that I am aware of. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 01:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

|-

!colspan="2" align="center" | --[[User:Meno25|Meno25]] 08:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::If they're not sufficiently interested in keeping up with what's going on here, then they're voting... '''abstain'''. You can lead a horse to water, but... --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 06:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

|}

:::::: Well, putting the priority on bringing a discussion to a logical conclusion instead of calling a vote when things swing one way or another would help too. Making "compromises" based on other participants (stubborn) points of view doesn't help either - it's an objective view on what the reader sees and understands that should be the nexus of discussion here. <br />I think it would be best to call everyone possible into one organised discussion on "fresh ground" - this one's been going on so long and in so many circles that more than a few - including myself - have become tired of it too. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 09:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

:I'm back to this debate! Thanks, [[User:Polaron|Polaron]], for acknowledging my suggestion on international airports. The DHS list is a nice start, but that's not what I originally had in mind.

:My inspiration comes from when I recently flew from [[New York City|New York]] to [[Manila]] via [[Northwest Airlines]]. When I traveled back to the US, in [[Tokyo]], I remembered how [[Detroit, Michigan|Detroit]] and [[Minneapolis, Minnesota|Minneapolis]]/[[St. Paul, Minnesota|St. Paul]] were stylized: without states. I also watch ''[[The Amazing Race]]'', in which destinations are frequently said without mentioning the state. In an airport, there likely doesn't need to be a state in listing international destinations because that would not conform with listings of other destinations. But that also means that in international destinations, the U.S. cities are known without mentioning their states. (That doesn't mean they disregard the existence of the states, ever.)

:The idea I was thinking of was: ''current or previous non-chartered passenger international service to United States airports'' in determining which U.S. cities don't need disambiguation. I would also add that passenger service should be ''outside of Canada and Mexico''. This subset will probably parallel the AP list, I don't know. But I think it is a justifiable suggestion, since it shows how countries outside the U.S. consider which U.S. gateway cities they should serve.

:I also support adding state capitals with my suggestion. [[User:Tinlinkin|Tinlinkin]] 15:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

* Just to get it in writing, I have supported the above proposal on the basis that it will bring numerous articles closer to the ideal of "disambiguate when necessary" enshrined in WP:NC. Ultimately I think any specific guideline for US cities should merely explicate that policy rather than create additional guidelines. Also, it occurs to me that the editors of the articles being considered for moves should be explicitly invited to participate in this discussion (if that is not already the case). --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 18:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

== New page to construct/evolve a new comprehensive survey by consensus ==

I started [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (November 2006)|this page]] to begin the process of constructing/evolving a new comprehensive survey through consensus. The first draft "strawman proposal" is posted. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 23:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:Why not just have it here on this page, where the other surveys have occured? Is the survey at the top of the page still active? -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 00:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:I put the new draft of the survey on a subpage because it is "a work in progress" (not an active survey), and I didn't want to confuse things on this page, particularly with Tariq's proposal at the top which is still active. The intent is to move it to this page when it's done, assuming the rest of this current page, assuming Tariq's proposal, is closed and archived. Someone, if not me, should incorporate Tariq's proposal into the new draft, by the way. It's currently not one of the proposals. In fact, I would like to see John's proposal in there, and perhaps several other "hybrid" proposals where we attempt to define which cities are "well known" and do not require predisambiguation. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 00:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::The use of a multi choice survey is a bad idea. It always leads to a wide spread of opinion and no option getting clear consencus. The only way the everyone is going to aggree to a change is by 66% being achieved and this will never happen with your proposal. I don't hold out to much hope of the "convention" ever being changed. The one by one article moving seems to be the most effective. As more cities get changed over to the international convention it should lead to more people saying "if X gets to name it that way why not our city". [[User:joshurtree|josh]] ([[User talk:joshurtree|talk]]) 01:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::''Copying this to, and responding at, [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (November 2006)]] --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 01:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::So just to clarify, it's not a survey and has no bearing on anything? -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 05:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::For now, it's not a survey open for voting. It's a ''first draft'' of a survey-to-be. It's a starting point that needs to be expanded and edited by consensus. The intent is for the final version to be copied to this page, opened as a survey, for at least a month, and well publicized. For your sake, we should probably have an option for a "no exceptions" guideline that would put [[New York City]] at [[New York, New York]]. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 05:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::There aren't any "no exceptions" naming conventions. They're just guidelines. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 06:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

One week after wide advertising should be long enough for any poll/survey. Anybody who doesn't find it in a full week is either not a regular editor, or it wasn't properly advised. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 09:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

*Given that there have been (by my count) seven votes/polls/surveys on the subject already, and none of them had any consensus, what makes you think that this one will? ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 10:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::Are you asking me or Serge? My answer (in case you are responding to my "one week" comment): Several (most/all?) of those have not been widely advertised outside of the regulars who follow this page. If we can come up with the ultimate poll (which requires the regulars to at least agree on the question!), and advertise it suitably widely, then I don't believe that three more weeks would increase the chances of consensus beyond what one week would achieve. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 13:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::*I was talking about holding a poll period, not about how long to run it for. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that even if we make an ultimate poll and run it for three weeks, we still wouldn't have an increase chances of consensus. In that case, let's not bother with a poll at all. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 13:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes - I'm saying that ''if we create the ultimate poll and get a wide audience to participate'', the result won't change significantly between the end of week 1 and the end of week 4, so we might as well keep it short enough people can remember having voted when the results are announced. I'd still rather reach consensus by discussion, not voting, if that were possible. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::: (edit conflict) Well, there's two ways to go about it. One would be the page-by-page discussion/move to "single-name" status (and hope it sticks long enough to become generalised); another would be to a massive "call to discussion" (more an upturned hat than a poll) around a proposition to make disambiguation consistent across the board. And I don't mean a call to only "nameplaces" boards, I mean all of Wiki. The Village Pump no less. Serge, wait: let's formulate the question here before asking it there please.

::: How I see it from here, those in favour of a "single name drive" and a homogeneous Wiki-wide disambiguation technique will be shooting themselves in the foot, as the "comfortable majority" will opt for the "comfortable practice" that is the "city, state" disambiguation. I'm one of those, so I hope I'm wrong. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 16:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::I understand and share your concern. That's why I want to take time to really think this through. If we're not happy with whatever we have a few weeks from now, we can scrap the project. It has been suggested to include mini-arguments for each option. I'm thinking maybe we need a preamble that explains - in a manner that we agree by consensus is fair - the key issues, and relates to the various options. Again, all this is a work in progress, nothing is definite, and, ''if'' this survey ever sees the light of day (i.e., posted on this page), it won't be for weeks from now. In the mean time, let's keep sharing our concerns and seeing if we can come up with solutions to address them. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 17:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I want to keep the "revising period" open for a few weeks. Let's get everybody involved with making sure the survey has all reasonable options available. Get real consensus on format and content of survey before we open it here on this page. We've never done that before, and I anticipate that alone may take a few weeks. Second, once that is done and the survey is open, I want to keep it open for a few weeks. Why not? What harm can come from keeping it open a few weeks. Tariq's proposal is still getting votes <s>well over a week</s> ''three weeks'' after it was opened. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 16:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:I have been watching this debate for a while now, so I just thought that I'd add my thoughts on the matter. Regarding the arguments against the proposal:

# The fact that we already have [[New York City]], [[Chicago]] and [[Philidelphia]] at the ''Cityname'' format already makes a nonsense of the 'consistency' argument, we already have (sensible) inconsistancies. It makes no logical sense for these to be at ''Cityname'' whilst major cities such as [[Los Angeles]], [[San Francisco]] et al are still at the ''City, State'' arrangement.

# As for the 'it would lead to endless arguments about which cities are major' argument. True, but the present 'convention' is proving to be a major source of argument already, how exactly could it be any worse then it is at the moment? Surely it can't be beyond the common sense of wikipedians to work out which cities should enjoy primary name status.

# Practically every other country has articles about it's major cities at the ''Cityname'' format. Therefore Ammerica is inconsistant with everywhere else. Seem as there is a snowball in hell chance of anyone agreeing to move [[Paris]] to [[Paris, France]] or [[Berlin]] to [[Berlin, Germany]] for example. I think it far more sensible for America to adopt the international standard, rather than the very slim chance of the rest of the world adopting the U.S standard.

[[User:G-Man|<font color="blue">G-Man</font>]] [[User talk:G-Man|*]] 19:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

::Well, "...practically every other country..." is wrong. Practically every ''English-speaking'' country has a significant modification of the city name policy; Canada's ''allows'' major cities to be at <nowiki>[[City]]</nowiki>, but Australia has a specific list of cities which ''may'' be at <nowiki>[[City]]</nowiki>. (Almost all cities in [[England]] require disambiguation of some sort, so the situation is completely different.) There ''may'' be justification for changing to the [[Canadian|Canada]] policy, but the default being <nowiki>[[City]]</nowiki> is completely unsupported (IMHO). &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 22:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I didn't say that the 'default' position, was to use ''Cityname''. What I meant was that most countries have adopted a more flexible and pragmatic system whereby cities or towns which require disambiguation are, and those which have a unique name, or are clearly the primary topic get to have the ''Citnyname'' to themselves. Which IMO is far more sensible than rigidly sticking to some scheme even when it is clearly not sensible and counter intuitive. With regards to the UK, some towns and cities are disambiguated and others are not [[Bristol]], [[Coventry]], [[Leicester]], [[Glasgow]] are examples which spring to mind. [[User:G-Man|<font color="blue">G-Man</font>]] [[User talk:G-Man|*]] 17:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

::::No one here advocates "sticking to some scheme" which is "clearly not sensible and counter intuitive". The question is whether CITYNAME, STATENAME is clearly not sensible and whether it is counterintuitive. Certainly, it is ''not'' counterintuitive to me. I often see cities referred to as, say, [[Oklahoma City, Oklahoma]] and [[Topeka, Kansas]]. This is pretty darn common in my experience. And I don't see that it doesn't make sense either. If anything would confuse me as a Wikipedia user, it would be the exceptions to this simple rule. Of course, some folks here just want to increase the list of exceptions since their attempts to change policy have failed. Once they have enough exceptions, I imagine they'll justify changing the rule in order to bring consistency to Wikipedia (which consistency they're currently working to break at [[Talk:Anaheim, California]]). [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 19:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

::::: Well, as the majority of English-speaking Wikipedians come from English-speaking countries, it is only logic that the majority of English Wiki's articles will be on English-speaking places with English-speaking habits, and the most of these, I repeat yet again, are most likely from the US. I would argue that the "City, State" form is quite common for ''a speaker speaking of a city in a state other than the state he is speaking from'', but this, true, is a practice common to other English-speaking locales, especially Canada.

::::: Yet even this is besides the point, as such practices - not suited to any encyclopaedia, and rarely - if not never- used outside of disambiguation purposes for the same - are open not only to people speaking from one state (province) to another, but for one ''country'' to another - this makes this form of cross-board pre-disambiguation moot, especially to those unfamiliar with US geography who will have to read to the text anyway to find the city's complete locale. This "carving out a local-practice method comfortable for locals" is "thinking small" in my books, and paying almost no thought at all to the rest of Wikipedia.

::::: Much of my work lately has been revolving around GIS data, and most all data libraries indicate their map locales with a "city, state, country" disambiguation. This solution, although fine for a direct list of data (or whatever), is cumbersome for the inter-linked media that is Wiki.

::::: I really see the "city, state" disambiguation as an ass between the above two chairs. You either go "all the way" with a fully indicative disambiguation, or you go with a "only when needed" disambiguation that is used only for the sake of disambiguation itself. Think Big. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 19:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

==Straw poll: Do we need more polls?==

Do we really need another poll?

The last thing we need is a suspicion that one viewpoint has polled and polled and polled until they got their way. I'm not suggesting this suspicion is correct; it may be ''more'' damaging if it's wrong. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 06:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:'''Yes;''' let's have another poll.

:#

:'''No;''' let's leave this alone until we have more eyes on the subject.

:#per discussion above [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 06:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:# I would love to see this tabled till after the New Year. The most recent poll is no where close to consensus and the Anaheim move was pretty soundly defeated. No matter which way you look at this, we're deadlocked. Let's take a break on this, enjoy the holidays, work on other areas of the encyclopedia and maybe come back with a fresh perspective for 2007. [[User:Agne27|Agne]] 07:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:#This may be the most-polled topic in WP in 2006. Let's take a break. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 07:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:#If we're having a ''poll'' on whether to have more polls, we're having ''too many'' polls. Let's also try to have one poll at a time. I think Serge's effort to have a consensus on the ''content'' of the poll is a good idea, even if the current effort includes everything but the kitchen-sink. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 13:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:# - There has to be some other way to go about this than running the same old questions through the same old participant list until their numbers thin enough to leave the winning "most tenacious". This is not a wear-'em-down game, and this issue needs exposure to a much wider audience; this concerns all of Wiki, actually. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:#are we actually having a poll about whether to have more polls? We clearly need more eyes to look at this. Having more half-baked polls is not the way to do this. It might be best to table this for a month or two, and then come back and really do it right. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 17:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:#I'm thinking of having the survey in March 2007. Open it March 1 and leave it open through March and April. That gives us over 3 months to get it right. The first week of March would be devoted to publicizing it. The problem is that while we have not yet been able to find a change that is supported by the consensus, clearly there is no consensus to leave the guidelines the way they currently are either (Tariq's proposal alone shows this with a majority currently supporting it). --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:#*<sigh>I hate to reopen discussion, but I disagree; see below.[[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

===discussion===

Tariq's proposal is ''clearer'' than the present wording; but it has the same force, and supports present practice. That's why I support it. Therefore I cannot agree that there is consensus against the present guideline. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

: Tariq's proposal encourages that certain well-known U.S. cities ''do not'' have the state in their titles. That's substantially different from the current wording where, in each case, having no state in the title, even for [[New York City]], is a clear exception. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::20-16 in favor, as the vote now stands, is a slim majority, with deeply held opinions from many divergent perspectives--that's nowhere near sufficient to declare that it indicates anything resembling consensus. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 00:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Bkonrad, did anyone declare or even imply that the slim majority ''indicates anything resembling consensus''? If yes, where? If no, why did you feel you need to make this point? What it does clearly show is a ''lack'' of consensus to stick with the ''status quo''. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 23:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28settlements%29&diff=90959833&oldid=90942310 Comments you made] just a while before the above edit, which I may have viewed as a diff encompassing the entire range, contained the phrase ''clearly there is no consensus to leave the guidelines the way they currently are either (Tariq's proposal alone shows this with a majority currently supporting it).'' [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 23:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Right. I said "there is '''NO''' consensus ...". Why are acting like we have a disagreement? Are you trying to say you feel there IS a consensus to stay with the ''status quo''? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 23:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::(edit conflict; not handled by system) The polling on Tariq's proposal doesn't "clearly show" much of anything, including whether there is a consensus for either Part without the other. Some editors support ''status quo'' '''and''' Tariq's proposal; some support Tariq's proposal and oppose the ''status quo''; and the opposite is doubtless also true. It is therefore compatible with the sort of supermajority for the present system which is [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Huh? Anyone who votes for any change to the status quo is obviously not in favor of no change to the status quo. Now, whether there is a consensus for any particular change to the status quo is yet to be determined. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 00:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Bosh. Anyone may find both the ''status quo'' and a relatively small change acceptable, and favor whichever tends to consensus; I do. Another may find both the small change and a much larger change acceptable. Neither is inconsistent. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 04:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::Fair enough. Would you agree that it is fair to say that the voting on the Tariq proposal establishes that we don't have a consensus that supports no exceptions to the comma convention for U.S. cities? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 04:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::Thanks for the "Fair Enough". Yes, there is no consensus for that (which is not the same as a consensus against it). But that is not the ''status quo'' either in practice or on this page, which expressly acknowledges exceptions. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 17:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::Yet whenever someone proposes an exception, there are inevitably a number of opposers who state that the guideline should be changed if you want an exception. So I, for one, would like to see the guideline to be clearer on this point (that exceptions are allowed whenever a consensus is formed in favor of the exception). --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 19:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::: To be frank, well-intentioned as it is, I find Tariq's proposition a half-baked compromise that will cause even ''more'' disambiguation problems. Instead of getting into that one I propose to forward a wide (wide!) open proposition to standardise a single form of disambiguation for all of Wiki. We're talking Village Pump here. I don't see any definite solution short of that - and anyhow we'll be going there sooner or later. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

::::The comma, as a "separator" between a city and its state, '''should be retained''' in the article title--but '''only''' as ''explicit disambiguation''. So commas should be used '''only when necessary''' as disambiguation.

::::*The main reason why the comma '''should be retained''' in the article titles is because the comma is ''frequently-used'' (in the U.S., anyway) to separate cities from states in postal addresses (on letters as well as in address books and other places such as certain data feeds), and in news reports and other sources where place names are used.

::::*The comma should be '''preferred''' as disambiguation ''for U.S. cities'' because of this common usage, '''but also''' because (1) the comma already is used in Wikipedia for disambiguation, and (2) there are no alternatives that would be universally recognized by people outside the U.S. (Without a universally-recognized disambiguation scheme, the disambiguation should defer to clarity for U.S. readers as an overall benefit.)

::::*To restate: The comma should be used only when necessary for disambiguation so that the comma will have a clear role (in titles) only as a disambiguator.

::::--[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 17:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

::::: Well, there are two things wrong with that. Commas also have other uses than disambiguation (secondary titles, proper names), and it is wrong to pander to the habits of one select audience - Wiki is not for US-only readers, and there is no call to state it "preferred" to speak a language only they understand. Again, this contributor preponderance (and tenacity of habit) has the ''contributors themselves'' in mind, not the readers - it is not a coincidence that most contributing articles about a locale live in or near the place they are writing about.

::::::It is policy to use American English in articles on American subjects or those originally written in American; these are both. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 00:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::''"Universally recognised disambiguation scheme"'' - now that's closer to the mark. This is exactly why I suggested taking this to the Village pump. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::''Commas also have other uses than disambiguation (secondary titles, proper names)'' True, but typically not in the names of settlements.

::::::''it is wrong to pander'' [Please mind your language] ''to the habits of one select audience - Wiki is not for US-only readers'' [Reader oriented here...]

::::::''this contributor preponderance (and tenacity of habit) has the '''contributors themselves''' in mind'' [...and contributor oriented here.]

::::::If we '''invent''' a scheme of universal disambiguation that corresponds to no other naming/disambiguation conventions, it will be universal, but not necessarily recognizable. How does that help a reader who, ('''we''' are assuming) knows nothing in particular about WP conventions? So instead of a comma-based system of disambiguation that is understood by a sizable "chunk" of EN-WP readers (i.e., U.S.--and a fair share of Canadians, too), we should opt for an idiosyncratic system that is understood by only a small group of readers?

::::::Again, I'm calling for using the comma only when necessary for disambiguation--mainly for the sake of retaining it in the name of familiarity--which '''is''' considerate of a considerable number of EN-WP readers. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 03:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Ishu, the reason the ''parenthetic remark'' is the ''standard method'' of disambiguation in Wikipedia is because its semantic purpose and function is recognized by anyone literate in English. One does not need to know anything about WP conventions to understand that information after a name inside parenthesis is additional clarifying information. This is as true for clarifying ___location information for place names as it is for anything else. The fact that people have seen '''Portland, Oregon''' countless times does not mean they won't recognize the meaning of '''Portland (Oregon)'''. The argument that such a disambiguating naming system would be understood "by only a small group of readers" is absurd. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 03:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Does Serge really deny that [[Portland, Oregon]] is the normal way to do this in American English? [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 04:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Not at all. Did you read what I wrote? My point is a simple counter-point to Ishu's claim that parenthesis would not be understood: Despite the fact that ''Cityname, Statename'' is a normal way to reference a city in American English, ''the argument that disambiguating with parenthesis would be understood "by only a small group of readers" is absurd.'' But to expand on your point: ''Because ''Cityname, Statename'' is a normal way to reference cities'', using it in article titles makes it unclear whether the name of the subject is ''Cityname, Statename'', or whether the name of the subject is ''Cityname'' and ''Statename'' is disambiguating/clarifying information. This problem is resolved if we use ''Cityname'' (when dabbing is not required), and ''Cityname (Statename)'' (only when dabbing is required), because in both types of cases it's clear in no uncertain terms that the name of the subject is ''Cityname'', period. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Actually a side trip to the [[:Image:Seal of Portland OR.png|seal of Portand]] is interesting at this point. The name there is ''City of Portland''',''' Oregon''. So in at least one offical source some form of the name using a common is also used by the city itself. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 06:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::* ''"Commas also have other uses than disambiguation (secondary titles, proper names) True, but typically not in the names of settlements."''

::::::: To one not knowing any better, who's to tell that what he is looking at is a place and not a name? "One rule here, another there" circumstances should be avoided, especially where there is no discernable dividing line - especially to the ignorant - beween "here" and "there".

:::::::* ''"If we invent a scheme of universal disambiguation that corresponds to no other naming/disambiguation conventions, it will be universal, but not necessarily recognizable."''

::::::: No need to invent anything - Wiki already has two disambiguation schemes, and parentheses are used in the overwhelming majority of disambiguated article titles. I don't see how anyone can say that parentheses will not be recognised as disambiguation.

:::::::* ''"How does that help a reader who, (we are assuming) knows nothing in particular about WP conventions? So instead of a comma-based system of disambiguation that is understood by a sizable "chunk" of EN-WP readers (i.e., U.S.--and a fair share of Canadians, too), we should opt for an idiosyncratic system that is understood by only a small group of readers?"''

::::::: The above is based on the logic of the argument above it. Parenthesetical disambiguation is "an idiosyncratic system that is understood by only a small group of readers?" ? I think not at all - ''et au contraire!''

::::::: The use of the comma as disambiguation in place names was invented, discussed and maintained by ''contributors'', not by readers. Again, it is not a coincidence that most (all) of the same wanting to maintain the comma disambiguation already use it. Please remain objective in your arguments - study the method and its effect from all angles and uses, then conclude. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 10:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::How can you meaningfully distinguish between contributors and readers? By what powers are you able to divine the preferences of readers who are not contributors? As has been pointed out numerous times, the comma convention for place names is NOT unique to the united States and it most certainly was NOT invented by Wikipedia contributors. Although I don't object to using parenthetical disambiguation where appropriate, it is nonetheless completely artificial--that form is in fact more an invention of Wikipedia contributors than the comman convention. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 17:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::: Contributors serve, readers read what they're served. Every publication has its own disambiguation method - Wiki unfortunately has two. Of course the comma disambiguation ''in its use by this publication'' was invented by its contributors. This "speaking from one state to another" form of disambiguation is common in the US, but it is not used in any encyclopaedia - with reason. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 08:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::''Contributors serve, readers read what they're served.'' And so what are we to make of that? Does it provide any useful method for discerning the preferences of readers who are not contributors? And there are quite a lot of things that Wikipedia does which no other encyclopedia does. Simply saying that no other encyclopedia does it this way doesn't really mean much when so much of what Wikipedia is about has no correlation with the practices of other encyclopedias. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 13:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::: What is there not to understand? One looking for information will search until they find what they're looking for; contributors provide the information. It's the job of the latter to facilitate the quest of the former, preferrably with as few "huh?"'s from the same as possible.

::::::::::::You are still avoiding (or simply not understanding) the question. How do you propose to meaningfully discern what the preferences are of readers as distinct from contributors. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::: Well, most encyclopedias ''don't disambiguate at all'' if you want to know the truth. This is fine for paper media - read down till the text describes what you are looking for. Wiki articles ''must'' be disambiguated, because two articles with the same name is an utter impossibility. Think to the media when thinking to the method - that's all I'm saying. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 22:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::: I don't agree with you that the current situation actually causes any demonstrable problems for readers (or at least not any more than any feasible alternative). [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::: The fact that in Wiki the comma has other uses than disambiguation is a reason in itself to change. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 09:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Parentheses have other uses besides disambiguation too. So what? [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 11:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: Yes, but which case had more "exceptions" where it the use of the method is ''not'' disambiguation - commas or parentheses? Go figure. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 19:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I don't understand what exceptions you are talking about here. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 02:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be no question that whether the title is '''Portland, Oregon''' or '''Portland (Oregon)''', the meaning is clear: we're referring to the city in Oregon. That is not the issue.

What is unclear from '''Portland, Oregon''' is whether the most common name used to refer to that city is '''Portland''' or '''Portland, Oregon''', while from '''Portland (Oregon)''' it is clear: the ''name'' is '''Portland''', period. Yes, I know that '''City of Portland, Oregon''' is the official name, but we don't name our city articles by the official name of the city, we use the WP convention: ''use the most common name'', which, in this case, is [[Portland (Oregon)|Portland]]. If the title of the article is [[Portland (Oregon)]], that makes it clear that the most common name is [[Portland (Oregon)|Portland]]; if it is [[Portland, Oregon]], it is not clear. Why continue using a convention that results in such ambiguity when it is so easy to avoid it? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 17:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:Except that such ambiguity is, IMO, a completely hypothetical strawman. Show me real people (with a functional level of fluency in the English language) who are genuinely confused in distinguishing what "Portland, Oregon" means. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 19:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::Talk about strawmen. I never said the ambiguity is a confusion for what "Portland, Oregon" means. To the contrary: see the first parapraph in the post to which you are responding. What part of ''the meaning is clear'' do you not understand? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 19:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::And the first line of the article is (and I quote) "'''Portland''' is a city at the confluence of the [[Willamette River|Willamette]] and [[Columbia river|Columbia]] rivers in the [[U.S. state]] of [[Oregon]]." This is a non-problem. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 19:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::But is it a guideline or even convention for the first line of an article, like it is for the title of a WP article, to always use/specify the most common name of the subject? If the title is '''Portland, Oregon''' and the first sentence says ''Portland is ...'' how is the reader (planning a visit, from, say, South Africa) supposed to know whether '''Portland''' or '''Portland, Oregon''' is the most common name used to reference the subject? On the other hand, if the title is '''Portland (Oregon)''' and the first sentence says ''Portland is ...'', there is no question. Why must we muddle matters with the ambiguous '''Portland, Oregon''' format (and, no, by "ambiguous" I don't mean readers won't know what it means; I mean this form is not clear about what is the most common usage, and, in fact, incorrectly implies that the most common use is '''Portland, Oregon''', which is not the case - except maybe in Maine and its vicinity). --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 19:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::::This supposed confusion about the common name is what I meant by a completely hypothetical strawman. Show me real people (with a functional level of fluency in the English language) who genuinely experience difficulties in using Wikipedia because of the naming convention. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 20:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::A strawman is a mischaracterization of another's position. Whose position am I mischaracterizing? And what position is that? You, on the other hand, are most clearly using a strawman argument. No one has ever claimed that the inability of Wikipedia, given the current U.S. city naming convention, to clearly specify the most common name used to refer to a U.S.city, creates ''difficulties in using Wikipedia''. That is your claim, and it is a strawman. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::[[wikt:straw man]]: ''An insubstantial concept, idea, or endeavor.'' If you agree that ''No one has ever claimed that the inability of Wikipedia, given the current U.S. city naming convention, to clearly specify the most common name used to refer to a U.S.city, creates "difficulties in using Wikipedia"'', then why are you so doggedly determined to overturn the convention? And FWIW, I disagree with you that there is in fact actually any ''inability of Wikipedia, given the current U.S. city naming convention, to clearly specify the most common name''. This supposed inability that you postulate, is precisely what I believe is a completely hypothetical exercise in inventing a problem where none has been demonstrated to exist. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 20:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Pardon me for assuming you were using the term ''strawman'' in the context of what it means in a debate. You disagree that there is ''any inability of Wikipedia, given the current U.S. city naming convention, to clearly specify the most common name''. Well, then, please tell me the the most common name use to refer to each of [[San Francisco, California]], [[Hollywood, Los Angeles, California]], [[Seattle, Washington]] and [[Chicago]], and tell me how, if you didn't know, you would determine that from the names of the articles in question. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::The '''most''' common name for these would be San Francisco, Hollywood, Seattle, and Chicago. And I'd be fine with these cities being at those names (although personally I think with Hollywood it's debatable whether a primary topic can be clearly distinguished between the place and the movie industry). The problem appears to arise for you arises because you seem to insist that the title of an article must always be the most common name and that any deviation from this is a cause for [[The Sky is Falling]] commotion. Since when is it necessary for any reader, including readers unfamiliar with the comma convention, to be able to discern the '''most''' common name from the title alone? [[WP:NC(CN)]] provides some general guidance about how to title articles, but is not the inviolable supreme law of Wikipedia. The convention itself allows that there may be exceptions defined by other guidelines. The U.S. convention is one such exception. While I'd be fine with allowing some greater flexibility in interpreting the city naming convention, I don't see that it actually poses any significant problem for readers of Wikipedia. San Francisco, California, Seattle, Washington, and Chicago, Illinois, are all also common and familiar names for those places, and whether such internationally familiar cities use one name or the other is a pretty minor stylistic difference. Hollywood is a bit different -- I think extending the convention to city neighborhoods was a mistake. For neighborhoods, I think something like [[Hollywood (Los Angeles)]] would have been a better approach. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 21:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::And why should it be necessary to tell, ''from the title alone'', what we're disambiguating? [[Henry the Lion]] doesn't have that property; it is merely unambiguous, and expressly approved of by a guideline and by consensus. (And in fact, [[Portland, Oregon]] does disambiguate both from [[Portland, Maine]] and from [[Springfield, Oregon]]; just as Henry disambiguates both from [[Henry of Navarre]] and [[Leo the Lion]], or [[William the Lion]].) [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 04:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::''Hollywood District'' would be a more "common-usage" article title than ''Hollywood (Los Angeles)''--except that ''Hollywood District'' is taken by what might be called [[Hollywood District|Hollywood District (Portland, Oregon)]]--or would that be [[Hollywood District|Hollywood District (Oregon)]]? At least people in Southern California ''sometimes'' refer to the "Hollywood District". I don't think it's at all common to use ''Los Angeles'' to disambiguate ''Hollywood'' as a part of Los Angeles. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 04:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone provide an example of '''any''' place name in which the comma is part of the name of the place, exclusive of a larger subdivision? --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 04:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

: Don't mix ''common practice'' and ''common name'' - the state is ''not'' part of the city name. There's no point in going on about this - Locals have ported their "local practice" to Wiki, but this practice is not suited to this publication, namely because of the comma's other uses here. Of course the locals are going to defend their local practice, but think of Wiki in doing so please. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 08:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::Please reread my question:

:::Can anyone provide an example of any place name in which ''the comma'' is part of the name of the place, ''exclusive of a larger subdivision'' [such as a state]?

::The question does not refer to the ''state''--or any practices, local, Wiki, or otherwise. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:Not off-hand. So what? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 16:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::In this entire discussion, I don't recall a single example offered of a place in which ''the comma'' is part of its ''common name''. Assuming it is rare to have a comma in a common name, there is little to no chance of any "confusion" over comma-delimited disambiguation ''for place names'', provided there is no pre-emptive disambiguation. While commas are used in other ways, those ways are not applicable to '''place names''', and contextually there would be no conflict between comma usage as DAB and non-DAB. --[[User:Ishu|ishu]] 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Ishu, concluding that "there is little to no chance of any 'confusion' over comma-delimited disambiguation ''for place names''" is not only assuming "it is rare to have a comma in a common name", but it is also assuming the ''reader knows'' that it is rare to have a comma in a common name for a place in the U.S. I suggest it is unreasonable to expect a reader to know this, particularly a reader who is unfamiliar with U.S. place naming conventions and meanings. Considering that the parenthetic remark is the standard mechanism used for disambiguation in Wikipedia, how is someone unfamiliar with U.S. conventions for referencing places supposed to know that the the '', state'' is just a disambiguation? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 06:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:::: [[User:John Kenney|john k]] already mentioned royalty. [[Princess_Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland]], [[Luitpold, Prince Regent of Bavaria]] and [[Albert, Prince Consort]] for example. I would say that the added title is indeed a form of disambiguation, but ''the added title is still the subject's own name''. Since the name of a state is ''not'' the name of the city it is added to, it is pure disambiguation, and should be presented as such - or not at all if it is not needed. Like the rest of Wiki. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 09:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Promenader: Please reread my question:

::::::Can anyone provide an example of any '''place name''' in which '''the comma''' [not the state] is part of the name of the place, ''exclusive of a larger subdivision'' [such as a state]?

:::::Serge: Assuming '''any''' form of confusion arising from '''any''' disambiguation convention assumes a lot of things that nobody has any actual evidence to support.

:::::We are asking too much of the article titles.

:::::*The article title's main purpose should be disambiguation '''from other articles''', although it should conform closely to the common name so that readers may find the articles.

:::::*The ''first sentence'' of the article is the most appropriate place to specify the common name of the topic. It is also the ''most likely place'' where a reader will look to find the common name of the topic. (I assume that readers read the '''articles''' for information. Isn't that more plausible than assuming the reader will first exhaust all efforts to parse the ''title'' '''before reading''' the article itself?)

:::::*The comma already is used for disambiguation in Wiki.

:::::*Parenthetical disambiguation already is confounded by common names such as [[Pride (In the Name of Love)]] and [[Was (Not Was)]].

:::::*It appears to be uncommon (if not nonexistent) to use commas in the common names of places.

:::::*Assuming commas are used '''only for disambiguation''', the risk of confusion appears to be minimal. --[[User:Ishu]] 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::: There's no point in singling out only ''placenames'' - this segregation from the rest of Wiki is actually the base of the fault. When devising a system one cannot rely solely upon ''reader knowledge'' to identify the subject for what it is. Parathentical disambiguation is not at all ''confounded'' (with anything) - in every case, excepting placenames, it is identifiable for exactly what it is - disambiguation. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 13:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The parenthesis cannot serve all purposes, since it is ''already'' used in non-disambiguated article titles ''that are not place names''. While most common in articles about art works--especially songs like [[1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?)]], [[(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction]], and [[Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me)]]--parentheses are also used in other article titles such as [[Bank of China (Hong Kong)]] and [[Communist Party of India (Marxist)]]--both of which are the common names for these entities.

If parentheses are part of the common names of topics, then parentheses cannot be "unambiguous disambiguators."

The ''main purpose'' of the article ''title'' should be disambiguation '''from other articles'''. The ''first sentence'' of the article is the most appropriate place to specify the common name of the topic because it is the ''most likely place'' where a reader will look to find the common name of the topic. Any "confusion" that arises from the title is made clear in the first sentence of any well-written article. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:I was wondering when someone was going to point out that parenthesis are sometimes part of the name. There is even one city name whose name has parenthesis. But, ''practically speaking'', these are all very rare exceptions that most people are not aware of or thinking about most of the time. So, yes, ''technically'', even the parenthetic remark is not a ''perfect'' "unambiguous disambiguator," but it is very close to it, and, much closer to being a perfect "unambiguous disambiguator" than is the comma-separated disambiguator. Plus, of course, the parenthetic remark is arguably the ''standard'' form for disambiguation, and the more we are consistent with using it such, the closer to being a ''perfect'' "unambiguous disambiguator" it is (conversely, the more we use alternatives the more ambiguous all of our disambiguators become).

:As far as the first sentence clarifying the most common name, that is often not the case. To the contrary, the convention used in many WP articles is to specify the most common name in the title, and to use the full/formal name in the first sentence. Per this convention, the article about San Diego, for example, should be at [[San Diego]] and the first sentence should say, ''The '''City of San Diego''' ...", and the article about Portland should be at [[Portland (Oregon)]] and start with the sentence, "The '''City of Portland, Oregon''' is ..." --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::You are right about the name in the first sentence. However, my main point is pretty logical: If readers become "confused" by (reasonably formed) article titles, most (if not all) ''will begin to read the article itself''--which is the best place to learn about ''all'' names of the subject, common, formal, and nicknames.

::We are asking too much of the article title--it cannot convey all this information about the name of the subject. This is true whether we disambiguate with parentheses, commas, [[vertical bar]]s, [[emoticon]]s, or whathaveyou. The article ''title's'' main purpose should be '''disambiguation from other articles''', although it should conform closely to the common name so that readers may find the articles.

::Problems with comma-based disambiguation are also presented by parentheses-based disambiguation. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 17:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Ishu, the title's ''main purpose'' cannot be to disambiguate from other articles. If it were, then we could just assign random meaningless but unique strings of letters and numbers for each title. In fact, WP could just assign such a random/unique title any time anyone created a new article. Providing a ''unique'' identifier is ''a'' purpose of the title, but it is not the ''main purpose''. It is WP [[WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things|''policy'']] to '''Use the most common name''' in an article title. And it is convention to disambiguate that common name, in articles where disambiguation is required, usually with a parenthetic remark. You claim that ''Problems with comma-based disambiguation are also presented by parentheses-based disambiguation''. Explain this to me, then. Currently, the title of the Portland article is [[Portland, Oregon]]. The official name of the city (per the city seal) is '''City of Portland, Oregon''' (perhaps because it was named after the Portland in Maine). How is a reader supposed to know from all this that the common name is, simply, '''Portland'''. Further, would this fact not be very effectively conveyed with a title of [[Portland (Oregon)]]? Perhaps not perfectly conveyed, but certainly more effectively than how it is currently done. No? --18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Of course the main purpose is to disambiguate. WP recommends the common name for the title because '''in most cases''' the common name ''needs no disambiguation'', in which case the title serves the dual purpose of disambiguation and identifying the common name. But disambiguation in titles takes precedence to using the common name, so the '''main purpose''' of the title '''is to disambiguate'''.

::::When the common name is shared by other subjects, disambiguation is requred. Places are different from most other topics because there are many places that are ''named after other, existing places'' (as you note).

::::The best way for a reader to know the common name for '''any''' city of Portland is to have a sentence in the lead section that states "The city is commonly known as ''Portland''." This is the only universal, unequivocal way in which '''readers''' will know what is the common name of a place.

::::I am claiming that '''any''' scheme of disambiguation is inherently ambiguous ''to some extent'', so we should not expect the ''title alone'' to resolve the ''meaning'' of the disambiguation. The title distinguishes the article from other articles with similar common names. Once we append disambiguators to the common name, we should not expect ''the title'' to be self-explanatory anymore. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Which is why treating this problem as a style issue is a better solution. Using the current guideline it is clear that we have a specific city in a specific state. The is no ambiguity except for the correct name of the city. Since no one appears to be proposing 'fixing' that in the title, it is a non issue. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

==Concrete proposal==

Serge wrote "Yet whenever someone proposes an exception, there are inevitably a number of opposers who state that the guideline should be changed if you want an exception. So I, for one, would like to see the guideline to be clearer on this point (that exceptions are allowed whenever a consensus is formed in favor of the exception)."

This is a concrete proposal, which I applaud. I have no objection to adding some form of words like ''and some other exceptions'' to the present three examples, if it will end this. The point is already stated in the {{tl|guideline}} template. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 19:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:Well, I'm not sure it's concrete unless more specific wording is provided. I would like it to say something to the effect of exceptions are made whenever a majority of the editors agrees the most common name of a given city is clearly the name alone (and, of course, the primary use of that name is to refer to that city). --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 20:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::This new request is the same proposal Serge has failed to get consensus for already. Enough. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 21:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Perhaps my mind is going, but I don't recall ever having a survey that rejected this proposal before. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Perhaps you're thinking of the proposal to adopt the Canadian guidelines, but that did not include the ''whenever a majority of the editors agrees ...'' aspect that is key to what I'm thinking here (to be clear, I'm not actually proposing anything). --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 21:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Hmmm. It's not ''exactly'' the same proposal of Serge's that was rejected, but it seems to fit nicely between two rejected proposals, so it's probably safe to say it would be rejected. &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 22:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Which is why I'm not proposing it. I was just saying what I would like the guidelines to say. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 22:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:Well I was thinking about removing the two cities added to the guideline. While they did get consensus in [[WP:RM]] to be moved, that was not a vote to change the guideline. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::There was no vote to mention that [[New York City]] was an exception either. The fact is, the listed cities ''are'' actual exceptions. It's a statement of fact. Why would there have to be a vote to make a statement of fact in the guidelines? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 23:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::There should be consensus to modify the guideline. Consensus to move an article is not consensus to amend the guideline. So, maybe all exceptions should be removed from the guideline pending consensus to add any. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::::But voting is not required to establish consensus. Being [[WP:BOLD|bold]] and making uncontroversial changes is with consensus and legitimate. The exceptions have been listed for months, and you are the first one to mention anything about it. Even you have yet to even express an objective reason for not having them listed. Are you simply trying to be disruptive, or do you actualy have a point to make? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 00:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Disruptive? Sorry. Maybe I just need to ignore this entire conversation and process since discussion is not wanted. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::I agree with Vegaswikian that there's no need to list exceptions in the guideline. Every guideline may be overridden with cause, but those exceptions aren't typiclaly listed. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 01:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::But other guidelines have the {{tl|guideline}} tag, which explicitly makes that point. We should have one or the other. (I can see why we don't; we don't need a parade of little boxes; but I could go either way.) [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 04:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

New York has been mentioned as an exception to the guideline for years and years. And the other two have been there without protest for months now. The changes were not considered controversial at the time, and I don't see why they should now need retroactive "consensus." of course, the current formulation is completely incoherent, but that's the result of the fact that we don't agree. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:However the fallout from those last changes has been controversial. Small changes may appear to be innocent at first but over time you can see how they are not. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 19:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::Vegas' comment sparked "light bulb" moment and in looking at some of the archived discussion this page you really see a BIG jump in activity (about the US) occur follow the "Chicago Exception" and increasing as the "Philadelphia Exception" came and so forth. I have to admit finding humor in that due to Serge's assertion about the "peace" that it would bring if City, State convention was junked. It seems like the use of "exceptions" to start deviating from the convention is the cause of more unrest and turmoil on this page then anything else. [[User:Agne27|Agne]] 19:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Current guideline - mark as disputed? ==

While we don't yet have a specific alternative to the current U.S. city naming guideline that a consensus or supermajority will support, a small majority (21 vs 18) does support Tariq's proposed change at the top of this page. That doesn't justify a change, but isn't that voting result, plus all the discussion on this page (not to mention the archives), enough to justify placing a [[Wikipedia:Policy dispute|disputed]] tag on the current guideline? I think placing it there might be helpful to motivate everyone involved to work towards a guideline that ''is'' supported by consensus (or at least a supermajority). --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:No. There is no evidence in that discussion that a majority finds the present guideline unacceptable or disputes it. We do not need a dispute tag every time somebody gets substantial support on an improvement of wording. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 18:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Survey: do you agree the current U.S. city guideline is in dispute? ==

I've suggested (above) that the current U.S. city guideline be marked "in dispute" because support for Tariq's proposal along with discussion here indicates that it is in dispute. This has been challenged per the salient argument that support for a change does not necessarily imply a dispute with the ''status quo''. Because I feel it's important to mark the current guideline in dispute (in order to motivate folks to work towards wording that is supported by consensus), I think it's important to establish this point. Hence, unfortunately, the need for another survey, albeit a simple one.

'''QUESTION''': Do YOU agree that the current U.S. city naming guideline discourages use of the most common name -- the city name alone -- as the article title, for even well-known and unique city names like [[Seattle]], [[Houston]] and [[San Francisco]], and that so many people feel that because of this it contradicts Wikipedia-wide policy, guidelines or conventions, that the best option here is to declare the current U.S. city naming guideline to be [[Wikipedia:Policy dispute|in dispute]]?

===Vote YES (U.S. city naming policy should be marked in dispute)===

''Vote with "<nowiki># '''YES'''. Optional Comment. --~~~~</nowiki>''

# YES. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 18:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

# [[User:G-Man|<font color="blue">G-Man</font>]] [[User talk:G-Man|*]] 19:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

# I'm not convinced that we need a poll for this, but ''of course'' the guideline is in dispute. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 23:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

#*Would it be better to put a disputed tag on the guideline without first establishing consensus on this point? ROCKmeHARD-PLACE. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

#*I just noticed that the [[Wikipedia:Policy dispute|policy dispute]] page that calls for a consensus to agree a policy or guideline is in dispute is itself inactive, so I guess it ''is'' unnecessary to have this vote. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

#**It seems to me that, by default, if there is "no consensus" that there is no consensus, then, er, there's no consensus. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 01:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

# I have disputed the legitimacy of this policy since 2004, and the discussions on [[Talk:New York City]] that led to that page being called [[New York City]] and not the ambiguous [[New York, New York]]. The U.S. city naming policy was originally established by fiat and remains a stupid exception to Wikipedia's enlightened naming policy, and should be changed. The fact that this discussion continues, more than 2 years on, makes it quite clear that there is no and has never been any true consensus for this policy. So '''YES''' this policy is disputed and has been for a very long time. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 09:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

===Vote NO (U.S. city naming policy should NOT be marked in dispute)===

''Vote with "<nowiki># '''NO'''. Optional Comment. --~~~~</nowiki>''

#NO. I add another option, with which I also agree. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

#No. Concur. There is no real dispute here. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

# Umm, Tariq's proposal was essentially clarification of what is an exception which (unfortunately) is already in the current the guideline. What ''Serge'' disputes is the City, State aspect that Tariq's proposal still allowed but wrapped around subjective "well known vs not so well known" language. It's twisting a few branches to try and get a slim majority for Tariq's proposal to equate to a disputed view of the City, State usage. Plus agreement with the second option. [[User:Agne27|Agne]] 19:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

#The current guideline is not in dispute. There is an ongoing review of the guideline, but a majority of editors seem to think the basic premise that "CityName, State" is the naming convention, with some exceptions, is acceptable. The only clarification needed is how these exceptions are defined and that's not enough to throw the disputed tag on the entire naming convention. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

#The current guideline is not in dispute. Serge's [[WP:AGF|good faith]] is '''now''' in dispute, in his faulty interpretation of what has been said as the guideline being in dispute. &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 19:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

#*Please do not violate [[WP:AGF]], Arthur. The same use-the-common-name arguments are used, successfully, with other naming conventions as well. They are presented here as well in good faith. If I was adding the dispute statement to the guideline, then I could see having a problem with what I'm doing. But I'm just trying to establish whether there is consensus to do something like that. Is that not what a talk page is for? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 19:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

#'''Conditional No''': I am casting a conditional no, which I will change to '''yes''' if we agree upon a moratorium on article moves, either for a reasonable set period, or until the dispute is resolved. Of course, "until resolved" will be vehemently opposed, but unless there is a policy or guideline that a ''disputed'' policy/guideline is considered to be valid, I can't legitimize the ongoing efforts to undermine the guideline through a series of article moves--which will continue regardless of the outcome of this poll. A moratorium of two or three months would actually be a good-faith action on the part of the policy dissidents, and I would support a combined moratorium and dispute tag. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

#*What do you mean by moratorium? The current guideline allows for exceptions. People who have never been to this page are the ones making the requested moves. How do you control that? What exactly are you looking for and on what basis? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 01:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

#::If we cannot obtain a moratorium, then my vote remains '''no'''. Such a moratorium would have to be reached here by consensus, then propagated by editors aware of this ongoing discussion. For example, you are actively involved in efforts to assist these "people who have never been to this page." When you find such a discussion, instead of saying "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28settlements%29&diff=89498757&oldid=89496997 Excellent idea!]" you could refer any proposed move discussions to this page, noting the moratorium due to the disputed nature of the policy. A consensus for a moratorium would provide guidance in lieu of a formal, consensus policy, namely to oppose moves.

#::Of course, as I noted, you and the others will continue to move articles--poll or no poll. If we want a break on the discussion, then a moratorium is a good faith action by the dissidents to halt article moves that harden the opinions of others in this discussion.

#::If you wish to continue this side discussion, please indicate that you're seriously considering the moratorium. Otherwise, there's no reason for me to reply. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 03:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

#::A moratorium would be consistent with the ArbCom ruling at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways]], specifically at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Controversial_moves|Section 7.3.3: Controversial moves]]. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 17:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

#:::Ishu, I am giving your moratorium idea serious consideration and will not participate in any efforts to move U.S. city pages while I am giving it consideration. I can't say right now when I will give you a definitive response one way or the other (hopefully days not weeks), but I will promise to continue not to participate in such moves until I do inform you of my decision. Fair enough? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 17:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

#::::More than fair enough. Maybe even progress... --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

#'''No.''' An ongoing discussion is not an edit-warring dispute, and labelling any discussion as such when it is not will hardly help any discussion. I see this as a ploy to draw attention to the matter - but this is the wrong way of going about it, trust me. I suggest first formulating a coherent, objective and logical argument for a definite proposition, with clearly presented motives, before calling anyone's attention to it. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 09:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

#:This is about labelling the ''guideline'' to be in dispute, not labelling the discussion. You guys are acting like this is something new and/or it's about me. This policy has been in dispute since at least 2004, ''long'' before I ever became involved, and will continue to be in dispute ''long'' after I leave it, unless it is changed to something that is supported by consensus. There are many conherent, objective and logical arguments for changing the guideline. Some are more compelling than others, depending on who you are. But the most compelling argument for change is that, regardless of the specific reasons and arguments, the current guideline is in dispute and has been for years. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 17:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

# '''No''': [[user:Serge|Serge]] is pushing everyones patience until he/she receives an answer the user likes or can accepts. As such, [[WP:DDV|polling is a poor way of initiating a discussion]], and as prior discussions and polls have suggested, there is no consensus to changing the accepted conventions. [[User:Seicer| '''<span style="color: #B33C1A; font: Trebuchet MS; font-size: 10px;">Seicer</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:Seicer|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Seicer|contribs]])</small> 14:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

#:For the record, that is not at all what is going on. If I did not see that many, [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 11#Tariq's Proposal|if not a majority]], of those involved are interested in seeing the ''city, state'' guidelines "loosened up", then I would not be wasting my time here. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 17:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

# '''No''': in the United States, the state or territory is traditionally part of the city name. [[User:FairHair|FairHair]] 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

===Serge has started enough polls.===

#[[#Straw poll: Do we need more polls?|Enough]]. This is a continuing campaign by one or two users. Any poll begun by Serge before March should be summarily closed. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

#*Exactly how many polls do you think I've started, and where are they? And how many is "too many"? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

# Yet another strawpoll....The sad thing is that users feel ''force'' to participate because if you ignore it, someone may take a token consensus to mean they can go around slapping disputed tags on things. [[User:Agne27|Agne]] 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

#I agree with Septentrionalis, but I think it needs an article or user [[WP:RfC]] to put that into effect. &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

#Too many strawpolls. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 20:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

#Too many polls. Frankly, Serge is not acting in good faith and refuses to engage the issue on the merits. Arbitration may be necessary if he keeps up this nonsense for the umpteenth time. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

#:A [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 11#Tariq's Proposal|recent poll]] (that was archived while it was still open/active by the way) indicates that a majority supports a change to the guidelines. What have I done that makes you think I refuse to engage the issue on the merits? How many KB of engaging the issue on the merits do I have to produce to satisfy you? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 17:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

#::This is an abuse of my !vote; as Serge knows, I support Tariq's proposal as a clarification of present practice, not a change to it. I would appreciate a retraction; if Serge makes this argument again, I will take it as disproof of good faith, which I still accept for now. We are required to assume good faith, not believe it against the evidence. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

#:::Septentrionalis, a ''change to the guidelines'' is, well, a change to the guidelines. While you see Tariq's proposal as a clarification of present practice, which I respect, many others, including probably most if not all of those who oppose it, see it as a substantial change (who see the current exceptions as aberrations that need to be undone). The fact is, the guideline in current form has been used repeatedly as an argument to not move cities from ''City, State'' to ''City'' that are on Tariq's list. See [[Talk:Seattle, Washington]], [[Talk:Los Angeles, California]], [[Talk:Houston, Texas]] and [[Talk:San Francisco, California]] for just a few examples. It is your right to believe that Tariq's proposal is just a clarification, but please respect the rights of others, including me, to see it, in good faith, as a substantial change to current practice. Thanks. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

#::::Most, if not all, of the opponents of Tariq's proposal oppose substantial change; so do some of its supporters. Serge has also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pmanderson&diff=92270606&oldid=92167294 agreed] to my suggestion, in general terms, that he back off, and let things cool down. I welcome this, whole-heartedly. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

# '''This whole page is nothing but useless polls''' with little to no discussion on relevant topics. It's been made clear that no change to the US naming convention should be made, so '''stop introducing this crap''' again and again. I would nominate that every poll be closed by [[user:Serge]]. [[User:Seicer| '''<span style="color: #B33C1A; font: Trebuchet MS; font-size: 10px;">Seicer</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:Seicer|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Seicer|contribs]])</small> 14:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

##It's ''clear'' that no change should be made? Even though a majority supported Tariq's proposal to, er, change the policy above? What's clear is that there is no consensus either in favor of the current policy or against it. That means we are stuck with the status quo, for the moment, but it certainly doesn't mean that it's "clear" that "no change...should be made." [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Do we need mediation or an RfC? ==

It seemed like the consensus in previous discussion was that of fatique and a desire to take a break from this discussion. However, it seems like that might not be possible with the continuation or more polls and more activity to try and overturn this convention. Maybe we should consider some of the [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes]] steps if we hope to see any progress or get a reprive from the constant polling. [[User:Agne27|Agne]] 19:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:Well, something is needed. This is getting a tad ridiculous. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] 19:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:(edit conflict)I would like to think that we don't. The discussions are pointing out the problems with the current proposals and the existing guideline. It may in fact be that the consensus is to leave the guideline as it was before the changes that really caused this discussion to grow. However if we keep having a vote of the week before there is any indication of consensus or a clear need for a vote to help establish a direction, then we need to do something. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 19:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty funny. The same folks voting that the guideline is not in dispute are calling for an RfC. If the guideline is not in dispute, what is the dispute over which we would be requesting comment? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:Well there is certainly not a "dispute" to extent that you are suggesting or implying that there is consensus backing of. However, there is disagreement among the "regulars" on this page to the point that it seems like "Poll warfare" is taking place--''keep polling till the other side gets tired and doesn't participate. Then declare a win.'' If we are at that point, then maybe we need mediation or if this "poll warfare" is improper conduct then maybe we need a RfC. [[User:Agne27|Agne]] 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::For the record, if I was attempting to "keep polling till the other side gets tired and doesn't participate", I'd be starting a lot more polls. I'm certainly not trying to do that, and I never would! As for this particular poll, it came directly and obviously from my discussion with Sept. You can read how it evolved for yourself, just above. If someone objects to a suggestion on the basis that there is insufficient evidence, is it not logical to try to gather the evidence? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Serge turned a discussion into a poll, which was unnecessary. I am glad to hear that the suggestion of "polling until exhaustion" is still false, and I am still willing to believe Serge when he says so. But I see why others are not; and I am very tired of hearing the same voice pushing the same arguments. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Thank you. I'm sorry for tiring you. That is not my intent. But, seriously, when A suggests X, and B says there is insufficient evidence that X is supported, why is it not appropriate for A to start a poll to find out if indeed X is supported or not? After all, the results of Tariq's proposal certainly indicated that there is strong support to change the guideline. The issue is whether the current guideline is "in dispute". I also suggest that those who support the guideline and deny that it is in dispute in the face of, well, years of substantial dispute about the guideline, perhaps are not acting in good faith. Perhaps (and I realize that is not your position, Septentrionalis - that you are simply arguing that, regardless of the merits, this is not a productive move). --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :: I think it was suggested earlier that the ''discussion itself'' become structured in some way. This going around in circles will lead to nothing and makes it easy to miss the point - even when it is convenient to do so - resulting in even more circles and polls. Just what are we discussing here? [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 19:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:The problem of not being sure about what we're discussing here is exactly what I'm trying to address by suggesting we put a "guideline in dispute" notice on the guideline. Then the problem would be clear: ''the guideline is in dispute'', and the goal would be clear: ''find wording for which there is consensus support''. Otherwise, we'll just keep going in circles, I'm afraid, because the ''status quo'' defenders have no incentive to seriously work towards a guideline for which there is consensus. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::The impression Serge is giving, however, (and although it be false and unintentional, it is quite clear) is that he is looking for a dispute tag in order to justify massive moves away from [[City, State]], a position for which there is no consensus. A corollary of [[WP:AGF]] is "see yourself as others see you." [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::"Massive moves away from [[City, State]]" is indeed the way ''I'' would like to see the dispute resolved (there is no secret there!), but is hardly the only way for the dispute to be resolved, nor does it diminish in any way the reality of the fact that the guideline ''is'' in dispute. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Serge, the only reason it is in dispute is because you keep claiming it is in dispute and engaging in trolling and a war of [[attrition]]; as a lawyer, I recognize the tactic because I see opposing counsel doing that all the time! If you had ''any'' formal training in psychology, computer science, formal logic, geography (by which I mean the social science), or GIS you would concede that the "city, state" convention is a superior addressing format in the context of federal entities like the United States. By the way, this is the third or fourth time I have raised this issue and you have never answered my challenge on the merits, which reinforces my suspicion ''that'' you cannot repudiate it because you ''truly'' have no such training. Full disclosure: I have completed college-level courses in formal logic, geography, psychology and computer science (although my undergraduate major was history). --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 05:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::1) I don't recall you asking me this before, but may have ignored it as being irrelevant (I expect arguments to me evaluated at face value, whether I'm making them or evaluating them - who is making them or what their background is is irrelevant to me). 2) But if this is so important to you, I have a B.S. in computer engineering, the requirements for which were a superset of the computer science degree. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there certainly is a lack of clear statements of intentions here. Myself, after being involved in a naming dispute elsewhere, began looking at how other places are named, and found the "placename" comma disambiguation and found it to be segregative (and even illogical) exception in regard to the rest of the Wiki media; I'm vying for a single disambiguation scheme that can be recognised as such ''anywhere in Wiki'' - that's it. Perhaps I shouldn't even be bringing this here.

Serge, on the other hand, is arguing much in the way of those defending the city, state disambiguation - creating any and every argument (strong, weak, or irrelevent) possible to "back that cause". Unfortunately any cause here has to be founded, not through circumstance, habit or opinion, but on the discovery of an improvement or technique that will be (and can be proven to be) a general benefit to the media that is Wiki. I think the "social" in the matter is weighing in a little heavy here, and the general lack of coherence in "for and against" arguments has obliged all parties to draw a line somewhere - which is not at all beneficial to any ''reasonable'' discussion. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 01:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:I was only tangentially involved in the debate; I'm not an American and not an native English speaker, and my interests were mostly related with my opinion that I hold the current convention contradictory with the global policy and illogical to most people outside of US. To put it simply, I find those article titles '''ugly'''. Thus, I happen to share (a part of) Serge's opinion. However, I completely endorse your analysis: Serge's zeal and methods of throwing (sometimes valid, sometimes not) arguments everywhere and scheduling polls every while were for by and large counterproductive. I think that John K's "AP list" and subsequent Tariq's proposal, which triggered this entire debate, had a good chance to succeed, and made many people happy (myself included—I don't really care whether [[Foobar Creek]] is at [[Foobar Creek, South Dakota]], but [[Los Angeles, California]] hurts my eyes and my pedantry regarding [[WP:NC]]) but were largely spoiled by Serge's actions, as the opponents came piling in just out of spite and being annoyed. Maybe this is turning into an informal RfC of a kind, but then, maybe we should fill a RfC on Serge and limit the audience only to those who oppose the ''City, State'' convention {{smiley}}. Being right doesn't entitle you to be <s>dick</s> dense. And I'm really trying to say that out of good faith (and assuming Serge's good faith). [[User:Duja|Duja]]<span style="font-size:70%;">[[User talk:Duja|►]]</span> 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

==A weighing of advantages and disadvantages==

We are not establishing an "addressing convention"; we are establishing a ''naming'' convention. The existing project-wide naming convention is sufficient to provide unambiguous names for every article about a U.S. city. The establishment of specialized naming conventions that ''contradict rather than clarify'' the project-wide naming conventions adds complexity to the article namespace, making ''in general'' the process of deciding or guessing (depending on whether you are writing or browsing) the canonical name of an article more complicated and difficult.

If we didn't have the current convention for U.S. cities, then the process for determining the name of an article would be (in simplified schematic) as follows: (1) Determine what the name of the article would be. (2) If that name is ambiguous, use a more specific name that is not ambiguous. With the current naming convention the process is more complicated: (1) Determine what the simplest name of the article would be. (2) If that name is ambiguous, use a more specific name that is not ambiguous. (3) Unless this the topic is a U.S. city, in which case ignore step (2), and instead add a comma and the name of the state the city is in if you don't have that already.

On its face, the current naming convention '''adds''' complexity to Wikipedia—3 steps is more complicated than 2. I hope we all agree that ''in general'' we want to eliminate unnecessary complexity, but that we allow the addition of complexity to the system of policies and conventions when adding that complexity furthers the overall goals of Wikipedia. Furthermore, I hope we can agree that ''in general'' when we add complexity to the system, the complex additions "fill in gaps" in the policies and conventions where there was no guidance previously rather than "contradict" higher-level policies.

Given all that, what we have with the existing convention for U.S. cities is a policy that not only '''adds complexity''' but the complexity it adds '''contradicts higher-level policy'''. So, of the two general principles of policy-building on Wikipedia, ''avoid needless complexity'', and ''don't add specific policies that contradict general ones'', the policy in question violates both of them. Now, given even all of that I am not (yet) claiming that the existing policy is unacceptable; I am only trying to establish that an apologia for the current policy has a long uphill battle to justify itself. That is to say, even if we provide a list of strong advantages for the existing convention for the policy, those advantages have to be weighed against the strong built-in disadvantages for the policy, and that the decision for whether or not we should keep the policy has to weighed carefully. I '''don't''' think that simplistic delineations of the advantages of the existing policy are sufficient to justify it, not matter how long the list of fabulous advantages gained by establishing this policy. We have to establish that those advantages are sufficiently great to outweigh the disadvantages.

So the question finally comes to a weighing of relative advantages and disadvantages, and I think that the long-term dispute here is a result of the fact that it is difficult to provide concrete evidence that a set of advantages sufficiently outweighs a tightly bound set of disadvantages. So, in conclusion, I don't think there is any way that this seemingly endless discussion will ever come to a reasonable end which everyone can be happy with '''unless''' a concrete way to measure and compare the advantages and disadvantages can be devised.

Although I have not read all of the recent discussion on this topic, I have yet to see a detailed explanation for ''why'' this policy, despite its major flaws, is still desirable. ''How'', exactly, do the advantages outweigh the substantial disadvantages? By what measure? And why is that measure the best measure? Until all these questions are answered in a reasonable way, I don't see how I can justify supporting the existing convention. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 09:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Quick responses to Nohat. 1) It is a matter of opinion whether the city naming convetion '''contradicts''' higher-level policy. I don't see it that way at all and I think many others who have participated in these discussion agree. That policy iteslf specifically allows for exceptions such as this more specific naming convention. The iron-clad, no-exceptions interpretation may be somewhat at odds with wiki practices overall (e.g., IAR), but the basic naming convention is simply a stylistic choice of naming which happens to also disambiguate. 2) the added complexity you describe is hypothetical at best. All incorporated U.S. municipalities as of the 2000 census already exist. What are being added now are mostly city neighborhoods and unincorporated communities, which arguably don't fall under this naming convention (I don't think neighborhoods should be named as "neighbohood, city, state", since almost no one commonly refers to them in that way -- and similarly, the three-level form with the county name inserted as disambiguator is similarly a relatively uncommon form). Quite contrary to your take on the matter, I think that comletely abandoning the convention as some advocate would result in additional confusion and complexity. Looking at how cities are named in other countries which do not have a strong naming convention, there is a confusing array of practices -- sometimes "place, state/province" sometimes "place, country" sometimes "place (state)", sometimes "place (country" and sometimes other variants as well. For U.S. cities, there is a simple consistent (mostly) convention. Easy to learn, easy to use. I haven't seen any good argument for abandoning it. Tweaking, perhaps -- but much of the churning on this page comes from the apparently resolute determination of some individuals to undermine the convention at every opportunity, along with a resultant entrenchment of those wary of the possibility of opening the door to any changes, even the most modest, is just the [[camel's nose]] coming in under the tent. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 13:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::I don't really see how the relationship between the general policy of "disambiguate only when necessary" and the U.S. city-specific policy of "always disambiguate" could be described as anything but contradictory. Of course, Wikipedia has many rules, including IAR, and I'm not saying that it's not OK to have contradictory policies, just that these policies '''do''' contradict, and contradiction in policies generally bad, but if we're going to have a contradiction in policy, the advantages should outweigh the disadvantages. Making the argument that they don't in fact contradict seems intellectually dishonest.

::The argument about how the existing policy is consistent and easy to remember is also somewhat dishonest, because while there are some 30,000 U.S. cities there are some 1.5 million articles which are not U.S. cities and generally use the disambiguation convention of ''disambiguate only when necessary''. Why does there need to be a special, contradictory convention for just 2% of the whole namespace? Lots of large sets of articles have similar characteristics to U.S. cities but don't have a disambiguation policy that contradicts the ''disambiguate only when necessary'' policy. What is inherently special about U.S. cities that is different from, say, Indian cities or Hindu gods, that they ''should'' have preemptive disambiguation but those other things should not? And, critically, why is this specialness sufficient to overcome the inherent disadvantage of instituting a policy that (1) adds complexity and (2) contradicts general policy?

::Bkonrad, your reply, which I think essentially amounts to "well the disadvantage you point out is not really that big, so the advantages outweigh the disadvantages" isn't quantatative, so isn't really a satisfactory answer. Argument '''for''' the existing convention should ''quantify'' the advantage/disadvantage balance, not make vague claims about it.

::Furthermore, the "facts on the ground" that Ram-Bot made nearly all of the articles in question comply with the disputed policy does not form a valid argument for it, so please spare us the "it has been this way for a long time and hasn't caused any problems so it should stay that way" argument, including things like "I haven't seen any good reason for abandoning it", which presupposes that the policy was ''ever'' established by consensus, which it was not. Operate under no illusions that this policy has ever borne the weight of legitimate establishment by consensus. Fundamentally, this is a disputed ''proposed'' policy whose advocates have yet to establish consensus even though they have implemented the policy by brute force. The ''fact'' of this implementation does not comprise a consensus. This policy has been in dispute since 2004, when it was revealed that it was originally introduced without any real consensus, and its legitimacy and its value has been continually called into question since then.

::The only way we will ever establish consensus on this matter is by first being honest about the provenance of the existing policy, then deciding whether this policy should be legitimately established by taking stock of the advantages and disadvantages and quantifying them, in order to provide a rational analysis. In the absence of any such quantified evidence-based rationale, I can't justify the legitimate establishment of this convention, which contradicts the project-wide convention of ''disambiguate only when necessary''. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Thank you for the long answer about why this guideline should be marked "in dispute". --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 18:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:: The provenance of the existing convention couldn't be clearer: it is common use among US citizens. Nothing more complicated than that. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::: No, the provenance of the existing convention is that it was unilaterally decided upon by Ram-Man and implemented by brute force fiat by creating all the articles using that convention. Only when the convention was added to the naming conventions page was it disputed, and it has been continuously disputed since then. There has never been consensus for the existing convention. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 21:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Nohat, with respect, the convention had been discussed and was in place before Ram-Man added most of the place name articles (he may have experimented a bit with his personal account, but did not use Rambot to add the bulk of the articles until some months after the convention was in place -- and while it was not without dissenters at the time, your description ''that it was unilaterally decided upon by Ram-Man and implemented by brute force fiat'' is inaccurate and misleading. It was discussed by several prominent contributors which at that time, and there was general, though not unanimous, agreement about. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::As far as I can tell, there was one poll, in which 4 people participated, three of whom voted for the existing policy and one against, and the amount of consensus and general agreement only went down after that. Ram-Man created all the articles before a clear consensus emerged. Indeed a clear consensus has still not emerged, some 3 years on. The ''facts on the ground'' should not be guiding policy decisions. What should be guiding policy decisions should be deciding ''and agreeing'' upon what the best policy ''would be'' when we have a policy that is supported by consensus. The existing policy has ''always'' been disputed, and the universality of its applicability has been chipped away at over time, as I see now that Chicago and Philadelphia have been added to the exception list along with New York City. Mark my words: in the fullness of time the foolishness of mandatory disambiguation for a certain class of articles but only-when-necessary disambiguation for all others will become apparent. '''Pre-emptive disambiguation has been and always will be a bad idea.''' [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 22:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Why? Pre-emptive disambiguation makes it much easier to link to articles. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 00:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::[[Wikipedia:Disambiguation]] says "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate", and Wikipedia's editorial policies are designed to be maximally convenient for readers, so arguments for a policy which conveniences editors are not applicable. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 00:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Re: Bcat ==

Yeah, well. If the existing convention ''wasn't'' founded on an existing and well-founded (local US) practice, there would be little motivation for imposing it in the stead of an already-existing and dominant Wiki disambiguation - parentheses. Go figure. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't think I would have the time to undertake any substantial bureaucrat work, at this point. I'd probably consider running if there were a real emergency due to lack of bureaucrats; but as long as there are enough to keep things rolling, I don't really feel justified in running just to give myself another title. ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 14:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

:Let's not confuse the issue here--the question is whether we should always disambiguate, not how to disambiguate once we decide we need to disambiguate. The comma convention is absolutely the correct way to disambiguate U.S. city names. We just don't always ''need'' to disambiguate, and the policy of always disambiguating U.S. city names with the state name regardless of whether the city's name is actually ambiguous is not a policy which is supported by consensus. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 00:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Regarding removing barnstar1 ==

:Just to clarify, the parenthesis style of disambiguation was invented to disambiguate two names ''for which there is no other existing way to disambiguate them''. In the case of U.S. cities, there is an existing way to disambiguate ambiguous names, so we use that. I think that recent movements towards using parenthesis disambiguation even when there is already a different precedent for disambiguation are misguided. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like say that I am not [[Djmckee1]], i was suprised to get that barnstar and I thank [[Djmckee1]] for it. I hope this clear things with you and [[Bloddyfriday]]. Thank You [[User:Ambirch1|Ambirch1]] 15:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:: I'm only speaking of one issue in my statement - the fundements of the convention itself. I am in total agreement with you - there is no need to disambiguate when it is not neccessary. Discussion should be around what ''is'' a necessary level of disambuguation, and how to do it coherently in tandem with every other practice in use in the media we are publishing in. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== Image:Bhumibol_AdulyadejRamaIX.jpg listed for deletion ==

:::I think the question of when disambiguation is necessary is an easy one to answer--are there collisions in the article namespace? If yes, then disambiguation is necessary; if no, then disambiguation is not necessary. Collisions only count for disambiguation if the articles ''actually exist''. If it doesn't exist, and the argument for disambiguation is that someday such an article might exist, then that is not sufficient to demand disambiguation. If that article does come into existence, then the existing article can be renamed. This is a very easy process. There is no advantage to preemptive disambiguation on the expectation that the article title will one day be ambiguous. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 01:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, [[:Image:Bhumibol_AdulyadejRamaIX.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 10#Image:Bhumibol_AdulyadejRamaIX.jpg|Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion]]. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ''[[User:Abu badali|Abu badali]] ^{([[User_talk:Abu badali|talk]])}'' 18:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC) <!-- Template:Idw -->

== Image:RopeBridgeOurChalet.jpg ==

::::There are two or three issues that need to be ''spelled out'' in this discussion:

Thanks for uploading '''[[:Image:RopeBridgeOurChalet.jpg]]'''. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]], but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our [[Wikipedia:Fair use criteria|first fair use criterion]] in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

::::#''What'' is the right "level of disambiguation" in Promenader's terms. For example, a no-exceptions comma-delimited system that ''requires'' the state would be one way. (I am not arguing for or against this example.) I believe that some would call this a "style" instead of a disambiguation scheme.

::::#''When'' to disambiguate: Do we use pre-emptive disambiguation? I think this is just another "flavor" of the "level of disambiguation" issue--or perhaps that's the other way around.

::::#''How'' to disambiguate: Do we use parentheses, commas, or another (as yet unapproved) method?

::::I think the discussion could be helped if each response would call out (or "signpost") which issue we're talking about. There's a tendency to talk past one another as we get tangled up in the separate issues. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 01:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

# Go to [[:Image:RopeBridgeOurChalet.jpg|the image description page]] and edit it to add <code><nowiki>{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}</nowiki></code>, '''without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template'''.

:::::Well, there is disambiguation and there is providing context. Adding the state name when a city's name is not ambiguous, it is just ''providing context'' to that name. Any "level of disambiguation" or "style of disambiguation" that is not "disambiguate only when a name is ambiguous" is not really disambiguating but is doing something else--providing context or putting additional semantic information in the article title.

# On [[Image talk:RopeBridgeOurChalet.jpg|the image discussion page]], write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, [[Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission|requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license]], or by taking a picture of it yourself.

:::::The problem with naming conventions that "provide context" is that there is no other precedent for providing context in article titles. We use categories to indicate which set of articles an article is in, not by putting stuff in the article title. The only exception to this rule at present, is that in the case of U.S. cities we put the state name in the article title.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|target={{PAGENAMEE}}&amp;namespace=6}} this link]</span>. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Replaceable --> ''[[User:Abu badali|Abu badali]] ^{([[User_talk:Abu badali|talk]])}'' 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::To summarize, there are not "levels of disambiguation": there is disambiguation, and there is putting extra information in the article title so that they match the titles which are disambiguated. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 01:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

==Unspecified source for [[:Image:Jamboree_1999-Czech_Camp.jpg]]==

::: (edit conflict) Again I agree, but what remains to be discussed is the ''risk level'' of a namespace's eventual ambiguity - I think that if a majority of the world's cities shared the same name, some sort of (recognisable) pre-disambiguation would be the norm - but this is not the case, and each country seems to have its own form of dismbiguation differing from the next.

Thanks for uploading '''[[:Image:Jamboree_1999-Czech_Camp.jpg]]'''. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the [[copyright]] status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

::: I was persuaded that ''streets'' may need some sort of pre-disambiguation, but I have reservations even with that now. Anyhow, if some sort of pre-disamguation for a such case ''were'' the norm here, it would have to be cross-board in order to be recognisable to all wiki readers, no matter where they're reading in the site. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{tl|GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the [[GFDL]]. If you believe the media meets the criteria at [[Wikipedia:Fair use]], use a tag such as {{tlp|fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use]]. See [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags]] for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

== Is anything broken? ==

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=upload&user={{PAGENAMEE}}}} this link]. '''Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged''', as described on [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If the image is copyrighted under a [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use|non-free license]] (per [[Wikipedia:Fair use]]) then '''the image will be deleted [[WP:CSD#I7|48 hours]] after 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)'''. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you. ''[[User:Abu badali|Abu badali]] ^{([[User_talk:Abu badali|talk]])}'' 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's try going back to a basic question. What, if anything is broken with the current city, state guideline for US cities? I'm asking about why it does not work and not if it complies with all of the guidelines. All of the guidelines allow some type of variations. So the basic question for making a change is to determine what, if anything, is broken so that you know what it is that you are trying to fix. If something is broken you fix it. If nothing is broken you leave it alone. If there are some issues you tweek it. Identify the problem and not the solutions. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Image:Arthur_Eldred1912.jpg listed for deletion ==

:What's broken is that the policy was implemented by fiat without consensus and both its usefulness and legitimacy have been questioned and disputed for over 2 years. What's broken is that a policy was implemented without consensus and there continues to be no consensus for the implementation of that policy. The ''solution'' is to come to a consensus about what the policy should be. The ''mere fact'' that the policy was implemented by Ram-Man does not justify or provide rationale for the policy, so the argument that "it's not broken--there is nothing to fix" doesn't provide a legitimate response to the argument that the policy was never legitimately introduced and implemented in the first place. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 20:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, [[:Image:Arthur_Eldred1912.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 10#Image:Arthur_Eldred1912.jpg|Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion]]. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ''[[User:Abu badali|Abu badali]] ^{([[User_talk:Abu badali|talk]])}'' 19:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC) <!-- Template:Idw -->

::Those are ''proceedural'' objections, which cannot now be amended save perhaps by apologies from editors around in 2004; I wasn't. What are your substantive objections, which may perhaps inspire a consensus to change in the direction you want? [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Regading Removing Barnstar 2 ==

:::I hope it's not presumptuous of me to note that Nohat addressed this point in an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28settlements%29&diff=92265177&oldid=92259403 earlier reply]:

::::''this convention... contradicts the project-wide convention of ''disambiguate only when necessary''.''

:::--[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 20:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::But that is not saying it is broken. Guidelines can be changed or you can have exceptions when they make sense. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I Think that [[User:Djmckee1|Djmckee1]] may of accidently given me that barnstar. Yes I am a very good friend of him, but I am 100% sure that the barnstar was not for me. A mistake that can corrected very easily. Thank You [[User:Ambirch1|Ambirch1]] 07:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::It's '''broken''' because it was not established by consensus and it contradicts the policies that were. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S: Congratulations on becoming an administrator! Good Luck [[User:Ambirch1|Ambirch1]] 07:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::The policy as it exists now is '''illegitimate''' because it was not established by consensus, and either a consensus should be developed to support the existing policy, or the policy should be changed to reflect that true state of consensus. As it exists now, the policy does not reflect the consensus (or lack thereof). The naming conventions page did (for a while, at least) explain that the current U.S. city naming policy is contested, and even though that comment has been changed over time, the lack of consensus underlying the comment remains. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::Once again, your assertion that there is a contradiction is opinion. Yes, there is some conflict, though the general guideline specifically allows for exceptions such as this convention. If anything the rigidity with which this convention is enforced is more a point of contention than the basic convention itself. Your claim that the convention is '''illegitimate''' is also misleading and nothing more than your opinion (and perhaps shared by a few others). The convention was discussed BEFORE the majority of articles were created and there was general, though not unanimous, support for the convention.

::::::Confounding matters, there are two issues that keep getting conflated here, first, the very use of commas as part of the article name is contested and second, whether using the city,state format uniformly for all U.S. cities is unnecessary preemptive disambiguation. IMO, the first issue is a non-starter. Usage of city, state is well-established English language usage. The second issue, I believe, is where most of the objections arise, and where many have shown at least some support for allowing a more flexible interpretation of the convention. A somewhat tangential issue, the comma convention is not really appropriate, IMO, for neighborhoods within cities. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== userbox ==

:::::::I agree that using commas to disambiguate U.S. cities is exactly the right way to do it. You will not get an argument from me on that account. Parenthesis disambiguation should only be used if there is not already some other existing way to disambiguate a name. I think the recent change of all the programming language titles from e.g. [[C programming language]] to [[C (programming language)]] was a bad idea because there was nothing wrong with the former, and the latter is longer and needlessly complicated.

Dear Rlevse, Would you like any userboxes made for WikiProject Scouting,[[User:Djmckee1|Djmckee1]] 08:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I also agree that the comma convention should not apply to neighborhoods, nor do I think it is appropriate for multiple cities in the same state with the same name. The examples really ought to be [[Elgin, South Carolina (Lancaster County)]] and [[Elgin, South Carolina (Kershaw County)]].

:Well, if we need one, sure. But I don't know of any people are looking for at this time. Did you have one in mind? [[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

== Brownsea 22 ==

:::::::I don't understand why my claim that it contradicts the general policy is contestable. Of course there are policies that say that exceptions are allowed. And the U.S. city convention ''is'' an exception, and what makes it an exception is it contradicts the general policy. The question, as I have been trying to explain, is whether the contradiction is justifiable given a fair weighing of the advantages and disadvantages.

Rlevse, According to a training camp I attended as a youth; the original Brownsea trip Lord <br />Baden-Powell did, he did it with 22 boys. Thus the training camp is referred to as <br />`Brownsea 22'. I wanted to add "with 22 boys" to the Brownsea reference, but couldn't <br />without proper sources. Do you have any back-up on this? Or is it a myth?<br />I too am a Eagle Scout, any help I can render, please call on me.<br /> <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Dnajenks|Dnajenks]] ([[User talk:Dnajenks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dnajenks|contribs]]) 17:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:::::::As for the legitimacy of the policy, call it whatever you like, but the policy has been loudly and continuously opposed for years now, and there has never been a consensus supporting the policy (except for possibly a short time when 3 of 4 editors voted in a poll supporting the convention). I don't know what your definition of ''illegitimate policy is'', but mine would be something like "a policy that does not have consensus but is implemented anyway", which describes exactly the state of the comma convention for U.S. cities. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 23:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Afraid I don't have a ref, I have not heard this before.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 18:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::A working guideline, arrived at by questionable means, still works. Why doesn't this work? If it does work, the remedy for "illegitimacy" is to complain to ArbCom about its adulterine parents, not here.

== GA reviewing ==

:::::::::It doesn't contradict the general convention; it modifies it, like [[Wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles)]]. To almost everyone, Serge standing out, [[Portland, Oregon]] is English usage; what harm is there in using [[Matawan, New Jersey]]?. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 00:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rlevse. Do you mind taking time reviewing my [[CIA|new proposed-GA article]]? The article belongs to '''Government Agencies''' and now it stands alone in that section. You can be assured that there're no long-queuing candidates, except for mine. Thanks forward. '''[[User:Appleworm|<font color="red">A</font>]][[User talk:Appleworm|''<font color= "green">W</font>'']]''' 16:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::No one questions whether the convention is functional. It obviously ''functions''. It just doesn't enjoy consensus support, and never has. That is why it should be changed, not because it somehow fails to provide names for articles about U.S. cities. The "harm" is that [[Matawan]] would be the name that is supported by the disambiguation policy ''Disambiguate only when necessary''. Unless sufficient advantage can be demonstrated to outweigh the disadvantage of having contradictory policies (or policies that "modify" the general convention, whatever you want to call it), and a consensus develops around the existing policy, then the policy should be changed to reflect the true state of consensus. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 00:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:I've already fixed the refs and found all needed citations. What's the next step? '''[[User:Appleworm|<font color="red">A</font>]][[User talk:Appleworm|''<font color= "green">W</font>'']]''' 14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

::Hi. I'm trying to improve the article as you suggested. However, I still don't understand some points. Can you explain more clearly about the order of heraldry items? And if Guatemala section needs a summary about its main article, so should Iran need, too? If such, the article will become longer. About "Further information: CIA and the war on terror (This article)", I think it originally means more information would be shown in the section "CIA and the war on terror" in the article itself. However, if it doesn't make sense, I have no problem removing it. '''[[User:Appleworm|<font color="red">A</font>]][[User talk:Appleworm|''<font color= "green">W</font>'']]''' 02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:::You list the heraldy as a/b/c but describe them in a/c/b order. Yes, Iran too, but it's not so long that you HAVE to shorten it, just don't add too much. Yes, rm "this article". [[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 02:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::::But I don't know what problems with the code.:( '''[[User:Appleworm|<font color="red">A</font>]][[User talk:Appleworm|''<font color= "green">W</font>'']]''' 02:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::I don't get the question.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 02:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::I mean I don't know why, maybe because of wrong coded. Also, what about [[User:Appleworm/My subpages/Sandbox|this]]? '''[[User:Appleworm|<font color="red">A</font>]][[User talk:Appleworm|''<font color= "green">W</font>'']]''' 09:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I fixed the heraldry for you. For Whitlock, you could mention it.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 11:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

*Two things: a) the lead doesn't summarize the article. It should summarize each major subsection but you have it just providing background info, it needs an overhaul. b) how did you come to ask me to help? I don't recall crossing paths with you before.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 11:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks a lot for fixing the heraldry thingy. What a relief, I'm very tired of fixing refs. a) About the lead section, I think it's fairly clear and extensive. It mentions all the fundamental functions of the CIA. If I summarize major sections, I'm afraid it'll become too long. However, it's just my subjective idea and I'll try to rewrite the lead again because you're a much more experienced editor. b) I checked through the GA reviewers participants list and I randomly chose your name. And my choice is completely accurate. Before nominating the article, I think my work is nearly perfect but then you "crucially" point out a bunch of mistakes. Your "evil eyes" scare me off, Mr. Eight-Features. '''[[User:Appleworm|<font color="red">A</font>]][[User talk:Appleworm|''<font color= "green">W</font>'']]''' 13:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

==AIV ==

:::::::::::I am somewhat in agreement with you here, but there is an interesting point that Septentrionalis brought up that you sort of talked around. With exceptions of the major cities (e.g., San Francisco, Miami, etc.), most U.S. municipalities are known by their qualified title, ''except locally''. I don't think you will find too many non-local references to Lansing, Michigan or Santa Rosa, California that don't qualify the names at the top. My argument against that point is that this is generally true for all topics, where the reference to the topic may not already be known to the audience. You will see Kobe referred to as Kobe, Japan, and you will see C. Everett Koop referred to C. Everett Koop referred to as "Surgeon General C. Everett Koop" or "C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General of the United States", etc. But this is by no means a bullet-proof argument. [[User:Jun-Dai|Jun-Dai]] 02:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded. Edit conflict twice. I think things were cleared up, and the username can be removed and not blocked.--[[Special:Contributions/U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.|U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.]] '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new (talk)]''' 01:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

==Your question==

:::::::::::<-- Undenting

I agree with you on Wikimongers disposition. Seems another admin agreed as well &mdash; issuing an indefinite block for posting the password. &mdash; [[User:{{{User|ERcheck}}}|{{{User|ERcheck}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{User|ERcheck}}}|talk]]) 01:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand this argument, but I think it is invalid. This argument is essentially that some places are not well known, so the canonical expression of their name should include some kind of contextualizing categorical information, so as to provide an explicit context when faced with a link to the article without an obvious implicit context (and honest, how often does that happen?). But article names are not grab-bags of information that include name ''and'' context. They are the titles of the subjects of the articles. Many of the kajillion topics in Wikipedia are exceedingly obscure and not well-known, like, say, the entries in [[:Category:Hindu gods]] or [[: Category:Non-Japanese baseball players in Japan]]. The entries in these categories do not have contextualizing markers in their titles, even though I imagine that relative few people know who [[Hanuman]] or [[Don Blasingame]] are. The reality is that if a topic is notable enough to have its own article in Wikipedia, then it is ''prima facie'' notable enough to stand alone on its name without the need of a crutch of contextualization in the title. Now, I bet there are a lot more people who know what [[Scarsdale]] is than who know who [[Don Blasingame]] is, so if Don's article dosn't need to be called [[Don Blasingame (non-Japanese baseball player in Japan]], then [[Scarsdale]] doesn't need to be called [[Scarsdale, New York]]. So, I don't think the argument that obscure cities need contextualization ''in their titles'' is a valid one. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:It is not only about providing context. For many of these places, the "city, state" form is arguably as common a name as the simple name. There is nothing at all odd about referring them by such common names. The convention may have overreached by codifying the preemptive disambiguation aspects too rigidly. But as a matter of stylistic convention, there is good reason to use "city, state" as the default canonical form for the majority of the articles, regardless of uniqueness. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 04:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::: '''''...there is good reason to use "city, state" as the default canonical form'''''

:: And what is that ''reason'' ? [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 16:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::This is an interesting point, so I want to respond to this. [[User:Jun-Dai|Jun-Dai]] writes, "With exceptions of the major cities (e.g., San Francisco, Miami, etc.), most U.S. municipalities are known by their qualified title, ''except locally''. " Imagine a magic map of the entire United States where you can point to any city, and an infinitesimally little light will glow at every ___location where the name of that city was referenced in the last 24 hours. I contend that the vast majority of such lights will be clustered around each city. The point is, the vast majority of most references to most cities ''are'' local, and that's the "common name" that should be reflected in our titles. Bkonrad asserts that, ''For many of these places, the "city, state" form is arguably as common a name as the simple name.'' Perhaps, but only outside of the area. Where the vast majority of references to each city are made, within its locality, this is not the case at all. Not even for small towns with blatant disambiguity issues like [[Paris (Texas)]] or [[Moscow (Idaho)]]. Most references to those cities are still [[Paris (Texas)|Paris]] and [[Moscow (Idaho)|Moscow]] respectively. It is also true that for [[San Francisco]] "Frisco" is a common name, ''outside of California''. But the fact that "Frisco" is commonly used to refer to San Francisco outside of the area does not make "Frisco" a viable candidate for being the title of the article, ''because, despite it being a common reference to the city by outsiders, that is not how it is most commonly referred to '''locally'''''. Similarly, [[San Francisco, California]] should not be the title either, ''for the same reason'' "Frisco" should not be the title: ''because, despite it being a common reference to the city by outsiders, that is not how it is most commonly referred to '''locally'''''. How a city is referred to most often is how it is referred to most often ''locally''. To write that off as a "except locally" exception, as if that makes it irrelevant to the issue of how to name the article, is getting it backwards. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Sorry, but I think this is missing the point. What a place is known as by locals is not especially relevant for determining how to title the article in an encyclopedia. For example, by analogy, most people in local proximity to a person will refer to that person by their first name (or by a familiar name). But obviously we would not want to use that as the article title, even if the name is unique (unless of course the person is widely known by only that name, e.g., [[Pelé ]]). "Paris, Texas" is a widely used and familiar way to refer to that place. I don't think there is anything at all odd about a convention in which an alternate common name is specified as the preferred form as a matter of stylistic consistency as well as happily also disambiguating the name. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

==Armisticeusername==

Hi, you have blocked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Muhahahahaha this user] for having an inappropriete username, as well as leaving the {{Tl|Usernameblocked}} on their talk page, but also used the Account Creation Block feature;which means this user won't be able to create a new account. If there are other reasons besides the username, such as the account being a sockpuppet, a troll, or a vandal, then I the ACB would probroly be justified, I think. I just wasn't aware of anything other than the name being the reason.--[[Special:Contributions/U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.|U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.]] '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new (talk)]''' 02:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Serge has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pmanderson&diff=92270606&oldid=92167294 agreed] to my suggestion, in general terms, that he back off, and let things cool down. (Repeated from above; but I think this deserves its own section.) [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Yep, I forgot to take the auto block off. I'll go fix it. [[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 02:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--[[Special:Contributions/U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.|U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.]] '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new (talk)]''' 03:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

== Does any country specific naming convention violate policy? ==

== Honoring Texas Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients ==

The policy as [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions|stated]] in a nutshell; ''Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.'' [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 21:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As a major contributor to the FA [[Medal of Honor]], I thought you might be interested in this local effort to honor Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients from Texas:

:The policy that is being violated is the policy on [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation]], which says: ''When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate''. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

*{{cite news|accessdate=2007-04-13

::Only if you assume that the convention is in place for disambiguation rather then selecting ''what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

|url=http://www.hcnonline.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18209226&BRD=1574&PAG=461&dept_id=541543&rfi=6

|title=Marines take on monumental assignment, Spearhead Medal of Honor monument

|author=Melvin, Joshua

|date=[[April 11]], [[2007]]

|work=Greater Houston Weekly

|id=Volume 4, Number 15

|page=page 1AA}}

&mdash; [[User:{{{User|ERcheck}}}|{{{User|ERcheck}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{User|ERcheck}}}|talk]]) 04:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::Very interesting, thanks.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 11:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

==Your decision on [[User:Psantora]]'s 3RR violation==

:::It is not an assumption that the convention was implemented for disambiguation. It is an historical fact. The comma convention supporters have tried to cover this up by changing their argument and the wording over time, but the fact is that the comma convention was first introduced to Wikipedia for disambiguation. Indeed the comma convention was invented by the postal service as a ''system of disambiguation'' to aid in sorting mail. The comma convention is tightly married to the concept of disambiguation and has been since it was first invented.

Hi there, I question your decision on my report on [[User:Psantora]]'s violation of 3RR. There is no such a rule that if someone violated 3RR 2 weeks ago, he shouldn't be blocked for violation. I was unable to report him because of the block imposed on me by his report. More importantly, he hasn't realized he had violated 3RR. He needs to blocked to prevent him from further violation in the future. [[User:Miaers|Miaers]] 14:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:"More importantly, he hasn't realized he had violated 3RR." You admit you never gave him a warning? You miss the whole point of 3RR, to stop edit wars. If he is continuing, submit a new report.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

He warned me first. He is more aware of this rule than me. I think the rule is the rule. And anyone should be the same before the rule. What I mean is that he doesn't admit his violation even after the warning, I discussed with him on my talk page during my block. [[User:Miaers|Miaers]] 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

== Comments ==

:::The majority of English speakers most easily recognize the '''names''' of '''places''', not an arbitrary addressing format that includes an additional level of administrative subdivision. People use the comma convention when ''addressing'', not when naming. Here we are naming, not addressing, so we should only disambiguate when a name is ambiguous. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 22:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Got your note. I'm taking a look. Check your e-mail in about an hour. &mdash; [[User:{{{User|ERcheck}}}|{{{User|ERcheck}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{User|ERcheck}}}|talk]]) 20:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

:Sent you a note. &mdash; [[User:{{{User|ERcheck}}}|{{{User|ERcheck}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{User|ERcheck}}}|talk]]) 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

== Redundant report ==

This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=122751375 3RR report] was filed AFTER User:Iranzulqarnain had already been blocked for the same 3RR violation, so you essentially re-blocked that user for the same 3RR violation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Iranzulqarnain], I don't think that's fair. The user in question is a newbie with 7 edits overall and is not yet familiar with any Wiki rules [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Iranzulqarnain]. There's a lot of newbie biting going on - which makes the newbie bite back. --[[User:Mardavich|Mardavich]] 01:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:thanks for noticing that. I unblocked him.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 01:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

== User:Calobster ==

:::Besides, in many cases ("New York, New York" being a prominent example) the area denoted by a postal service boundary implied by using the comma convention does not coincide with the administrative boundary of the municipal authority. By adopting the postal service's system, we also by implication adopt the postal service's boundaries, which in some cases are ''wrong''. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my wrongly place tag on the above page. I was working fast but not well. --[[User:Stormbay|Stormbay]] 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

::This isn't just about disambiguation, it's also a style issue. [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#General rules]] now says:

::*''The primary goal of this naming convention is to achieve consistency within each country. It does not necessarily achieve complete consistency across countries. Hence the remainder of the page is divided into specific guidelines for individual countries where required.''

::I think that's a pragmatic approach. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Raul ==

:::That is a badly written explanation. The purpose of a specific naming convention is to clarify the general naming convention so that frequently-occurring cases of unclarity in what a name should be can be clarified. Specific naming conventions should '''not''' be used to contradict general naming conventions, and whenever they have, it has always been (rightly) met with vociferous opposition. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 22:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Raul's 6th edit and talk page edits show at least borderline incivilty, which could be interpreted poorly by said person its being directed at.--[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#0F0;background:#006">Wizardman</span>]] 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: It doesn't matter if a practice ''violates'' another convention or not - a convention can exist for its ''own purpose'', and can be made with none other in mind. Most conventions have been voted into existence by a majority ''out of those deciding it'' - in this case, those voting for the usage of the rather commonplace (in the US) comma convention as a typical standard for Wiki (US) placenames. Yet this convention has been created ''with its own preservation'' in mind, without any consideration for any other Wiki convention or practice. This is its fundamental fault, and it is this discrepancy (with the rest of Wiki) that should be the centre of discussion - not the 'validity' of the convention itself. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 00:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== 3rd Padiham Scouts ==

::::To Nohat, it is a difference of emphasis -- you see a contradiction, where I and others see a relatively minor stylistic difference. One significant difference is that the city, state form is NOT purely disambiguation -- that is also a very common and familiar name for the places. Using a comma is not even identified as a specific disambiguation method. It is a variation on selecting an alternate common name. Where most of the problems arise is when a place is extremely well-known by its simple name. But for many places, a good case can be made that the "city, state" form of the name is at least as common, if not more so, than "city". Although personally, I'd be just fine with leaving them all at city, state, I also appreciate the objections that people have and am agreeable with proposals for the naming convention to be interpreted more flexibly with regard to such well-known places. At the same time, I don't see any advantage whatsoever to removing the naming convention completely. Some participants in this discussion talk as if they can hardly wait to fire up a bot to mass move every unambiguous place name (and then the inevitable churning of articles as editors go through and "helpfully" fix all the redirects).

::::The thing is, that while the convention may have had a shaky beginning, and the preemptive disambiguation aspect in particular has had detractors all along, the basic convention is in fact pretty well established as a ''de facto'' convention and is accepted (or at the least tolerated) by most editors. While the convention may be somewhat at odds with the general convention, I think the burden is on detractors to demonstrate that there is consensus to change. I don't think that arguing for ideological purity in the application of the use common names principle is sufficient to overturn what is both an established and familiar convention. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 03:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I say get rid of the article - it will be included in the Lancashire article when I get to it, but there's nothing that is of value in the current group article for merging, so let it go. -- [[User:Horus Kol|Horus Kol]] <small>[[User talk:Horus Kol|Talk]]</small> 06:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::I have to disagree that the "cityname, statename" convention is common at all. For nearly every usage of a place's name, the state is not included. This includes in nearly every conversation about a place, in phone books, in local newspapers, on local television, at local businesses, in local schools, etc. Pretty much the only place where the state is used '''by default''' is on pieces of mail. And pieces of mail do '''not''' use the "cityname, statename" convention. They use the "cityname, state '''postal abbreviation'''" convention. The only place other than mailing addresses where state names are used as a matter of course is in out-of-town news publications, which use states in bylines, and here, too, the full names of the states are not used, just the "old-fashioned" abbreviations. If we were to base our naming convention purely on the most-frequently-printed form of city's name, then I think no one will disagree that would be the postal format, with the two-letter abbreviations.

:I tagged it with speedy, so I can't be the one to delete it.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 11:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

== ce ==

:::::But no one is advocating we use the postal format as our default naming convention; it provides the worst of both worlds. Instead what is advocated is the use of "cityname, statename". The overwhelming majority of uses of a place's name are ''local'' uses, and the state's name is ''never'' used in cases like this. As far as I can tell, the only time the state's name is used is when people from faraway places discuss a place for the first time, which compared to all the local uses, is statistically never. Justifying a naming convention on the usage of the people least connected to a place seems, well, imperious and unintuitive. But maybe I am wrong about the usage. Where are cases when the full name of a state is used in conjunction with the city name? What are the types of conversations and written documents when a state's full name is commonly used? If you wish to appeal to the "use common names" convention, you should be prepared to explain and give examples of when this allegedly "common name" is used.

Hi Rlevse. Copyediting requests are piling up (have gone from zero for months to about five in the last week—I think it must be due to [[user:Tony1|a certain someone]]'s return :-). I generally don't like to make promises other than to finish the article I'm currently working on, but I'll keep BSofA on my list. Hopefully the ce project helps out. Thanks for asking. –[[User:Outriggr|<font color="#112299">Outriggr</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Outriggr|''§'']] 07:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Finally, the trick of "well this convention is established ''de facto'' so it is the detractor's responsibility to demonstrate consensus to change" is frankly insulting. You admit that the convention was not established in a legitimate way, and you admit that the convention has never developed a consensus, but still it is up to those who oppose the convention to demonstrate that there is consensus to change? No one seems to disagree that the convention is disputed, but those who support the convention seem unwilling to let the policy page reflect the reality of lack of consensus. What ''should'' happen is that the convention should be marked as disputed, and it should not be pointed to as justification for opposing moves of articles about city names to simpler, unambiguous titles, as each city article's title is decided on by looking to the naming conventions which actually have been agreed upon by consensus, namely ''use common names'' and ''do not disambiguate if there is no risk of confusion''. Arguments about how this is going to cause churn and chaos are not really valid responses to this argument because they are a temporary and negligible residue of infinitessimal consequence to the greater good of implementing consistent naming conventions ''which are supported by consensus''. The convention has never been supported by consensus and maintaining a vice grip on article titles following this convention ''despite the lack of consensus'' is a bogus exertion of power that runs totally contrary to the core operating principles of Wikipedia. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 06:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:OK thanks.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 11:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

== Smile ==

::::::No, I do not ''admit that the convention was not established in a legitimate way''. I do acknowledge that there were always some detractors and dissension over some aspects of the convention. Frankly, I think your claim to being "insulted" is nothing but rhetorical posturing. Get real. It is a fact that the convention is established. It is up to those who want to disestablish the convention to demonstrate the value of that proposition. Period.

<div style="float:center; border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">[[Image:Smiley.svg|left|62px]]

::::::As for your earlier comments, I very much disagree. "Cityname, statename" is a common and familiar formulation. When people ask where I grew up, I will more often than not say "Cleveland, Ohio", unless I know I am amongst Ohioans -- and Cleveland is one of the larger entities. I don't know why you're draging postal conventions into this. No one is advocating for using postal conventions and I don't see the connection to the present state of discussions. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 13:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

{{{1|[[User:Djmckee1|Djmckee1]]}}} has smiled at you! Smiles promote [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! {{{2|}}} <br /> Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

:::::::In an [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28settlements%29/Archive_11#Objective_criteria_suggestion|archived discussion]], we (mud-)wrestled with the question ''What is the "common name" for places that are not "well-known?"'' Consider [[North Caldwell, New Jersey]], for example. In its immediate vicinity, the "common name" clearly is ''North Caldwell''. However, outside of a "modest" radius, the "common name" would be ''North Caldwell, New Jersey''--and this would be true for people ''from'' North Caldwell. The main problem here is to determine which "common name" is controlling: the "local" or "global" version? The "local" name is used most often, but the "global" name is applicable to more readers. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

</div><!-- Template:smile -->

:::::::: Again, "common name" is ''not'' "common practice". "City, State" disambiguation is a ''common practice'' in the ''U.S.'' - this practice is not a proper name and cannot be spoken of or argumented as such. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 16:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== [[User:JL71JO]] ==

:::::::::It's an unspoken but open question whether we should have a ''country-specific'' naming convention for the U.S. My sense is that a "sizable" majority of people here believe that we should. Perhaps that is the first question that should be addressed before we delve into the "how" questions.

:::::::::As for the policy and conventions, '''common name''' is the standard, not '''proper name'''.

:::::::::As for practice vs. name, the question I am posing is whether ''common'' refers to "most English speaking people" wherever they may be, or whether ''common'' refers to "most people who are familiar with a place" (we might include English speakers or not). When in Texas, one might well refer to [[Matawan, New Jersey]] or [[Zzyzx, California]], even though [[Matawan]] and [[Zzyzx, California|Zzyzx]] are unique. Even a "reasonably" well-known place like [[Toledo, Ohio]] is often referred to as ''Toldeo, Ohio'' even though many Americans have no reason to disambiguate from [[Toledo, Spain]], much less one of the "lesser" [[Toledo]]s. In other words, ''what words do people use to identify a place?'' We already know that the ''common name'' often differs from the ''official name'', so usage is key. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::: "Common name" or "proper name", the fact still stands - "State" is part of ''neither version'' of any city name. "City, State" comma disambiguation is a common US ''practice''. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 17:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::It depends on what the meaning of <s>''is''</s> ''common name'' is. You say ''po-tay-toe''... and [[User:Polaron|Polaron]] says it doesn't matter, I think (see below). --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 18:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::: Are you missing the point on purpose? The name of a state is neither a part of a city's "common name" or a city's "proper name". The ''common practice'' of disambiguation does not create a "common name". "State" is ''never any part of any form of any city name at all''. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::While I do have a position on this question, I think the question needs to be addressed. To restate, which "common name" is controlling: the "local" or "global" version? The "local" name is used most often, but the "global" name is applicable to more readers. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 16:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::Common name should normally be what people ''who are familiar with the topic'' would refer to it. I don't think it is the job of the title to provide context (except in cases of disambiguation). We don't need to title an article [[Polaron (condensed matter physics)]] unless it has a naming conflict with another similar or more prominent topic with the same common name [[Polaron]]. If the simplest common name cannot be confused for something else, then that would normally be the article title per Wikipedia policies. --[[User:Polaron|Polaron]] | [[User talk:Polaron|Talk]] 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::<----------Undenting

Perhaps a nutshell summary of Polaron's statement would be:

:When deciding among two or more common names, use the simplest form that does not conflict with another name.

--[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 17:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::what exactly does "simplest" mean? For individuals, this would be a problematic formulation, I fear. It seems to me that article names should strive to be precise, recognizable, and accurate. Simplicity is also a virtue, but should be secondary to these three other conditions. By "precise" I mean non-ambiguous, by "recognizable" I mean something akin to the common name rule, and by "accurate" I mean that we shouldn't use titles that are misleading or actively incorrect (I'm not trying to advocate pedantry). Simplicity ought to only come into play when it doesn't conflict with those other three principles. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 18:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't know why you banned this user, but [[User:DreCosby]], whose edits clearly show he's a sockpuppet, is requesting unblock right now because of an autoblock. Perhaps you wish to nab this one as well. [[User:Part Deux|Part Deux]] 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Just following [[WP:NC(CN)]]: ''Titles should be as '''simple''' as possible without being too general.'' --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 18:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:[[User:JL71JO]] is a sock of [[User:JJonathan]]. Are you saying [[User:DreCosby]] is a sock of him too? Can you provide evidence? [[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 23:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::Um, they have the same IP, (he got caught up in an autoblock), and the contributions are similar enough by the duck test. [[User:Part Deux|Part Deux]] 10:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I saw that, wondered if you knew more.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 11:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The block of the IP expired, as a suspected IP of JJonathan, it was only blocked a week. I have crossed paths with JJonathan socks more than any other. I'll keep an eye on it.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 11:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

== Ribbon for today's events ==

:(after ec) Again, it is not only about providing context. IF (and only if) the parenthetical convention had been used for city names, then there would be no question whatsoever that using "city (state)" for uniquely named cities would be inappropriate. It would never occur to anyone to use such a form to refer to the city (outside of Wikipedia, that is). Such a form would be purely for disambiguation. The city, state form is not only about disambiguation. It is a common and familiar way to refer to these places, that also happily disambiguates as well. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 18:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, if you would like to add a ribbon to your user page in memory of those who were lost in today's events, you can use {{tl|Virginia Tech ribbon}} to place a small orange and maroon ribbon in the top right corner of your user page (similar to the {{tl|administrator}} icon). --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::So would you say that there are ''two'' common names for many places? And if you think there is only ''one'' common name, which would it be: The ''cityname'' or the ''city,state'' name? --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 18:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Done.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 09:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::That article, [[Virginia Tech massacre]] has thousands of edits already.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 09:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::That's just unreal. It had to be s-protected yesterday because it was getting edited 10-15 times/minute and even the admin rollback button wouldn't work for reverting vandalism. I guess if Wikipedia had been around for 9/11 or Columbine, it would have been the same thing. This is probably the biggest national crisis since Wikipedia became popular. --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 15:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 16:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)