Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:13, 19 December 2006

Latest revision as of 05:31, 18 February 2022

Line 1:

{{Talk page of redirect|merge=yes}}

{{Round In Circles}}

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

{{archive box|

[[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 1|1]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 2|2]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 3|3]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 4|4]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 5|5]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 6|6]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 7|7]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 8|8]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 9|9]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 10|10]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 11|11]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 12|12]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 13|13]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 14|14]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 15|15]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 16|16]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 17|17]], [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 18|18]],[[Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 19|19]]<br />

[[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006)]]<br />

[[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/One international convention]] (August 2006) <br />

[[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Is comma convention in conflict with other guidelines?]] (November 2006) <br />

[[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/comma for all cities]] (November 2006) <br />

[[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Summary of Discussion]] (Jan-Feb 2007)

}}

== Mumbai vs Bombay ==

__TOC__

Has there been a discussion already about [[Mumbai]]? IMHO "Bombay" is by far the more common name for the city (in english media) and the article should thus be moved/renamed. I thought I could find here a chapter about "naming conventions for India" but this is not the case. --[[User:Bernd-vdb|Bernd-vdb]] ([[User talk:Bernd-vdb|talk]]) 18:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

== New survey to clarify "use common names" guideline/convention ==

:We need more than a "humble opinion". ;) This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the English Wikipedia. There are probably more English-speakers in India than in England, so their preference is also important. Here in the U.S., "Mumbai (formerly Bombay)" seems to be the standard name now. But if we had some statistics that might help. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 19:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

::Mumbai is the name used in all British media. --[[User:Joowwww|Joowwww]] ([[User talk:Joowwww|talk]]) 19:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

:Yeah, Mumbai. Aside from historical references, I never saw it called Bombay during the extensive coverage received recently. Combined with the preference in India to call it by it's real, proper name--Mumbai--thats where it should be. [[User:GoneAwayNowAndRetired|<span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">GoneAwayNowAndRetired</span>]] ([[Special:Contributions/GoneAwayNowAndRetired|<span style="color:#156917;">C</span>]])([[User talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired|<span style="color:#156917;">T</span>]]) 14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::If most people expect to find the article unter "Mumbai", fine. In Germany we have a public library that counts the occurences of words in major media - and this prefers "Bombay" by 4:1. This source is cited regularly in WP discussion about naming conventions. But we also have slightly different rules in the de-WP. Anyway, it might be interesting to have similar statistics for the english speaking world available - do they exist? --[[User:Bernd-vdb|Bernd-vdb]] ([[User talk:Bernd-vdb|talk]]) 23:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Statistics are useless when you have a name change. Now, if you can show data for today only and then exclude the cases where both are used, then maybe this might hint about current usage. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 00:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Yes, what is the timeframe from which the 4:1 statistics come from? Without knowing that, the information is useless. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::"Statistics are useless when you have a name change." Question is if we want to use the "official" name or the "most common" name. In the german language WP the rule is clear: the most common one - which is often different from "current usage". The rule is not so clear in the en-WP.

:::::Regarding the time frame, I sent an Email to University of Leipzig and will report the outcome here. --[[User:Bernd-vdb|Bernd-vdb]] ([[User talk:Bernd-vdb|talk]]) 13:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::: They informed me the data is from 2005 and 2006. Question remains if the title of a WP article should be related to the name in the _home_ country - if the same entity has been named differently for generations. --[[User:Bernd-vdb|Bernd-vdb]] ([[User talk:Bernd-vdb|talk]]) 11:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I'm old enough to remember when "Peking" became "Beijing" in US usage. (It had been renamed by the local government at least as early 1949, but the US didn't give respect to Communist China's wishes.) A more recent shift has been from "Burma" or "Myanmar", but that too has been at least somewhat controversial because of the government there. The government of India is not considered illegitimate, unlike like those other examples. There are certainly millions of English-speakers in India, and perhaps even in Mumbai itself. What major media did the University survey? German, European, English-language? Is there a link to this survey? [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 18:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

== Harrisburg disambiguation ==

There is a new survey to clarify the meaning/applicability of the "use common names" guideline/convention. See [[WT:NC#Proposal: clarify meaning of "use most common name" guideline]]. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have proposed moving [[Harrisburg (disambiguation)]] to [[Harrisburg]], which at present is a redirect to [[Harrisburg, Pennsylvania]]. Discussion of this proposal is on [[Talk:Harrisburg]]. --[[User:Una Smith|Una Smith]] ([[User talk:Una Smith|talk]]) 22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

== Convention for Brazil ==

== Any advice? ==

Hi, I'm the co-founder of the project "Subdivisões do Brasil" (Brazilian subdivisions) at [[:pt:user:Raphael.lorenzeto|Portuguese Wikipedia]] and the author of more than [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Raphael.lorenzeto&page= 5.000 Brazilian ___location maps] (almost all used here).

There is as difference of opinion concerning the interpretation of rules on the place name [[Duffield]]. This page used to be at [[Duffield]] but was moved to [[Duffield, Derbyshire]] when a disambiguation page was created at [[Duffield]]. This broke all the existing wiki links. As a compromise I have created a more complete Duffield Disambiguation page at [[Duffield (disambiguation)]] and pointed the empty [[Duffield]] article at the [[Duffield, Derbyshire]] page. Is this correct or should the disambiguation page be at Duffield even though this would break a number of links which would then need to be repaired.? [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] ([[User talk:Victuallers|talk]]) 14:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we use the same rules for [[Rio de Janeiro]] and [[São Paulo]] without exception. The Brazilian states aticles must have a higher priority than their respective capitals. Sorry but my capacity to write in English is very limited. What I'm trying to say is: [[Rio de Janeiro]] should concerns the State of Rio de Janeiro and [[Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro]] (or [[Rio de Janeiro City]]) the city.

:This is a matter for [[WP:Requested moves]] to determine by consensus whether the Derbyshire Duffield is the primary topic. Aside from that, it probably would have been better to move the disambiguation page that had been started at [[Duffield]] to [[Duffield (disambiguation)]] and then expand that to keep the edit history, but as there were so few edits there is little harm done. Unlike US city naming conventions, I believe UK city naming conventions would not support leaving Duffield as a redirect to [[Duffield, Derbyshire]]. So in any case, either [[Duffield, Derbyshire]] should be moved back to [[Duffield]] if it is determined to be the primary topic or else [[Duffield (disambiguation)]] should be moved to [[Duffield]]. I wouldn't worry too much about repairing existing links -- those can be adjusted accordingly depending on the outcome. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 15:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

::Thank you for your prompt advice - oh and nice tag! cheers [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] ([[User talk:Victuallers|talk]]) 15:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

== Norfolk ==

I really don't understand why this is an exception. I belive that is because this rule was simply based in current practice ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANaming_conventions_%28settlements%29&diff=41240302&oldid=41147586 check this]) without any discussion (I don't find anyone). This convention should not be different from the other countries.

It has been longed argued that one of the many reasons to not predisambiguate U.S. city names is because this reduces the usage claim these topics have for the name in question. Case in point: '''Norfolk''', the city in Virginia, is automatically predabbed "by convention" to [[Norfolk, Virginia]]. This leaves the door open for putting some other topic at [[Norfolk]], and weakens the argument that the Virginia city has a claim on it, and [[Norfolk]] should be a dab page. Indeed, there is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Norfolk_(disambiguation)#Requested_move requested move discussion] on this issue active right now. Check it out. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 19:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying this only now because this convention is generating a lot of trouble in Commons.

:The proposal to make [[Norfolk]] a dab page failed due to lack of consensus, and so it remains the article about the county in England, mostly because the city in Virginia is predabbed at [[Norfolk, Virginia]]. Hopefully you supporters of the comma convention are happy about this (and other similar cases where conflicts with U.S. city names are ignored because U.S. cities are predabbed). --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 22:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope we will be able to change this as quickly as possible.

::I thought we solved this "comma convention" B.S. a few months ago? Only U.S. cities listed in the A.P. Stylebook's exception list are to be listed by 'city name' convention, all other cities are to be listed by 'city, state'. Norfolk, Virginia is not one of the exceptions. [[User:Derek.cashman|Dr. Cash]] ([[User talk:Derek.cashman|talk]]) 22:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

[[User:Raphael.lorenzeto|Raphael.lorenzeto]] 14:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Right, and that's the problem. Because Norfolk, Virginia is supposed to be at Norfolk, Virginia and not at Norfolk ''no matter what'', the argument is made that the U.S. city has ''no claim'' on the name [[Norfolk]] (by itself), and so the county in England is effectively the primary topic. So instead of [[Norfolk]] being a dab page like it should be, it's an article about a county in England instead. That's one of the many unintended consequences of naming most (non AP) U.S. cities according to the comma convention. There was another example of this fairly recently, but I can't remember that city name right now.

:Yes, it was me simply writing down the current practice. I believe both exceptions are a [http://catb.org/jargon/html/W/wart.html wart]; since when you say "Rio de Janeiro" or "São Paulo" it's ambiguous which one you are refering to (and it is usually disambiguated by the context), I believe it would be much more natural for both to be [[Wikipedia:disambiguation pages|disambiguation pages]], and the actual articles to be at (city) and (state). Answering to [[Talk:Rio de Janeiro (state)#Rename to "Rio de Janeiro"]], the principle of least surprise would not be violated (in fact, using a disambiguation page is much less surprising when you want information about the other page). --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 00:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:::This is one reason why I believe all U.S. cities (not just cities on the AP list) should be at ''Cityname'' (like cities in most other countries), and only disambiguated with '', Statename'' when there is an actual conflict with the name. In this case [[Norfolk, Virginia]] would still be dabbed at the same place, but the argument could not be made that it had ''no claim'' on the name [[Norfolk]] (by itself), and [[Norfolk]] would almost certainly be a dab page, like it should be. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 22:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

::I'd leave these two as they are -- it seems to me that if we are going to bother with a separate rule for primary meanings, then it should apply here. In English, these terms apply to the cities absolutely overwhelmingly. The principle of least surprise certainly applies, in the same way as for any primary usage -- if I enter a term which overwhelmingly has a single meaning, and Wikipedia's not sure what I'm talking about, then I'm pretty likely to be surprised by that. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The other fairly recent example was [[Plymouth]], which remains an article about the place in England rather than a dab page as it should be. Again, when the move of that page (to make [[Plymouth]] a dab page) was proposed, the fact that U.S. cities with that name, including [[Plymouth, Massachusetts]], are automatically dabbed because of this guideline, was used to claim that the place in England was the primary topic and the name did not need to be dabbed. I believe it's fair to say that providing support for such arguments is a consequence not intended by most who continue to support the comma convention for U.S. cities, or at least for those cities not on the AP list. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

:::The naming conventions on the English-language Wikipedia specify that an article is to be named according to the most common form used in English, or, lacking that, in the original language. Cities in English-speaking countries, and noticeably the examples given in the original message, usually already have it figured out, by having, for instance, "New York City" to distinguish from the state of New York, already incorporated into their names, or at least into the common usage &mdash; that is, this is not something we created ourselves, but rather it is reflecting the correct naming of those places. In the case of a Brazilian city such as Rio de Janeiro, and the state of Rio de Janeiro, there's no such usage in English, since they refer to the city as "Rio de Janeiro", and the same goes for the state. "Rio de Janeiro City" is not in use in any current form of the English language, so we would be making this up ourselves, which we cannot do. In cases like this, the regular form of disambiguation is to assign the main name ("Rio de Janeiro") to whichever subject is more commonly associated with it: in this case, the city; and use a disambiguated title for the other: hence "Rio de Janeiro (state)" for the article on the state of Rio de Janeiro. Furthermore, I don't see a need to create a disambiguation page for just two articles each ("Rio de Janeiro" and "São Paulo") . [[User:Redux|Redux]] 12:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

*Thank you, Serge, but this is a remarkably poor example. The city of Norfolk in Virginia is certainly not primary usage for [[Norfolk]]; it is younger and smaller than the English county, and surely no more well known. So it must be dabbed, whatever this page says; the real argument for the proposed move is that the County of Norfolk is not the overwhelmingly most common meaning of ''Norfolk'', which case is made by citing statistics of usage which include all the ''other'' Norfolks, like [[Norfolk Island]]. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 14:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

::If you read carefully, Serge is not suggesting that Norfolk, Virginia is the primary topic -- only that Norfolk (and Plymouth) should be disambiguation pages. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 18:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Thank you for taking the time to understand the point I'm taking here. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

::::I consider it reasonable that [[Norfolk]] should be a dab page, although there are arguments on both sides. But if it is a dab page, [[Norfolk, Virginia]] ''still'' has to be disambiguated, so the argument against predisambiguation is vacuous. (Shorter me: per Will Beback, below.) [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 23:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

:::*On further consideration, there is a shadow of an argument: English nationalists used the argument "Norfolk, Virginia, has no claim to be [[Norfolk]], because it's predabbed." We do not write naming conventions to fight every sophistry nationalists will come up with; if we do, they will only find others. The correct approach is to argue that [[Norfolk]] has no ''primary'' usage, in our sense; or to revise the naming conventions to reflect reality. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There are so many places named "Norfolk" that I don't understand why it isn't a disambiguation page. While the county in England may have had the name first, it is now widely used. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<span style="color:#595454;">Will Beback</span>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<span style="color:#C0C0C0;">talk</span>]]&nbsp; </b> 21:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

:That's my point! Because many of the places named "Norfolk" are in the U.S., they are predabbed per the comma convention, and so considered to have "no claim" on the plain name.

== Style used in local paper ==

:If U.S. cities were not predabbed per the comma convention, then in decisions about whether the name in question has a primary use, or should be a dab page, U.S. cities would carry their due weight with respect to use of the city name, and would not be unduly discounted.

I noticed today that my local paper uses an interesting style for locations. They use <Big>city</big>, state and for a few places, probably the AP list, just <big>city</Big>. So cities are always listed in a larger font at the beginning of an article. This also has the effect of showing what they intended when they only use city. No confusion between city and state. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

: Yes, but again this is a local paper using a local habit, and one not necessarily understood by the international community. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::Your disagreement is not with this page, but with [[WP:MOS]]:'''If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect.''' If you can get consensus to change that, fine. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 06:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I don't understand the original point, but I understand this even less. This isn't a dialect issue. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 16:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::::My understanding is that Vegaswikian is citing his local paper's datelines, which follow AP style, as a confirmation of usage for Tariq's proposal, Part II. Promenader then objects that this is not worldwide usage. If Vegaswikian is getting a paper written in American English, this is a dialect issue; Vegaswikian is citing an AE source, and Promenader objects ''because'' it is AE. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 17:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::::: I don't think the "dialect" analogy flies either vis-à-vis the comma'd state disambiguataion - "habit" would describe it better. I don't ''object'' to it ''per se'', but I do find that porting local habits to a media accessible the world over a bit narrow-minded : local habits are for locals, and understood best (''voir'' "decoded best") by the same.

::::: After a bit of thought, I think much of the problem would be solved if Wiki would adopt ''one'' form of disambiguation: this would eliminate all possiblility for confusion, as a reader would "get" the difference between article subject and disambiguation tool at most after looking at an article or two. Comma or parentheses, I don't care - but it has to be cross-board to be clear to all. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 18:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::Adding a person's middle initial, for example, might also be a form of disambiguation. Or the presence or absense of diacritics on letters. Or the addition of a word neither with a comma nor with parentheses. Or the inclusion of a surname, for all those wanna-be soccer stars who think that if they can convince people that they can get by with one name, that means they have made it big. Or lots of other possibilities. But city, state is more than disambiguation. That's why you run into opposition to these continual requested moves and other "votes" and the like. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::And all those are preferred to parentheses; because they can be linked to without the pipe trick. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 19:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::: No, because the person's middle initial - or second surname - or title for that matter - ''is still his name''. The name of a state is nothing of the kind to a city - "State" is disambiguation and must be presented clearly as such.

::::::::: The "pipe trick" argument is also a secondary justification/argument, and is on a technical detail that can be dealt with technically. Reader comprehension cannot be "fixed" the same way.

::::::::: Excuses, but I have never requested any move of anything even remotely "City, State" - but I do see the method's shortcomings, and I have since a couple of months been trying to ''reason'' some sort of Wiki-wide solution - but it seems that the question has been in debate since so long, with the same players, that there are firmly-entrenched "sides" to this story now. The most opposition will be from contributors enjoying the "comfortable majority" of those comfortable with contributing in using their comfortably familiar local practices - this is Engish Wiki, after all. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 20:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::: You still seem to be a little confused. A name, as any good dictionary will tell you, is a term used to refer to something. For example , from Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/name (accessed: December 15, 2006): the first definition is ''a word or a combination of words by which a person, place, or thing, a body or class, or any object of thought is designated, called, or known.'' "Cit, State" certainly qualifies as a name for these places, and even as a common name (although perhaps not exactly '''''the most''''' common name). The crucial difference between using an alternate common name for an article as opposed to disambiguating with a parenthetical term is that with the parenthetical form, it is nearly certain that very, very few people who are not familiar with Wikipedia practices would try to find [[Springfield, Illinois]] by typing in [[Springfield (Illinois)]] -- but the converse is in fact a very common way to refer to that place. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 21:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::: Hardly confused, so save that one, thank you : ) Stating the definition of "name" does not change the fact that "State" is in no way "City's" name - no matter the reason the name of the state is added to it. If anything, it is you who is confus'ing'' the issue in your reply - "common practice" ≠ "name".

::::::::::: Of course people would not ''write'' anything with parentheses - but this is an encyclopaedia, not a local newspaper or newscast. The form of disambiguation doesn't matter as long as it can be ''identified as disambiguation'' - local practices do not matter - and are not always understood - by those foreign to them.

::::::::::: With all due respect, I don't see finding any (mix of) argument(s) possible to justify the presence of an everyday local "common practice" as an international encyclopaedia convention to be in the interests of Wiki or its readers - as I've said before, it seems to have the contributor's own habits at heart. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 10:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::: Sorry, but common practice is precisely one of the defining characteristics of a name in the context of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not give preference to formal or official names. You continue to refuse to recognize that "City, State" IS a name for these places and is commonly used as such. Although you clearly disagree, I do not see any policy or guideline in Wikipedia that deprecates local usage in the way that you seem to be advocating. In fact, I think imposing such a top-down policy would be in many ways exactly contrary to how Wikipedia works. So long as the names are common English language usage and are easily recognizable by any person with a moderate fluency in the language, I don't see that there is any basis to object merely because it falls under your idiosyncratic conception of local usage. 14:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: I think we're talking about your own ''interpretation'' of what a name is - and I don't understand how you can deny that the name of a State is not that of a City. What is "New York"? Well, to make a precision you're either going to have to locate it or add an adjective or some other description - but that doesn't mean that this addition becomes the locale's name - I don't see how the idea can even be considered as fact.

:::::::::::::: Wiki works the way it wants to - it some see a problem, they propose to fix it, and should consensus turn in favour of the solution, it becomes the "new Wiki way". Let's not discourage change on a suggestion of Wiki's inflexibility - it doesn't exist. On the other hand, if a majority of Wiki contributors originate from one country, chances are that whatever practice they choose will be consensus should they have to vote for it - so for English Wiki, there's no need to worry about change as long as everyone only worries about their own little corner - which seems to be the case here. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 14:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::It is hardly my own interpretation of what a name is, it is both the dictionary definition of a name as well as established practice on Wikipedia. I don't see how you can deny that city, state is a common name for these places. If someone asks me where I am from, I usually say "Cleveland, Ohio". In context, THAT is the name of the place I am referring to. I don't understand what your point about inflexibility is. I'm not the one advocating for a single wiki-wide standard to be applied uniformly regardless of local practices. If there turns out to be a demonstrable need to change the naming conventions, then they will change. But you've not demonstrated any such necessity. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 15:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::: Again, with all due respect - of course it is your interpretation. Of "word or group of words", you chose "group of words", and in a second degree of interpretation took this to justify "city, state" - and I severely doubt that the dictionary definition was written with this purpose in mind. "[[Niagara Falls]]" is a "group of words" that is a place ''name'', and "[[Niagara Falls, New York]]" and "[[Niagara Falls, Ontario]]" are place names with added description/disambiguation. This couldn't be simpler.

:::::::::::::::: You seem to be quite comfortable with the convention the way it is, as you seem to be willing to go to lengths beyond reason to justify it: this is fine, and no doubt you're in the majority, so again, no worries. On my end, I'm not looking for "inflexibility" : I'm looking for an unbiased method all can understand. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 16:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Similarly, it is your own interpretation to consider that a form commonly used to refer to these places are unacceptable for the purposes of naming articles. I fail to see any logic in that. If you can unequivocally demonstrate that the current naming convention is in fact biased and poses actual problems for understanding, then you might have more traction with your arguments. The problem is that there is little demonstrable evidence supporting you position. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 16:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::: My answer to you was my stating the fact that [[Ohio]] is not the name of the city of [[Findlay]] - The name of the city is [[Findlay]]. It's hard to find a more basic and solid argument than that - and I stated this simple fact only an answer to your earlier propos; it is not in promotion of any idea of my own.

All the same, I wouldn't bother with the suggestion that I "don't have a case" with my critiquees - I think I made it quite clear that those promoting local habits as convention here are more concerned with comfort than function - but as I said earlier, I could be completely right and it still wouldn't matter. So no worries. All I ask is that we ''reason'' here, not ''justify''.

:::::::::::::::::: As for the "understanding" angle, please see to the bottom of this subject. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 16:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::: You are interpreting "name" narrowly. A name is the term or phrases that people use to refer to something. "Findlay, Ohio" is a very common name that people use to refer to that place. I never claimed that "Ohio" is the name of the city of "Findlay". My claim is that "Findlay, Ohio" is a commonly used alternate name for the place. Sorry, but the only thing that you've made "clear" is that you don't like the practice. You say ''I think I made it quite clear that those promoting local habits as convention here are more concerned with comfort than function'' but I don't see that you've made that point at all. In fact, I find it just a little offensive that you make such an assumption. Yes, you've reiterated your opinions in this matter many times over, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 16:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm interpreting "name" objectively. There's no reason to be offended, but your designation of "people" - meaning "those using the practice" - itself meaning "those in the U.S. - only proves my "comfort case"; no, I don't like the idea that a "local to local" habit should give itself more importance than a large Wiki readership that is ''not'' familiar with neither the locale nor local naming practice. Naming should be objective and precise without the addition of any practice that risks being lost on the reader. Is there anything wrong with wanting that? [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 18:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::< -- outdenting

:Your claim of interpreting name "objectively" would almost be laughable, if it weren't so irritating. Your restriction of "people" who use such a convention as "those in the U.S." is demonstrably incorrect, thus making nonsense of your so-called "comfort case". Unfortunately naming is never an objective matter, especially when addressing cross-cultural concerns. I think the best that we can hope for is to name accurately without giving cause for offense or causing undue confusion. You seem to believe that city, state causes confusion, but so far this is little more than hypothetical confusion. Without genuine evidence that something is causing confusion, I don't see any good reason for overhauling a well-established and familiar convention. (tweaks, perhaps, but the core of the convention is sound, IMO). [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 00:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

:: In order for me ''not'' to be looking at this objectively, I would have to already have a fixed objective in mind - I do not. What I do observe, and this I have stated many times, is that local practices are best understood by those who use them, and that this does not bear the rest of Wiki in mind. Apply whatever adjectives you will to the result - confusion, misunderstanding - but the only thing that counts is that to foreigners, the formeost value anything "non-name" added to a name is disambiguation, and the "city, state" convention is not easily recognisable as even this.

:: My using the US is only an example - Canada and other countries do the same as I have mentioned many times before in even mentioning my hometown, the ''nec plus ultra'' of any city needing disambiguation. I still don't think that practices there are suitable for Wiki. But we won't really know for sure until we get the opinion of some non-US/Canada/whatever contributors, will we? I hope I have just taken care of that. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 00:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

:::In order for you ''not'' to be looking at this objectively, all that is needs is that you allow your pre-existing biases to color your interpretation. Lack of objectivity is not solely outcome oriented. You are entitled to your opinion that ''to foreigners, the formeost value anything "non-name" added to a name is disambiguation, and the "city, state" convention is not easily recognisable as even this'', but don't represent this as if it were demonstrated fact. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 00:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

::: What pre-existing biases? Would you know that I supported before for a move ''to'' "city, state" (and even "community, city, state") before having second thoughts? What is [[Gauteng]] in [[Boipatong, Gauteng]] to you, foreigner? A country? A county? A province? A state? No, to the ignorant is just a container for [[Boipatong]] until they learn better. Until they do, the only role [[Gauteng]] has for them is to tell ''which city of [[Boipatong]]" we are talking about - or disambiguation. Is this not clear? Is this not objective reasoning? [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 01:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, I'm not sure what it is exactly, but objective reasoning is not what comes to mind. As I've indicated elsewhere, what difference does it make whether a reader knows what either Boipatong or Gauteng is. It does not only tell us which Boipatong is being referred to, for as you probably know, there is no other Boipatong. What Boipatong, Gauteng tells the reader is that there is some relationship between the two terms. Without any familiarity with the terms, the relationship between them is a meaningless as the terms themselves. But if it is common convention for that area to describe the place as Boipatong, Gauteng, then I don't see any reason why there should be any objection to a naming convention to specify it as such. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

:I've seen this problem surface time and time again, and it affects any category of names that are predabbed (dabbed by default even if there is no conflict) according to any convention. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 21:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::::And I still don't get Vegaswikian's point. Is it just that he didn't know what a dateline is? It would hardly seem notable that some local paper follows what had already benn claimed ot be an AP guideline in that regard, and I'm totally baffled by his sentence ''"This also has the effect of showing what they intended when they only use city."'' [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 19:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: To tell you the truth, I didn't really get it either; that may have shown in my answer. I tried all the same to look beyond the details to the gist of the argument : its purpose of justifying a local practice. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 20:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::It is hardly surprising that a paper gets a story from the AP, including the dateline, and prints the story with that dateline. Most newspapers do just that. And therefore the "local habit" stuff is just baffling. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 22:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::And, as far as international standards go, most newspapers around the world follow similar practices, no matter which [[wire service]] or whatever they get the story from, don't they? [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::: Okay, I must ''still'' not get the gist of it. I thought the argument was an (albeit indirect) justification for "city, state" disambiguation. Just a thought - all newspapers are read locally, by the way - only extremely "big-city" papers are printed nationally, but even that is "local=same country". But okay, if I've missed the point, no point in pursuing it... [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 23:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::: Decidedly. There is the Herald Tribune - but even they use the local practices of their "local" audience - Americans abroad. Okay, okay... [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 23:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::My point was that the city is always in a larger type size then the state. Like <Big>city</big>, state. So in these cases you know what the city is since it is in the same form if included with or without the state. If this is part of the AP sytle, then it has not been mentioned before. I brought this up since it shows that their sytle is such that it is always clear what the city name is by looking at it. If I used New York, here what would I be talking about? From the above in my paper that would be the state, the city would have been <Big>New York</big>. I guess you could say that the style always dabs the city. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::I was wrong here. They are only using CAPS for the city so it looks larger. Sorry for the misinformation. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 03:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

:But don't take my word for it, the comments at the (failed) make-Norfolk-a-dab-page proposal speak for themselves. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Norfolk_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_-_2009 1]]. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 21:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::In either case, wouldn't you make it a whole lot easier on yourself if you just figured out that the city is the one that comes '''before the comma''', so you didn't have to rely on the apparently bigger ALL-CAPS to figure out which is the city and which is the state? [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 08:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just looking at the comments in that discussion again, there are some winners...

Furthermore, AP guidelines for the use in datelines are not particularly relevant. For that usage, '''readers already know''', just from the placement at the top of the article, '''that this is a city''' (in rare cases, it might be some other geographical area like "Sahara Desert", especially if not a permanently populated place). However,

* ''But do [Americans] say "Norfolk" when they mean "Norfolk, Virginia"?'' This one confirms one of my oldest arguments, that predabbing per the comma convention gives non-Americans the wrong impression that the names of U.S. cities include the state name. This is one reason why I've long held that not only should U.S. city names not be dabbed when they don't need to be dabbed, but if dabbing is necessary it should be with the state in parenthesis to avoid the confusion that this comment exemplifies.

#That is not something we necessarily know when we look at the entries in a Wikipedia category.

#That is not something we necessarily know when we look at a Wikilink.

#That is not something we necessarily know when we look at "What links here"

#That is not something we necessarily know when we look at "Recent changes"

#That is not something we necessarily know when we look at "Related changes"

#That is not something we necessarily know when we look at "[[:Special:allpages]]"

* ''Norfolk [the county] has clear precedence in terms of establishment and use of the name on its own ('''with Norfolk, Virginia being the established name for the USA settlement''').'' Emphasis added.

The standardized ''"city, state"'' format is one thing that will give us that additional information in many of these cases. Plus, it also narrows down the geographical ___location when the city is one which is not familiar to the reader. Both of those and others are reasons distinct from "disambiguation" in the common Wikipedia jargon usage. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 15:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

* ''All naming conventions and best practice seem satisfied presently.'' This one is a bit subtle, but I think the clear implication is that since the U.S. city naming convention is satisfied with all U.S. Norfolks at '''Norfolk, ''Statename'', ''' the English county can keep [[Norfolk]].

: But you see, this is where my doubt lies - the "informative value" of "State" in "City, State" (or any similar form of "higher administration" disambiguation), especially in the question: who is it informative to? Answer: Those who know where "State" is. Thus this "more in formative" wisdom ''also'' has a dependance on those who "already know". I mentioned the example "[[Boipatong, Gauteng]]" on the [[Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Wiki-wide_single_disambiguation_scheme|disambiguation discussion page]] - what and where is "[[Gauteng]]"? But if the added administrative entity is treated as ''pure disambiguation'', it doesn't matter. But it must be clear that the addition is disambiguation - and it is for this that I am for a single disambiguation method for all of Wiki, places and names alike. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 16:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

* ''The move would inconvenience everyone familiar with the naming conventions who expect English counties to be at <name> and '''US places to be at <name, state>.''''' My emphasis. This one is explicit about what I'm talking about.

::What difference does it make whether one knows where "Gauteng" is? People who know, know, those who don't don't (and if they're at all curious, they can easily find out). [[Boipatong, Gauteng]] is as equally uninformative as [[Boipatong]] for anyone unfamiliar with either. The question in that situation would be whether it is common practice to refer to places in [[Gauteng]] with the comma method. If it is in fact common practice, then I don't see much problem with a naming convention that specifies that form. If that form is not in common use for such places, then the naming convention shouldn't specify that usage. But I don't know anything about the specifics of South Africa, so my perspective on that is entirely theoretical. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 16:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are other comments associated with opposing the move to make [[Norfolk]] a dab page that cite these other comments in agreement.

:::: What difference does it make if they know or not? None - this is my whole point. Thus we should drop all "better informed" justification for the higher administrative term and retain only its usefulness as disambiguation.

:::: What use to Wiki is a "local naming habit", especially to those who aren't familiar with it? I thought we agreed that it would be rather pointless to try to "inform" a reader through a title. All we want to know is which subject we're talking about - any "added extras" is just cruft as far as the uninformed are concerned. Yes, of course, once they are sure they have the right subject, they can find the rest in the text; wouldn't the proper and properly informative place for "how the locals say it" info be there? [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 17:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the issue here is not Norfolk ''per se'', but the unintended consequences associated with the practice of predisambiguation, including the pervasive problem that this example so clearly illustrates. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 21:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Any scheme of disambiguation--in the title--will always leave some doubt as to whether or not disambiguation is used--in the title. The ''article title'' has two main purposes:

:The style sheet (or as many like to say here, predisambiguation) is not the problem. The problem is the utter failure of primary usage being a consideration in these cases. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 22:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

:::#To give each article a name that is different from other articles.

:::#To '''help''' readers decide whether they have found the article they wish to read.

:::When readers ask questions like these (and those posed by Promenader), they can and should find the answers in the lead section of the article. That is the best way to let readers know whether to read the rest of the article--and to know for certain what is the name of the subject. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 17:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

:I agree with Vegaswikian. I don't see how the naming convention really affected the outcome. Due to the number of similar names, [[Norfolk, Virginia]] would have that name regardless. That dispute is over when to make a disambiguation page the main link, which has nothing to do with this guideline. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<span style="color:#595454;">Will Beback</span>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<span style="color:#C0C0C0;">talk</span>]]&nbsp; </b> 23:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

:::: Thanks, Ishu. I'd like to add that imposing local traditions is ''not a clear way'' of informing the reader that "they've got the right one" - it is more an impediment than anything, especially if it breaks the trend set by the rest of Wiki's articles. The overwhelming majority of Wiki is using parantheses for disambiguation, and you can put anything (and as much as) you want between these, even commas, and the reader will still a) "get" that what he's reading is disambiguation and b) be clearly informed about "which one" he's reading about. If one wants the commas to become Wiki's "obvious disambiguation", then he's got the rest of Wiki to change.

:::: In short, to hell with local naming traditions if they are cumbersome, conflicting and uninformative - clear subject designation should hold sway over all other preferences and practices. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 18:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

::I don't know, it seems pretty obvious to me. It seems to me that many if not most of those opposing ''were'' considering primary usage (at least informally, some explicitly), but just did not count U.S. cities as a competing "use" for the name in that consideration because of the U.S. comma convention. All other uses are so relatively obscure that the argument that the county in England is the primary use can certainly be made, and was made (again, discounting all places names that have been predabbed with the comma). The only other contender for "primary use" being considered was the VA city, and its claim on the plain name was discounted as indicated by the above comment. I mean, from their perspective, yes, [[Norfolk (disambiguation)]] is a long list, but so is [[Paris (disambiguation)]], but that does not preclude the French city from being at [[Paris]].

:::::Oh, grow up and get over the notion that the only purpose served by this convention is disambiguation. It is not.

::In other words, all relatively obscure uses of Paris (or Norfolk) are dabbed whether [[Paris]] (or [[Norfolk]]) is a dab page or not. In the case of Paris, nothing is left that is not relatively obscure. But in the case of Norfolk, we have the VA city as well as the English county that are arguably significant uses. The VA city was not discounted in that consideration because it was obscure; it was discounted in that consideration because it was required by naming convention to be at [[Norfolk, Virginia]] ''regardless''.

:::::Furthermore, get rid of this silly figment of your imagination, that the "overwhelming majority of Wiki is using parantheses for disambiguation". Much of our disambiguation is done by other methods, and it is best when it is done by other methods.

:::::We often disambiguate people by including a middle name or initial.

:::::We often disambiguate by including diacritics on letters.

:::::We often disambiguate many wanna-be soccer players, whose fans figure it would be a sign of their having it made big by trying to name their articles with one name, by including their surnames.

:::::We often disambiguate by adding "Malaysian" in front of "[[Malaysian passport]]" or "United States" in front of [[United States Department of Justice]].

:::::We routinely disambugate lanugages such as "French" by including "language" after it as in [[French language]].

:::::And that is just scratching the surface as far as different methods of disambiguation go. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 21:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::We disambiguate [[Department of Defense]] by spelling, and redirect [[Department of Defence]] to [[Defence minister]]. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 21:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

::Consider this comment:

:::::: First off, thanks for maintaining a civil tone.

:::::: Second off, it is obvious that I agree that only one part of the "city, state" convention's role is disambiguation. My whole point is that ''disambiguation is the only role the "city, administration" convention has that is of any use to Wiki - especially to its non-(locale in question) readership''.

:::::: The overwhelming majority of Wiki disambiguation ''is'' done using parentheses.

:::::: The other means of "disambiguation" you cite are in fact nothing of the kind: People's middle initials are still ''their own name''. Soccer player's surnames are ''still their own''. Diacritics describe ''alternate pronunciations or spellings'' that are still the subject's own. if the article is on a [[Malaysian passport]], then you will not name it [[passport]], because [[Malaysian passport]] is an entity in itself. If the article is on the [[Department of Justice]] of the [[United States]], it is not even conceivable that you title it [[Department of Justice]]. If the article is on the [[language]] that is [[French]], it is only normal that you be precise and name the article [[French Language]].

:::::: On the other hand, you cannot say that [[State]] in a [[City]] article is [[City]] itself - in this role, it is either a ''locator'' or ''disambiguation'' that may ''place'' or ''designate'' the city in question, but the addition ''is not the subject of [[City]] itself''.

:::::: I don't understand why one would redirect an article on an entire department to an article on the sole office of its minister. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::: Your comments reveal a profound misunderstanding of disambiguation on Wikipedia. Using alternate names IS disambiguation and constitutes a large part of how disambiguation is done. Parenthetical disambiguation is arguably the last resort, that is appropriate only when there is no other acceptable common name. For example calling something [[Malaysian passport]] would really only apply in contexts where it is necessary to distinguish it from passports from other countries. Without that necessity, it would be referred to as simply [[passport]]. And why on earth is it "not even conceivable" that one would title an article [[Department of Justice]] for the U.S. DOJ? There are countless examples of people doing precisely that (both in the U.S. and for entities from around the world). By the use common name principle, if one does not "know" in advance that there might be other things sharing that name, why should one assume that it needs to be disambiguated? Until someones recognizes to potential for ambiguity and presses to rename it or until some project with established naming conventions adopts the article, it likely would remain at the simpler name. When you parenthetically disambiguate, you virtually ensure that no one unfamiliar with Wikipedia disambiguation practices would select that term to search for and force them to go through one or more disambiguating links. Using an alternate common name enables some portion of users without prior familiarity with Wikipedia disambiguation methods to get it right the first time. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: Please do not accuse me of misunderstanding anything - I have made it perfectly clear throughout all my arguments (and that just above) what is or isn't disambiguation. Please - a [[Malaysian Passport]] is a type of an object in itself - this is a bad attempt at an example. [[Department of Justice]] is an object in itself - why would it automatically describe the U.S. Department of Justice? This is what's inconceivable. Don't other countries have a Department of Justice? I'm sure you get my point. Yet in light of the above, would you say that "city" is an object, and that "state" would be the type of that object? Not at all.

:::::::: Nothing is clearer as disambiguation as the method in use for the rest of Wiki - parentheses - but I am not arguing only for this method - just a recognisable one, whatever that may be. I see neither fact nor objective in the "forcing" part of your parentheses theory - there is no reason why disambiguation cannot be clear. An "alternate common name" is only common to those knowing it already - this is what I mean by segregation. It should make no difference if the same disambiguating "common name" term appeared in the same way the rest of Wiki disambiguates - at least then it would be recognised as disambiguation - by everyone. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 00:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::: What you have made clear throughout your arguments is that you do not seem to have a very good grasp of either disambiguation or of Wikipedia practices in general. The parenthetical method of disambiguation is a completely artificial construct. Of course an alternate common name may not be familiar to everyone. So what? There are tens of thousands of articles in Wikipedia about which I wouldn't even be able to come close to guessing the topic based on the title alone. The purpose of the city name titles is not only about disambiguation. I think it is far preferable for an article to be at an alternate common name than at an artificial construct that no one would think to look for without prior knowledge of Wikipedia disambiguation practices. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::: Again, hold the vague assertions of my "lack of understanding" - this is obviously not true, and a such assertion, as it points at nothing in particular, does nothing to help the discussion.

:::::::::: I've said dozens of times before that the sole sure value one can place on a term used for disambiguation is its ''ability to disambiguate'' - nothing more. We agree that it is pointless to count on the "informative value" of the disambiguation term.

:::::::::: Yet to present this disambiguation in a method differing from the method in use for the rest of Wiki, a method recognisable (as disambiguation) by readers ''already familiar with the method (or everyday common practice) and the places concerned'' is against the interests of the international media that is Wiki. Do I make myself clear?

:::::::::: As for descriptions such as "artificial construct" and "alternate common name" - both of these are based on the point of view of those already familiar with the practice you defend. There is neither "common" nor "natural" (as opposed to "artificial") for anyone unfamiliar with the places or terms used - there is the name, and there is disambiguation. That's it. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 10:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

:::''I'm not claiming that primary usage is never an issue. Naming conventions should always be used unless there is a clear reason (for example primary usage) why in a particular instance they should be. There are, as you say, many cases where such clear reasons do exist and articles have been rightly moved away from where naming conventions say they should be. My point is that in this case there is no such compelling reason.''

:::::::::::The practice of naming city and town articles with "comma state/province/county" meets the requirement expressed at the top of [[WP:NC]] of "...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." Some readers might find the additional information helpful some of the time (I do), but it doesn't matter if they don't. I think I understand your argument about wanting to use parentheses, I just disagree with it. As pointed out above, the ''preferred'' method of disambiguation is to find another name for the article to avoid needing to use parentheses (see [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic]]). Alternate titles without parentheses have been used ''many times'' in naming Wikipedia articles, but it is probably impossible to count (how would a tool identify that the example [[cheque]] is a disambiguated name for an article that could otherwise have been named [[check]]?). It would be fascinating to discover how many articles about places have a) comma, b) parentheses, c) neither to find out if your assertion is true, but as yet nobody has attempted to count them. A combination of [[WP:NC(P)]] and the "linking to those articles easy and second nature" leads to my preference for ''always'' using "comma state" instead of ''sometimes'' using it, depending on whether the author believes there to be a potential conflict. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 11:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

::If you don't see that what he's essentially saying is that the naming conventions call for the English county to be at [[Norfolk]] and the U.S. city to be at [[Norfolk, Virginia]] (not at [[Norfolk]] - so there is no conflict), then I don't how else to explain it. If the U.S. conventions stated that U.S. city names should be at '''''Cityname''''' and only dabbed with a comma when necessary, then his argument would not hold for the conflict would be obvious. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting)<br />

:::The question to ask him is "Is the English county the overwhelmingly most common use of ''Norfolk'', say 80-90% of ''all'' usage?" If it is, it should be at [[Norfolk]]. If it isn't, cite [[WP:PRIMARYUSAGE]], and explain the nuisance that everybody looking for any of the other Norfolks goes through. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 23:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, but I find the [[WP:NC]] justification a bit of a stretch, as a) I don't think it was made to accommodate naming ''habits'' beyond the name itself (like added disambiguation or ___location) and b) the name of a State is not that of a City. Let's not even get into the "rule game" (god knows how many times we've been there before) as I could start digging up the same on my side (such as "shortest name possible", "disambiguate only when necessary", etc.), so let's just look at what we've got and how it works in relation to every article and every reader.<br />

How does comma disambiguation make "linking to those articles easy and second nature"? For who?<br />

I also wish there was a way to count comma vs. parenthetical disambiguation - adopting that in use in the majority of Wiki articles of course should be the one to choose - but I think it important for universal comprehension that there be one. In all evidence, parentheses have the overwhelming majority at present. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 13:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)<br />

PS: I do agree that having some city articles at "city" and others at "city, state" is rather pointless - it negates itself (the city, state convention) and adds just another level of confusion to the above. The convention certainly would be better understood (by all) were it cross-board. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 13:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

::::A few of us, most notably Vegaswikian, did explain all that, to no avail. Essentially to them it is a practical matter: nothing else conflicts with [[Norfolk]], so it is primary usage. I'm not defending their interpretation of the guidelines. I'm just saying it is natural, understandable and most notably, ''inevitable''. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 01:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

:I did not suggest that "the name of a State is that of a City", and I don't think anyone else has either. I said that uniformly naming articles about cities and towns in the form of "City, State" is something that the majority of English speakers would easily recognise, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

:::::No, it's not inevitable, except insofar as nationalism is inevitable. But, more to the point, occurences like that are one of the prices paid for being an encyclopedia anybody can edit; getting back at idiots by setting down Roolz in WP-space is not helpful, and should not work. Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, no matter how many people are drawn out of article space into the cul-de-sac of rules-mongering. The next time there's a RM for [[Norfolk]], tell me. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

:Habits can be formed and unformed, and ''any'' consistent naming convention will lead to the habit of linking to articles using that convention.

:A naming convention is as much ''style'' as ''disambiguation'', so your question about "comma disambiguation" is already loaded to your point of view. The answer is that editors (who else can linking be easy and second nature to?) can be confident of linking to the right article in almost all cases without ''having'' to open the target and check. The "pipe trick" reduces the redundant typing. This allows an editor to concentrate on the topic they are writing about.

:For the purpose of counting articles, it should be done for articles about places, not ''all Wikipedia articles''. The naming convention for towns can transfer to people no easier than the naming convention for people ([[Firstname Surname]] rather than [[Surname, Firstname Middlename]]) can transfer to places. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 14:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::I mean given human nature, it is inevitable. Yes, in this case, nationalism is probably a factor, but I've seen other cases, like in submarine naming, where the conflicts with the name of the ship were simply ignored because the article title was at some title other than the plain name of the ship based on a predisambiguating canned format. This is a general problem that afflicts any group of articles for which there is a convention to always name them something other than their plain commonly used and easily recognized name, even if there is no conflict with that plain name.

:(after ec) So much of this round and round seems to center on your refusal to recognize that "city, state" IS a valid alternate name for these places. You claim ''that the sole sure value one can place on a term used for disambiguation is its ''ability to disambiguate'' - nothing more.'' But that is your opinion and nothing more. You go on to state: ''We agree that it is pointless to count on the "informative value" of the disambiguation term.'' No, I agree to no such thing. All that I agree with is that with a term like Gauteng is as equally uninformative as Boipatong for anyone unfamiliar with either. For those who have some familiarity, it has some significance. What you appear to want is mandate a disambiguation method that makes an article title equally unfamiliar and difficult to find for everyone (that is, no one, without prior knowledge of Wikipedia disambiguation techniques, would think to look for a term with parenthetical disambiguation). What I advocate, is that by using an alternate familiar name, a large portion of those familiar with the name will be able to find the article on the first try.

:You make the statement: "Yet to present this disambiguation in a method differing from the method in use for the rest of Wiki, a method recognisable (as disambiguation) by readers ''already familiar with the method (or everyday common practice) and the places concerned'' is against the interests of the international media that is Wiki. Do I make myself clear?" -- no, I'm afraid I am not able to parse this statement in any way that makes sense. Are you saying that the comma method is ''a method differing from the method in use for the rest of Wiki''? Sorry, but that is not only incorrect, but patently ridiculous. Why is it ''against the interests of the international media that is Wiki'' to use article names that are easily recognizable to a very large number of readers? Why should we force artificially constructed titles on articles to satisfy some sort of ideological purity test in the name of correcting purely hypothetical problems for international readers? [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 14:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::A variant manifestation of this problem is that for articles that belong to name classes that are predisambiguated often the plain name ends up not existing at all (not even as a dab), or if there is a dab or another article at the plain name, the article is not linked from it. These are hard to find, because basically you'd have to go through, for example, all cities in Idaho, or all Russian subs, and make sure that each such topic is properly represented from the plain name (the plain name is either a redirect, or if it is a dab page, there is a link to the city from the dab, or if it is article about another topic, verify that that topic is primary and the topic in question is linked from the article in a hat note).

:: You two seem to be entrenched into a justification of the present convention, even though I am not proposing/imposing any definite solution ''per se''. All I am asking is the question: "is the comma disambiguation, in relation with practices used in the rest of Wiki, easily recognisable as such by ''all''?" Yet none so far have even considered the matter in that light, answered only that the present convention is comprehensible to "a majority" (without even considering the question of a convention accessible to ''all'') and have gone into a justifying-argument-searching draw-the-line defence of the convention existing. Perhaps this issue has come up many times before, or I'm asking in the wrong place. Anyhow.

::* ''"You claim that the sole sure value one can place on a term used for disambiguation is its ability to disambiguate - nothing more. But that is your opinion and nothing more."''

:: No, it is fact. If the reader knows nothing about the identity or locale of the term used to disambiguate, that identity will only be revealed on a DAB page or the article itself. Until then, the only role of the disambiguator is to separate the article from other articles on other subjects sharing the same name.

::*''"Are you saying that the comma method is a method differing from the method in use for the rest of Wiki? Sorry, but that is not only incorrect, but patently ridiculous. "''

:: The comma has many uses in Wiki (titles, proper names), but the parentheses, save a very few exceptions, are used only for disambiguation and are easily identifiable for as such. Most disambiguation (and most all disambiguation that is not place names) in Wiki is done with parentheses. Go figure.

::*''"Why is it against the interests of the international media that is Wiki to use article names that are easily recognizable to a very large number of readers? "''

::.. simply because it is possible to create a disambiguation that is recognisable to ''all''. But here we don't even seem to be willing to even consider the question. "Hypothetical problems"? Let's not suggest that I'm digging up issues for the fun of it. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 16:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

:::The answers to those questions are straightforward: the comma and the parenthesis are both widely recognized. Neither is recognizable to absolutely every conceivable reader. The comma will be ''more'' widely expected in this context (It is used for geographical names in Turkish, for [[tr:Bozcaada, Çanakkale|example]]); whereas the parenthesis is used for disambiguation '''only''' when [[WP#DAB#specific cases|there is no alternate term]], as there always is here. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 22:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::Another example: for a time all TV episode titles for some series (like Lost) were predabbed by including the TV series name in parens after the episode name, whether the plain episode name had conflicts or not. The result was that often there would be an article at, say, '''Episode Name (Some Series)''' But the plain [[Episode Name]] would be a red link. This was all quickly fixed when the guidelines for TV episodes were changed to only dab with series name when there was a conflict with the plain episode name.

::::(after edit conflict with PManderson) I don't think I'm "entrenched into a justification of the present convention", although I believe that the broad thrust of the US, AUS and CAN city naming conventions is much better than the UK one. I actually dislike the occasional three-level US article names for example.

::::The reason you have not got an answer to whether "comma disambiguation is easily recognisable as such to all" is that it doesn't matter, and is an unanswerable question anyway. You can prove it's not by finding one person who didn't recognise it as disambiguation. So what? At least part of the naming convention is ''style'', which means it's not just disambiguation. Many readers will not recognise "Cheque" as disambiguation, either - that's the way it's supposed to be written in some variants of English.

::::The bit about the sole ''sure'' role of a disambiguator is to create a unique title is true, even if the disambiguator is " (anthropologist)" - the term means nothing to someone who doesn't know what it means. I'm not sure I understand your point.

::::There are three main methods of disambiguation used in Wikipedia, and we appear to have agreed it is not possible to count their uses. I suspect that comma is by far the most common for articles about towns and cities. It is relatively uncommon as disambiguation (''vice'' style) in articles about other things, again, so what? The comma notation and naming style is natural and easy to read for most English readers, moreso than parentheses.

::::I don't understand your last point, so won't attempt to answer. Please rephrase if you want a response from me. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 22:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::Again, getting back to human nature, there is no motivation to go through this process for articles with predabbed titles because it's natural to think that since a topic is at the "proper" (according to some predisambiguating naming conventions) title, there are more important things to do. So this stuff falls through the cracks, and articles like [[Norfolk]] remain as articles instead of being turned into dab pages. These are the unintended consequences that naturally result when we adopt predisambiguating naming conventions, whether it's for submarine names, TV episode names, or the names of U.S. cities... --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 16:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

::::: Apologies if my replies have not been the clearest - I have been attempting to mix my pointing out the usefuless of a "universal method" with answers to arguments seeking justification for the present method. And yes, there are many of the latter to answer to - I do think defenses are up here for one reason or another.

::::::In short, yes, nationalism might have been the motivation to resist the move in this case, but the fact that the U.S. city naming guidelines dictate that the chief competitor for the name (the city in VA) be predabbed per the comma convention was certainly the excuse given, and probably the main reason, that the resistance to the proposed move succeeded. After all, other similar efforts (also likely to have been motivated by nationalism), such as the great resistance to moving the city in Ireland from [[Cork]] to [[Cork (city)]], did not succeed, arguably because no specific naming guidelines called for other uses of the name in question (e.g. '''cork''') to be at titles other than the plain name (e.g. [[Cork]]). --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 21:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

::::: To tell you the truth: I don't know what the method in use for the UK is, so I can't judge there. I do agree with the dislike of three-level and "no level" disambiguation - these render the two-level disambiguation pointless and causes (further) confusion between disambiguating entities.

:::::::I don't see anywhere in the naming conventions that says just because an article's name is pre-dabbed that it can not be considered in the move request for another similarly named article... [[WP:NC(CN)]], [[WP:PRECISION]], [[WP:PRIMARYUSAGE]] seem to be more concerned about the entry into the Search box than the actual name of the article. As an example [[Danzig]] is a redirect for [[Gdańsk]], rather than a redirect to [[Danzig (band)]] or [[Danzig (disambiguation)]]. If the argument that [[Norfolk, Virginia]] has no claim to [[Norfolk]] had any validity, then [[Danzig]] certainly wouldn't be pointing to Gdańsk because of the article's current name. All in all, the faulty logic of other editors is not the fault of this naming convention, but rather of the editors making the argument... --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] ^{[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]} 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::::It is the fault of the closer who bought into that logic. Editors can make any argument they like, valid or not. The closer is suppose to sort it all out. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::Isolated instances can be blamed on those responsible, but when problematic behavior becomes common, it's time to accept that such behavior is the norm given the system as it is, and to look for a change in the system to solve the systemic problem. In this case the systemic problem is the practice of unnecessary disambiguation, and the solution is to stop that practice. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 22:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

::::: I do understand that commas are more "natural" for placenames for most English-speakers. My point is that, in this single media that is wiki, this comfort for this subject should perhaps not be the formost issue in titling articles. I would think that article-to-article comprehension (of method) should be more important, no matter the subject. I think parentheses are ugly (especially after "url_encode"-ing), but if it is the most obvious choice, than so be it. The same could very well be for the comma. All I'm promoting here is the usefulness of a single method.

::::::::(ec) Bobblehead, I am not claiming that the argument that a predabbed article (like [[Norfolk, Virginia]]) has no claim to its plain name (e.g., [[Norfolk]]) is logically valid - I'm saying enough people ''believe'' such arguments are valid, implicitly if not explicitly - that it has a real significant effect on how editors behave with respect to naming articles, creating appropriate redirects, making sure proper links are created on dab pages and in hat notes on primary use articles, etc., and that effect results in far more problems than would exist if no articles in Wikipedia were predabbed (dabbed even when there are no conflicts with the plain name), but were only dabbed ''when necessary'' to avoid actual conflicts. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 22:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

::::: [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 23:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ec}}True, true. The closing admin does need to take the argument's into consideration. But then, based on the closer's comments on their [[User_talk:Aervanath#Norfolk_.28disambiguation.29_move|talk page]], it looks like they didn't factor in either sides' arguments because no one proved that the county in England was not the primary topic. Not sure how that would have been done, since it's much hard to prove something isn't the primary topic than it is... In the example case, I don't see how having CityName, unless otherwise necessary, would have prevented the closing admin from coming to the same conclusion. Based on the other comments in the discussion, this seems more like another [[Boston, Lincolnshire]] vs. [[Boston, Massachusetts]] fight than a "But no other article is using it" fight.. Just, in this case, there is no clear Primary Topic with which to resolve the problem. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] ^{[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]} 22:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::''"I don't see how having CityName, unless otherwise necessary, would have prevented the closing admin from coming to the same conclusion."'' Whether not having the comma convention for U.S. cities would have prevented the closing admin from coming to the same conclusion is a separate question. My point is not about the close, but about all those arguing and voting oppose, and the effect of not having the comma convention on them, their arguments, and their votes that ultimately swayed the closer. '''Not having the comma convention for U.S. cities would have prevented those on the opposing side to make arguments based on the premise that the VA city must, by convention, not be at [[Norfolk]].''' That's just plain, logical fact. They would perhaps have still tried to rationalize, but would have much less to work with, and much less with which to persuade others to also oppose the proposed move. The closer's assessment would likely have been moot, since, as was the case with [[Cork]], in the end reason would have prevailed. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 22:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::The UK uses "comma county" for pure disambiguation - they use just the city/town/village/hamlet name until someone points out the need for it to be disambiguated (see [[talk:Bath#Requested move]] for a current example). They also have confusion over the definition of "county" - it appears to be the current "ceremonial county", but that's not clearly expressed and agreed, and cities may have a "historic county", "ceremonial county" and "administrative county", and I think they can all be different, and the city could have been in yet another county for about a hundred years up to the 1970s.

:::::::::::Serge, my point is that even if this convention allowed Norfolk, VA to be at Norfolk, the move discussion would have failed, because those that supported the move failed to show there wasn't a primary usage. Additionally, as almost all the other discussions between UK/US names have shown, most of the arguments used to keep a UK name at a ___location are primarily done for nationalistic purposes (i.e. "Boston, Massachusetts is named after Boston, Lincolnshire, so therefore Boston, Lincolnshire should be at Boston!!!!!!"), removing this naming convention will not change that. It will just mean a different argument than "Norfolk, Virginia will be located at [[Norfolk, Virginia]] regardless of this article's name" argument will be used to keep the article at the base name. The constant fighting over the Boston redirect and the ___location of the city of Cork are perfect examples of this. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] ^{[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]} 13:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::I don't believe a "universal method" is possible for all Wikipedia articles - yes it would be possible to specify that there must be a term in parentheses in the title to distinguish a particular article from all others, but then the discussion would be about the appropriate set of terms, and under what circumstances - for example [[Springfield (city)]] is no more use than [[Springfield]].

(unindent) Bobblehead, yes, those that supported the move failed to persuade enough of the others that there was no primary use for [[Norfolk]]. But ''why''? Many of them discounted the claim of the only other significant potential use of the name, the VA city, because this naming convention dictated that that article not be at [[Norfolk]]. So from their perspective, there was no other significant use of [[Norfolk]], so of course arguments that the one significant use was not primary failed. If this convention mandated that the VA city be at [[Norfolk]], and that additional [[WP:PRECISION|precision]] be added to the title ''only when necessary'' for [[WP:D|disambiguation]], it would be a completely different situation. Do you really not see that, or are you pulling my leg? --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 15:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::A wiki server is a tool. Wikipedia is a set of products built from the tool. This is the ''English Wikipedia'', so we do not have to choose article titles that a non-English-speaker can instantly recognise, as long as English speakers do. As far as I know, the comma notation for city and town names (followed by a state, province or county) is universally ''recognised'' (maybe not ''used'') by English speakers the world over. That makes it ideal as a naming convention for the English Wikipedia. It is purely a matter of individual interpretation whether one sees this as "disambiguation", "predisambiguation" or "style", and it is not really important to the project which interpretation is applied by any particular editor. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 14:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

=== My point here in a nutshell ===

::::::: Yes, the UK and its "-derry"'s and hamlets parishes and official counties and ceremonial counties and "Greater" areas that are known as the City name... I don't think they could have a "city, whatever" convention even if they wanted to.

There is an underlying reasonable assumption that is made about naming conventions, especially about those that are specific to some area of articles (like this one is with respect to U.S. cities), and that is this: naming conventions specify where articles are ''supposed to be''. The implied corollary to that is that ''articles are '''not''' supposed to be at places other than where the naming conventions dictate''.

When we apply this reasoning to this case, we see that the VA city is ''supposed to be'' (according to this guideline) at [[Norfolk, Virginia]] and is '''not''' ''supposed to be'' at [[Norfolk]]. How can we argue with that?

:::::::*''"yes it would be possible to specify that there must be a term in parentheses in the title to distinguish a particular article from all others, but then the discussion would be about the appropriate set of terms, and under what circumstances"''

::::::: Exactly - and I saw that one coming. The thing is, if there is no more convention to follow and disambiguation is identifiable for what it is, one is no longer restricted in his choice of terms used for disambiguation. For example, one could put [[Springfield (Jacksonville, Florida)]] or [[Springfield (St. Croix County, Wisconsin)]] - the only restrictions would be using the least amount of terms as possible (already the case for the Springfield of [[St. Croix County (Wisconsin)]]) or none at all - yes, this is practically impossible for [[Springfield]].

At the same time, the county in England '''is''' ''supposed to be'' at [[Norfolk]], unless it conflicts with some other relatively significant use of that name that is also ''supposed to be'' at [[Norfolk]] (which the city in VA is not).

::::::: The reason I have been argumentative is not because of any urge to enforce change, but my astonishment that so few are willing to admit that the porting of the "English-speaking comma habit" to Wikipedia titles is a "comfort issue" more than anything - it's contributors taking what everyone already does in their own respective region and making it a standard here, more often than not for articles about their own regions of their own writing. Some even took offense at this propos.

Even though they don't state it exactly like that, that is essentially what those who discount the claim of conflict with topics that must be predabbed are arguing, ''and understandably so''. It's a very practical and reasonable argument that is given credence solely by the existence of specific guidelines, like this one, that mandate predisambiguation.

::::::: I have nothing against the local practices themselves, but I hesitate at their lack of respect of ''each other'' - each convention was presented with its own well-being in mind, and no thought at all to the foreign reader or existing Wiki uses (other uses of the comma, etc). Non-English speaking countries not edited by "non-local" people get even less respect - actually, in a way, I don't think the language spoken should be a reason for differing treatment - all countries - andl all ''subjects'' if possible - should be treated the same. Is this unreasonable? [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And, because articles subject to predisambiguation are "supposed to be" at their predabbed titles, and are ''not'' "supposed to be" at their ''plain names'', editors of these articles naturally pay less attention to how the article topic is represented at the plain name (making sure the plain name redirects to the article, or the article is linked in a hat note or on a dab page at that plain name) than they would if the article was "supposed to be" at the plain name.

:::::::: ''The thing is, if there is no more convention to follow and disambiguation is identifiable for what it is, one is no longer restricted in his choice of terms used for disambiguation. '' -- And you think that this is a good thing? Advocating for more unpredictability in names? I don't see how that could possibly be beneficial to anyone. The mind boggles. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I oppose predisambiguation in any guideline in general, and in the U.S city guideline in particular. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 02:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::::<--------undenting

It might help if Promenader would describe some of the places where the comma convention does violence to the place naming. I think some examples were provided in the past, but I'll have to pass on combing the archives for them. An article like [[Mount Vernon, Singapore]] appears to have been created by a [[User:Rifleman 82|local]] who would be less likely to adopt the "American" convention simply because it was there. [[List of cities in Australia|Australian articles]] appear to use comma disambiguation. [[List of cities in India|Indian places]] vary (see [[Jaffrabad]] and [[Asola (India)|Asola]] (parentheses) versus [[Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh]] and [[Belur, West Bengal]]). [[List of towns in South Africa|South African articles]] often use commas, such as [[Sandton, Gauteng]], of course, and [[Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape]]. Obviously, non-English speaking places may differ, and I'm not familiar enough with them to comment much. But should the article currently at [[Saint-Denis, Réunion]] be at [[Saint-Denis (Réunion)]] or [[Saint-Denis de la Réunion]] as the article suggests? I don't understand French language or culture well enough to know whether it makes a difference. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 18:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait--Promenader wants ''only'' parentheses for ''all disambiguation'', right? In which case the place naming isn't an issue at all. All the same, commas don't seem to be confined to Americans. "Many" English speakers, maybe, but not only Americans. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 18:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought of one more way to explain this point. With this convention the way that it is, the only real candidates for [[Norfolk]] are:

: No, Promenader "wants" ''an identifiable method'' - meaning "one" - for disambiguation. He has no preference, and has stated before that he thinks parentheses practical - but ugly.

# an article about the county

# make it a dab page

However, if this convention did not mandate predisambiguation for the city in VA to be at [[Norfolk, Virginia]] (and, thus, ''not'' at [[Norfolk]]), then the choices for [[Norfolk]] would be:

: If I was to indicate a French city "French-style" (as in a French newscast), I would say [[Crotelles]], dans le [[département in France|département]] d'[[Indre et Loire]]; this is meaningless to most people foreign to France and its geography. "City, State" is the same to they, by the way. Yet I'm sure (as experience has taught me through my contributions to the [[Paris]] (et al) articles) that native French-speaking Wiki contribution is much larger than English-native contribution to French Wiki - and I'm sure the same applies for most other languages. Thus I think we should pay a little more attention to other cultures and methods - in our own presentation of ourselves. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 18:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

# an article about the county

::OK, but what I should have asked for is a "French-style" article title. [[Saint-Denis, Réunion]], [[Saint-Denis (Réunion)]] or [[Saint-Denis de la Réunion]], to give one example. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 18:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

# an article about the VA city

# make it a dab page

In the current situation, the dab page choice is one of two choices, so those supporting the county naturally oppose it. In the situation where the VA city was a candidate to be at [[Norfolk]], now the dab page choice is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 17:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

== Other examples: Chemistry ==

===Pop quiz===

Perhaps we might review [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)]] and the [[International_Union_of_Pure_and_Applied_Chemistry_nomenclature#Aims_of_chemical_nomenclature|IUPAC naming guidelines]] for chemical compounds.

For each of the following U.S. city names (taken off the top of my head, then alphabetized), consider:

# '''Before clicking on it''', do you think this name has a [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC|primary topic]]?

Naming chemical compounds has some similarities to settlement names such as:

# If so, do you think the primary topic is the U.S. city, or is some other use primary?

#Very few people know about chemical compounds except for people who know about the conventions ''before'' coming to Wikipedia (e.g., chemists and others with specific education/training).

# ''Okay, now click on it''.

#Chemical compounds are governed by several different ''formal'' naming conventions.

# How did you do? If your initial answer was different from how it is actually used, what do you think now that you see how that name is used/represented in WP? Good enough, or a case for WP:RM?

#A very small portion of chemical compounds are known by true common names (e.g., [[Dioxin]], [[LSD]], [[Acetic acid]]), which serve as the article titles for these compounds.

#Other common names such as [[Baking soda]] redirect to a more technically correct title.

#A very large number of compounds have article titles such as [[Bromotrifluoromethane]], [[Benzo(c)cinnoline]], or [[1,8-Bis(dimethylamino)naphthalene]] that are unambiguous yet also meaningless to the vast majority of readers. (See [[List of organic compounds]] and [[List of inorganic compounds]] for many more examples.)

#Context and audience are key considerations for the level of specificity. More specificity is required when the context (a dinner table versus a chemistry lab) requires it.

#Additional contextual elements (e.g., [[Chirality (chemistry)|Chirality]]) are added when necessary but are often left out of common names (e.g., [[Glucose]]).

The list:

One significant difference is that chemical compounds already have a set of accepted international naming conventions (external to Wikipedia). It is common to give the name of a compound according to several conventions to resolve ambiguity. Places (settlements) do not have a single convention, and it is not common to list a place name according to multiple conventions. Another important difference is that compounds do not have multiple namesake compounds (e.g., [[York (disambiguation)|York]], [[Portland (disambiguation)|Portland]]). One last difference is that there is no food fight over chemistry naming conventions at Wikipedia. ;)

[[Albany]], [[Anaheim]], [[Billings]], [[Birmingham]], [[Chesterfield]], [[Salem]], [[Long Beach]], [[Oakland]], [[Springfield]], [[Tampa]]

After looking at all of these examples, do you see a pattern that indicates a problem?

This is also another example of the use of parentheses (and commas) in article titles that is not disambiguation, at least in the Wikipedia sense.

--[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 17:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So long as there is a "reasonably" consistent method of disambiguation, it matters little what that method is. The Wiki preference is to use disambiguation that has more correspondence with "common" usage as possible, and then to deviate when necessary, generally following common usage disambiguation. Finally, [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)]] specifically references [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]] to state ''"Don't worry, redirects are cheap."''

Maybe we can chew on this instead. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 16:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

:To be honest, not really. The only ones that jumped out at me being clear redirects to particular U.S. locations (Anaheim, Oakland, Tampa) were in fact redirects as I expected. Birmingham I expected to be the title of the article on the English city, as it was. The others I expected to be DAB pages. But, hey - I'm Canadian and frankly to me a chesterfield is a couch, so what do I know?! --[[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|talk]]) 18:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

==Universal conventions==

::I've got to agree with Skeezix. The only link I was moderately surprised about was Albany going to a dab, but that's predominantly because I'm from the US so had to memorize all the state's capital's in school. If I lived outside the US, I would have no reason to know that Albany was the capital of New York. I also know what you were going for with Billings, Montana, but you're talking about a relatively small city in the middle of nowhere. I wager most Americans have never even heard of Billings, much less people that live outside the US. Heck, I'm not even sure what your point is with [[Salem]]. I thought [[Salem, Oregon]] initially, then [[Salem, Massachusetts]] because of the [[Salem witch trials]], followed by [[Salem Saberhagen|the cat]].--[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] ^{[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]} 23:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(new heading for ease of editing, and subject has evolved)

:::I should have worked harder/longer to find better examples. These are literally off the top of my head, not selected to demonstrate the point, though I felt even semi-randomly selected city names should do it.

ThePromenader above appears to be proposing that all disambiguation in all language wikipedias should follow a common convention regardless of the topic of the article, and that English-language conventions should not be applied to a globally-accessable wiki.

:::In fact, I do think that that U.S. cities of [[Albany]] and [[Billings]] meet the [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC|primary topic]] criteria, based on a quick glance at google test results, yet those names do not redirect to the U.S. city articles. Furthermore, I think that [[Birmingham, Alabama]] is sufficiently important to dethrone the English city from primary topic, and the combined uses of the very popular name, '''Chesterfield''', should also make [[Chesterfield]] a dab page.

My question (since [[User:ThePromenader|ThePromenader]]'s user page has four babel boxes on it) is "How do other language wikipedias deal with these problems? There must be similar difficulties in other languages, especially the ones spoken in multiple countries.

:::But do your own test. Pick a few cities in the U.S. to which you've traveled, add the cities in which your parents and maybe some other relatives were born, a few cities picked at random that have NFC and AFC teams, and do your own check. I'm confident that in almost any such list you will find at least one city that is improperly represented. Either its name should be a redirect to the city article (but it isn't), or some other topic is at the name (which should be dab page), or links or missing, or something. Such anomalies are very common in any category of topics for which predisambiguation is the norm. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 05:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I also note that there is ''no problem whatsoever'' with 'porting of the "English-speaking comma habit" to Wikipedia titles' within the ''English Wikipedia'' - there could be a problem forcing English-language conventions onto the French or German Wikipedia, but we're not trying to do that. I attempted to raise a discussion to standardise the naming of settlement articles across the entire English Wikipedia (see [[/comma for all cities ]]) and it was clear that the most people who responded did not even wish to extend English language habits to English-language articles about non-English-speaking places. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. With all due respects, I'm not sure that I'd agree with your thoughts on the primary usage of the above-listed terms. And, sorry, but it seems obvious that the U.K. city is the primary usage of Birmingham. I don't think you can chalk that one up to British nationalists or the U.S. naming convention. --[[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|talk]]) 17:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

: LOL - thanks for the special section. But you know, I haven't even really paid much thought to how other languages deal with the problem. As for an international media such as Wiki, all solutions should be the same - the treatment should be adapted to the media and its readership. Unless of course we are dealing with a very, very limited language that is not shared by other countries... but then I can note that Japanese treatment of pages on certain cultural subjects (that I am familiar with) are quite appalling... but that is another debate. Here we have a Wiki where not only many contributors write articles particular to their own country in their own language and traditions; Most probably because of English Wiki's popularity (voir: "majority"), there are also a large number of contributors ''who are not native English-speakers'' creating articles (off the top of my head - [[Mumbai]]). This, in my books at least, is an even higher motivation to "think large".

:As a reminder, primary topic does not merely mean most important or most popular usage. [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC|Primary topic criteria]] is: "'''much more used''' than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer ('''significantly more commonly searched for and read''' than other meanings)". When you [[WP:GOOGLE|google]] a term, the primary topic of that term, if there is one, should dominate the results. Compare the results of googling for Paris or London with Birmingham search results. Well, there is no comparison. Now, it's true that the English city is more important, but that does not make it ''primary''. For example, the usage statistics:

: No there is no "problem" ''per se'' with the "local tradition" "conventions" - let's just say that, from an extra-cultural point of view, it doesn't look very serious. Wiki as a media should be behaving as a whole so that any reader, from anywhere, can find any article about any place with the same method. Wiki is perhaps one of the world's first chances at a "World Encyclopaedia" written from a "world point of view" - to tell you the truth, I'm quite enamoured with that idea. The thing is, for it to be seen as a solid and unique media, methods used within have to be constant cross-board. Otherwise Wiki looks to be a place where every contributor, with nary a thought to the traditions of other cultures (especially those of their readers) carves a little corner of their own. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 00:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:*Birmingham,_Alabama has been viewed 32601 times in 200901. [http://stats.grok.se/en/200901/Birmingham,%20Alabama 1]

::I believe the convention is that each language Wikipedia may name and organise articles in a manner that makes sense in that language. I don't know where to look for that guideline/policy though. Interwiki links allow readers to easily swap languages and find the equivalent article. I note that about 8 of the other language links for [[Mumbai]] have names similar to [[Bombay]] rather than [[Mumbai]]. There are at least two languages that appear not to believe there is a need for disambiguation of [[Springfield]] ([[eu:Springfield]] and [[sk:Springfield]]). Other languages appear split about 2:1 between [[Springfield (Illinois)]] variants and [[Springfield, Illinois]] variants. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 01:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:*Birmingham has been viewed 79197 times in 200901 [http://stats.grok.se/en/200901/Birmingham 2]

:* Results 1 - 10 of about 11,700,000 for +Birmingham +England.

::: I did say though that my questions never even touched on how other languages deal with similar problems (or if they even have them) - I've been looking particularily at English Wiki articles and its treatment of the same/exposure as a whole. English Wiki is by far its most popular and most mediatised version.

:* Results 1 - 10 of about 10,300,000 for +Birmingham +Alabama

:* Results 1 - 10 of about 2,760,000 for +Birmingham UK -AL -Alabama England.

::: Perhaps again I wasn't clear - by "ethnic corner" I meant "within English Wiki." [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 01:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:* Results 1 - 10 of about 5,560,000 for +Birmingham -UK AL Alabama -England.

:That is simply not the domination in pages view or ghits that indicates a primary topic. Not even close. The Alabama city gets almost half as many views, and that includes everyone who goes to view the English city first (because they searched for "Birmingham"). In ghits it's even closer, and in the second test the AL city clearly wins. Now, this is not the place to argue about Birmingham, but I'm just illustrating the point that U.S. cities do not get proper representation because of predisambiguation per the comma convention. If anyone proposed a move of Birmingham, I can virtually guarantee that a significant number of those opposing will do so because they discount the weight of the AL city because this convention dictates that it not be at [[Birmingham]] even if ''it'' was the primary topic. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 18:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

::::''Wiki as a media should be behaving as a whole so that any reader, from anywhere, can find any article about any place with the same method.'' This anticipates that ''multiple'' sets of searches should lead to the same point. For example, [[Springfield, Illinois]] and [[Springfield (Illinois)]]. In which case the particular disambiguation method is less important than the fact that two different searches end up in the same place. For "settlement" article titles, this discussion seems to come down to what constitutes '''"second nature"''' as suggested in the policy [[WP:NC]]:

::::*Parentheses disambiguation, used most frequently in Wikipedia, or

::::*Comma disambiguation, used by many people and in many places, but ''recognized'' by even more people when disambiguating places. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 05:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::: With the above you are essentially saying: "Most of Our people understand our way of doing it" - I think I already mentioned my thoughts on that above. Here I am proposing the creation of an "all people recognising one way of doing it" method. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

::The reason for the low number of google hits for Birmingham, UK is your selection of search terms. Few pages use both England and UK. Using just one of the terms gives you 8 (+England) or 13 million (+UK). The use of al, which google matches with anyone called al along with a load of similar words. You can get different results simply by adding a +.

::::: Thanks, I almost agree with you - I meant actually that it would be best that Wiki adopt a single method that would become recognisable (hopefully) from the first time it is seen, so that the reader would know what to expect in the next title read if the same method is seen again - but there's no reason both possibilities can be ''covered'' - think "correction" - if they redirect to a single method. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 05:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

::*Birmingham +england -alabama -al +uk = 2,290,000

I do understand what an uphill battle implementing a universal method would be. The thing is with a media such as Wiki, where volunteer contributors submit articles of their own choice using their own methods decided by themselves, is that there is going to be a certain amount of contributor "me" in each submission - this is only to be expected. But this "me" stretches way beyond locals using locally-recognisable practices to name articles about towns from their own country - "river" affectionados have "their" way of titling articles (river tributary as both locator and disambiguation - between parentheses); "highway" amateurs have their way of doing things (not only with little thought to the existence of other countries, but also bridging several methods of disambiguation/designation), and I'm sure there are other "special to interest" examples that have nothing to do with placenames.

::*Birmingham -england +alabama +al -uk = 1,170,000

::The usage statistics are pretty convincing. Currently at least 58% are where they want to be with another 41% wanting to go to Brum, AL and 1% wanting something else. If the Birmingham page was changed to the disambiguation page then only the 1% wanting other pages would benifit with the majority of readers now having an extra click. This asumes that everyone uses the Birmingham page to get to their own. The real figure is probably more like 75% of the readers wanting the page for the English city. [[User:Eckerslike|Eckerslike]] ([[User talk:Eckerslike|talk]]) 20:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose in hearing the above facts one could through his hands in the air and declare: "Oh, well, I guess Wiki will always be that way; one can't very well ask volunteer contributors to contribute in a way they don't feel comfortable with." Yet in spite of this I still ''do'' think that a universal method ''is'' possible, but before that can happen, a fundamental change must take place: ''contributors must think of Wiki as a whole'', as for now its methods, qualities and criteria are splintered into a myriad of "special interest" groups, each with its own criteria, quality and methodology. I find this phenomenon to be an odd one as, since contributors rarely pay little heed to subjects outside of their own interests and knowledge, they are often not aware of such differences; yet to the reader, whose unpredictable origins and interests are not limited to the same criteria (the same reader may return for several different subjects), these limitations do not exist. So, in short, the contributor is rarely aware of Wiki as a whole, but the reader often ''is''.

== Merge or rename ==

I suppose that this is indeed the wrong place for discussing such things. The above did indeed develop with second thoughts about the "City, State" methodology (after an initial show of support), but seems to have moved beyond. In any case, a "solution" for the "city, state" convention will never be reached by quibbling over details here; contributor awareness (and interest) must grow first as a whole. Yet where would be a place best suited to bring this up? I have yet to see (as corny as it may sound) a "Wiki as a whole" section. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:The absence of a Wiki-as-a-whole section is probably a good thing: ''meta'' is the closest available approximation. In what language would we conduct it?

This page seems to deal exclusively with the question of disambiguation and similar tags, not with the naming of settlements in general (which is dealt with at [[WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)]]. We ought to either merge the two pages (my preference; possibly with some of the country-specific stuff moved to separate pages), or at least rename this one to indicate its actual topical scope.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 11:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

:Even English WP has very little covering it as a whole; and this is also a good thing. With the exception of a handful of universal '''policies''', Wikipedia grows bottom-up, and is inconsistent; see [[WP:POINT]]. Universal practices must evolve, with genuinely universal consent, or they are unenforceable; indeed, there's no way for any central bunch of pontificators to ensure that every editor ''knows'' of their decrees (the closest I can imagine is putting it into the edit screen; and even that doesn't work). Uniform disambiguation is neither possible nor desirable. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:I think I've successfully merged this with NCGN. If people prefer to keep the disambiguation topic separate, then I think the pages ought to have more transparent names, like "NC (geographic name disambiguation)".--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 10:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

:: Again, I've never spoken "inter- language Wiki" - my concerns are with only this - most popular, and most regarded - English Wiki.

:: LOL - again, your own arguments for your own conclusions. You are again speaking from a ''comfortable contributor'' point of view. Imagine if you had the chance to contribute an article to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I'm sure that you'd pay much more attention to how your article "fits in" in regard to other articles and protocols. That sort of criteria does not yet exist here, so you need not worry. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]

:Promenader is ''proposing the creation of an "all people recognising one way of doing it" method.'' I simply do not believe that there is any such thing with an entity as large as WikiPedia. Hard copy general-audience references are restricted in the total number of topics, so they don't have problems with naming of "uncommon" molecules and "less well-known" places--which are left to be covered in specialty references, which have their own conventions. With the smaller set of topics, it's easier to have single ("universal") conventions for article naming.

:Once you have a "universal" reference (e.g., WP), having universal conventions becomes much less viable. And the technology of redirects and web servers makes it unnecessary. So long as there is ''both'' general structure and "local" structure within topics, there is no danger of anarchy or chaos. Redirects easily bridge discontinuities in naming by allowing multiple search paths a single article.

:At the risk of [[WP:Wikilawyering|Wikilawyering]], I'd like to break down the [[WP:NC]] 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.

:''what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize'': Even if we allow one-country, one vote, the comma convention appears to satisfy this requirement, since it conforms to what people use ''outside of Wikipedia''. On a strict count basis, which search term is more likely: ''Kansas City, Kansas'' or ''Kansas City (Kansas)?''

:''with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity'': I think it's ''un''reasonable to assume that a ''completely'' naive reader is the "most likely" reader of a given article. It makes far more sense to structure article titles for readers who are "vaguely familiar" with a topic. After all, who is more likely to be searching for places in the US? People in the US or people outside the US ''who are completely unfamiliar with US naming conventions?'' Deviating from conventions familiar to ''a majority'' (if not most) readers ''increases'' ambiguity, however slightly.

:As a side note, I hope we agree that ''Use the most common name'' is in the service of "most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" and that this does not mean the reverse, namely ''the article title should unambiguously call out the common name of the topic.''

:Most ''actual'' readers and users will be familiar with and "comfortable with" the US naming conventions. Those unfamiliar with the conventions may search using a DAB page, or maybe even the parentheses DAB, but it will hardly be impossible for them to find the articles. On the flip side, I believe (but cannot prove) that using a non-standard convention for placenames (in the US and probably elsewhere) in WP will make it ''harder'' for ''most'' '''actual''' readers. At a minimum, I doubt that using parentheses will make it ''easier'' for readers than it already is. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 18:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:: What you are citing is (again) 'a majority of locals understand their own method (style) of designation/disambiguation'. If you are not interested in any higher level of 'universal understanding' (that the WWW ''is''), then you have nothing to contribute to the debate that I have proposed. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I disagree with your proposal. I assume that disagreement is a legitimate contribution to your debate. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:::: Yes, but what do you disagree ''with''? That all should be understood by all? Then we can rest assured that you are happy with Wiki as it is. If I am a maverick (at present), then so be it. [[User:ThePromenader|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE<span style="color:#aba67e;">PROMENADER</span></span>]] 19:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::I disagree that it's ''possible'' for ''anything'' to be understood by all. I have stated variations of this claim several times before, most recently: ''Any scheme of disambiguation--in the title--will always leave some doubt as to whether or not disambiguation is used--in the title.'' I am not happy with Wiki the way it is, either. --[[User:Ishu|Ishu]] 19:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)