The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus. While, personally, I favor the proposal, this really comes close to WP:POINT. If LA didn't pass, Houston et al. certainly won't . This becomes a waste of time for all of us, and I urge the discussion to be continued at WP:NC or wherever, to reach a global consensus. Future polls of this nature might be closed per WP:SNOW. Duja 07:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

---

1. Houston, Texas → Houston
2. San Antonio, Texas → San Antonio
3. Dallas, Texas → Dallas

Like Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia, the three largest and most famous cities in Texas certainly don't need to be disambiguated by state, and using the city name only (without , Texas) in each is consistent with WP:NC(CN), and consistent with the Wikipedia convention used for almost all other large cities in the world. In each case, the name alone page redirects to the city article, so there are no ambiguity issues. Serge 18:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Please vote on whether to support or oppose all three moves. Add  * '''Support'''   or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support

• Support (my move request). --Serge 18:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Houston and Dallas are two of the largest cities in the U.S., and very well known internationally. The two sections should definately be located at Houston and Dallas respectively. But for San Antonio, I'm not as sure about its international fame, so only Support for San Antonio, not strong like Dallas and Houston. Wirbelwind 18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note that San Antonio is the 7th largest city in the U.S., and is world famous for the Battle of the Alamo. --Serge 18:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but simply because it is the 7th largest city doesn't automatically make it world famous. And the Alamo is more known in the U.S. And IIRC, Dallas was more populated than San Antonio for a long time till not too long ago. For example, Ankara has 3.5 million people, almost 3 times more than San Antonio. Do you know where Ankara is? I didn't till two minutes ago. Kinshasa has 4.38 million, more than Ankara. Do you know where that is? My point is, just because a city has people doesn't make it well known around the world. Wirbelwind 22:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the reasons specified for the move in this request do not rely on these cities being world famous. --Serge 03:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it does suggest possible problems in the future, when more people want articles of cities to have the same format, i.e. where should the line be drawn? World famous cities have that argument, but San Antonio does not really. And that's all I meant. --Wirbelwind 01:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The line can be drawn where it is drawn for the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, including articles about cities in other countries: where disambiguation is needed to resolve an ambiguity issue (otherwise, don't disambiguate; use just the most common name). Simple. Clear. Consistent. --Serge 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support for Houston and Dallas. I had never heard about any others until Wikipedia. I had however heard of another San Antonio, so just a regular Support for it. all. Never mind. Serge makes a good point. Tennis Dynamite 20:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Brownings 21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. These cities are known globally and do not need the statename.--- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"
• Support, Houston and Dallas based on gamma world city status. Postoak 01:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This proves my point for my vote above. Wirbelwind 02:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, like I supported Los Angeles... Bssc81 01:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC) If Los Angeles can't even be moved, I don't see why these should be. It makes little sense to do so (which is why I find it appalling that Philadelphia and Chicago were moved if people were just going to vote down LA.)
• Strong Support Houston and Dallas. Weak Support San Antonio, which is considerably smaller (as a metro area) and less famous. I don't think there's serious ambiguity issues in any case, though, so no reason to oppose. john k 02:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support for Houston and Dallas, neutral on San Antonio. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support --JFreeman ^(talk) 15:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support -- All three cities are listed by the AP Style Book as cities that can stand alone when used in datelines and in the text. Plus, the unqualified names for all three already redirect to the city articles so primary topic usage has been established. --Polaron | Talk 16:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support all three. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 08:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Dallas and Houston; as World cities, I feel they merit an exemption from the City name, State name standard. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support --DaveOinSF 00:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support all three, although I suggest looking at the AP Stylebook suggestion on the convention talk page. -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strong oppose. If we want to change every city then we should seek to change the naming convention. There is nothing wrong with the current name. -Will Beback 20:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  I believe you are confusing the document guideline with the convention that it supposedly reflects. Arguably, there never was a true natural consensus for using the comma format on city articles that did not have ambiguity issues. An artificial convention was established through the use of a bot on thousands of U.S. city articles. Since the documented guidelines reflect actual current usage, the only way to "change the convention" is in article space, like this move. --Serge 16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. —  AjaxSmack  06:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Will Beback. Vegaswikian 07:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Will Beback. Gene Nygaard 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose to follow convention and keep it simple. Bubba ditto 22:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Opppose per above comments and my comments at similar discussions. --musicpvm 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - not good enough reason to move all three. Krugs 15:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose San Antonio, as it is not a World city --Kralizec! (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Will Beback and per the persistent attempts at Seattle as well as the previous failed attempts at Boston, New Orleans, San Francisco, etc. The band aid patch attempt of constantly creating exceptions is counter productive. Plus there is no practical reason for the change since redirects work fine. And finally, there are ambiguity issues for all cities as evident by the lengthy disambig pages for all three. Houston (disambiguation), Dallas (disambiguation), and San Antonio (disambiguation). Agne 00:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  The "redirects work fine" rationale is not a rationale - a page can only be at one place, and we should put it at the best place. Whether redirects work fine oughtn't to come into it. john k 03:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  A consistent argument for these page moves was that th most "Common name" should be the article title for ease of finding in a search engine. Well, the practical use of redirects nullify that argument. So now what reason is there for the move? Agne 06:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  What about the even lengthier London (disambiguation) page? And yet London is at London. Like with some of the arguments mentioned on Talk:Los Angeles, this issue is not unique to these three articles. Just a thought. -- tariqabjotu 03:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  Well, different naming convention. Which is a different problem. If London was covered by the US convention, then we might be debating if the dab should be at that name space. Vegaswikian 06:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  And I would support London being moved London, United Kingdom for just that reason. Agne 06:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Agne and Will Beback. Adding three more "exceptions" is the wrong solution, and does nothing but render the naming guideline essentially useless. If there is disagreement with the guideline, debate should be (and has been) there. As I said in the failed attempts listed above, exceptions should be for exceptional cases. I see nothing in any of these three that qualify for execptional cases. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 00:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - change the convention at WP:NC (settlements), then come back here. --Bobblehead 01:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Will Beback. AJD 01:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose (procedural) per Will Beback. But I will support a change through WP:NC:CITY amongst a group nomination. Tinlinkin 04:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It is my opinion that ALL city articles (and not just the US) should be city, state/province format (i.e. Toronto would be Toronto, Ontario) and will support any change in the policy to support this. TJ Spyke 06:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. per Will Beback and others. ^BlankVerse 13:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per Agne, Will B, and others. Since different disambiguation issues exist for all three, page moves for cities should never be lumped like this. Jonathunder 13:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Will, whether every city is to be changed is a separate issue. The issue here is whether these three city articles are to be changed. All Wikipedia naming conventions are established, changed and evolved at the individual article level. They are documented as guidelines -- that allow for exceptions -- that reflect the conventions, not the other way around. The only way to change a naming convention is to, well, change names contrary to the convention! Conventions aren't determined by voting - they are determined by consensus in behavior, particularly by decisions made at the individual article level. --Serge 21:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Why should Dallas be treated differently from Fort Worth, or from Odessa? It is helpful for a reference work to use consistent naming. The U.S. has well-defined city and state governments, and it also has many community names which are used repeatedly. It makes sense to have a consistent treatment of U.S. communities, as it helps editors and readers. -Will Beback 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• For now, this survey will determine if there is consensus to move the three biggest cities; Fort Worth is 5th largest. Odessa is an example of a city that requires disambiguation. To be consistent with general Wikipedia disambiguation conventions, I think it should be at [[Odessa (Texas)]] or [[Odessa (city in Texas)]], but that's a separate issue. --Serge 21:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• So you don't see any benefit in having consistent naming for Texas cities? Why are the three biggest special? Why not the ten bigggest or the hundred biggest? What's the point of chaning these three cities alone? -Will Beback 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• He seems to be doing this one step at a time.Tennis Dynamite 22:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, in an evolutionary system like Wikipedia, change necessarily happens one step at a time. Some steps are little, some are big, and the frequency with which they are taken may vary, but there is no god controlling or directing the overall process. My choice of the top 3, for now anyway, was somewhat arbitrary. It's a manageable number, and more efficient than voting on each one separately. As to the value of consistent naming for Texas cities, no I don't see much value in that, when they are named inconsistent with WP:NC(CN). If I had to choose between some being consistent with WP:NC(CN) vs. none being consistent with WP:NC(CN), I would choose some, because some is better than none, even if some means Texas cities will be named inconsistently with respect to each other. It's an evolutionary step in the right direction - greater naming convention consistency within Wikipedia overall. Will, maybe that's the difference between you and me: my main concern is consistency in the Wikipedia forest overall, and you're mostly concerned about consistency between the individual trees in the local woods? --Serge 22:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But to argue, why should Chicago and Philadelphia not be "Chicago, Illinois" and "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania"? Why does it stop there? Or even New York City, New York, even if the state name is already in the city name, and "City" is part of the name? Wirbelwind 22:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Are you asking me? Chicago and Philadelphia should not be "Chicago, Illinois" and "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania", because that would contradict Wikipedia consensus, and also because it would not be consistent with WP:NC(CN), which is the primary guiding naming principle for almost all Wikipedia articles (use the name most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article). By the way, "City" is not part of the official name of New York City, that's just how it is best known. Hence, that's why the article name is New York City and not New York, New York or New York. Does that make sense? --Serge 23:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, I was replying to Will's argument at why stop at 3 cities. Wirbelwind 23:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

At a guess, Will does think Chicago and Philadelphia should be moved back (he voted against the latter move, at least, and possibly against the former, although I'm less certain). He seems to have even expressed some affection for moving New York City back to New York, New York. He may have stated, even further, over at Talk:Los Angeles, California, that the naming conventions for all cities should be modelled on the US convention (thus presumably forcing us to have articles like Munich, Bavaria; Florence, Tuscany; and Barcelona, Catalonia - or possibly the dreaded Munich, Germany; Florence, Italy; and Barcelona, Spain - although I'm not certain this was a serious comment). So probably your rhetorical question would not meet the response you expected. john k 02:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Something interesting: Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia I know of that has its U.S. cities at [[City, State]]. World Book, Encyclopæedia Britannica, and all the others that I know of put cities like Dallas, Houston, and Los Angeles just at [{City]]. --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"

This vote is currently 14-12 in favor of the page move. --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"

Note that one of the oppose comments is only in regards to San Antonio... not that it makes a significant difference. -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

To all interested parties, I have made a proposal that we change the guidelines so that 27 of the 30 cities that the AP Style Book says to use without the state in datelines should do so in their wikipedia article title as well, over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). I hope anyone interested in this issue will head over there and express their opinion. john k 03:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.