Rather then try another poll on this, can we get some discussions started on possible options and see if there is any support one way or another? I'm adding some of the options I'm aware of to start the discussion. Please try to remain civil and try to use these discussions as a means to reach some consensus on this topic. If I missed any options, feel free to add more sections. Please don't try to turn this into a vote, it is not. Let's limit the discussion to the pros and cons of the various options. Vegaswikian 21:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo

Leave the comma convention in place either with no exceptions or only the long standing exception for New York City.

• Comment The status quo would include the exceptions of Philadelphia and Chicago as well as New York City. No matter what the guidelines say, there can always be exceptions. --Serge 21:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro. Most US cities already conform. Vegaswikian 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. If kept, would the rename requests and endless discussions ever end, especially if open ended exceptions are allowed? Vegaswikian 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Not supported by a consensus. Never has been, probably never will. --Serge 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • disputed Was originally supported by consensus, continued to be for a long time. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was originally implemented by a bot. When some editors saw that it was bad, another group of editors rose up to defend it. I'm not aware of any time it was supported by consensus. --Yath 16:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Inconsistent with Wikipedia's most prominent naming convention/guideline: use the most common name of an article subject as the title unless disambiguation is required per WP:D. --Serge 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Most prominent naming convention is a subjective interpretation when WP:NC(CN) nutshell definition establishes that when common names convention conflicts with other naming conventions the other naming convention is to be used. --Bobblehead 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Regardless of what the guideline verbiage states, the use-the-most-common name convention is the most widely followed naming convention in Wikipedia. Disgree? Which convention is more widely followed then? --Serge 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what metric you would like to use, but I think WP:NC, WP:NC:CITY, WP:NCP and WP:UE would all be candidates, along with WP:DAB. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Con. Inconsistent with primary practice in place for almost the entire rest of the world. Bearcat 04:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro Greater consistency for a greater number of settlement related articles. Consistent format will also be of aid in categorization and other article enhancements. Simply put, we can all get back to the work of improving our articles. Agne 05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro Removing subjective "exception creation" will enhance the stability of the convention. Agne 05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro. Commonly used outside of Wikipedia. --Bobblehead 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro. Avoids conflicts between same named cities over which city is more notable, ie Portland, Dorset, Portland, Oregon or Portland, Maine, or if the other city is the preeminent usage, ie Vancouver, British Columbia vs. Vancouver, Washington. --Bobblehead 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposal, being US only, would not address the cross country problem. That is a different problem. Vegaswikian 07:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this convention simply stem from a distrust of other editors? You should know that naming conflicts are handled all the time in Wikipedia. We're actually quite good at it. --Yath 16:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro. Adds another layer of location identification for lesser known, but unique city names, ie Sequim could be anywhere, but Sequim, Washington is clearly identified as being in Washington.--Bobblehead 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This often means that reading articles such as biographies, the link title contains enough information for the reader, even if they have never heard of the town. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Does not resolve the issue that it's intended to solve anywhere near as well as people think it does; people still quite regularly link to "City" alone, and hence frequently to dab pages or wrong topics, for American cities in spite of the supposed "predictability" of the current American naming convention. Bearcat 06:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately with the encyclopedia that anyone can edit you will always have "newbie" mistakes such as incorrect linking to DAB pages, forgetting to sign your talk page post or even adding unsourced materials to articles. With most newbie mistakes, experience and observing others is the best teacher. Agne 07:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pro It is much easier to identify and fix bad links to the plain city name if the "good" links are to a unique name. This assists resolving both present and future ambiguity. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro Supported by Wikipedia:Naming conventions: Generally, article naming should prefer 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. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how WP:NC would be violated by articles at Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Honolulu, and so forth. john k 15:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. (This would be pro were the comma disambiguation method the most-used on Wiki). The comma convention is not only an exception: it owes its existence to the "convenience of habit" practices of one speaking of another locale in his own country. Were there a Wiki for every country this would be fine, but the inhabitants of one country rarely refer to the settlements of another in the same fashion as its "locals". I find this practice to be rather segregationist - and it is better, especially for contributor convenience and inter-linking, to only disambiguate when necessary. THEPROMENADER 13:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However the comma form is the most common one for place names, right? Does anyone have actual numbers to prove or disprove my statement? Vegaswikian 19:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However I wasn't speaking of only placenames - only of all of Wiki. I see sense in "one publication, one method of disambiguation" - don't you? Thankfully none of that discounts anything in my other points : ) THEPROMENADER 00:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree about the one view point. That is why the common form makes sense. You can not have city as the form since there are too many cases where disambiguation would be required. The common form eliminates much of this problem. Secondly, can it what you will, style sheet or disambiguation, but the common format is in common usage around the world as far as I know. So, this is using the common name to describe locations. If you look at it that way, it is either using the common name or a style sheet, it is not disambiguation. Vegaswikian 19:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remember that the "common form" you speak of is only common to those speaking of another locale within their own country. This habit, for sure, is something more than disambiguation (call it a "locator" for those who know where the states/provinces attached to the name are), but it still qualifies as a form of disambiguation. I also don't think this "local" habit is very flattering to the international media that is supposed to be Wiki. THEPROMENADER 20:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro. WP:NC supports precise names when there can be multiple meanings. Since some locations will need precise names, using this as a style standard would be acceptable and reasonable. Vegaswikian 00:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a pro for using this style when disambiguation is required, but not for articles for which disambiguation of the most common name is not required. That's not the status quo. --Serge 05:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Inconvenient, inconsistent, out of sync with the rest of the world.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disputed on all counts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro The exception for New York City is unavoidable: New York, New York can mean New York County = Manhattan; New York City, New York is not English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro US municipalities do change name from time to time; for instance, the change, approved last November, of Dover Township, New Jersey to Toms River, New Jersey. This permits other towns of these names to stay where they are, without worrying whether Toms River is now ambiguous, or a solitary Dover Township now unambiguous. Stability is good for readers and editors alike. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, when someone spots a name change, it's that person's responsibility to make sure all appropriate links and relations (new and old) are changed to preserve integrity. As an editor who deals with this kind of work almost daily, I assure you it's not that huge of a burden.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the links to the places in New Jersey, and the dab page, should be adjusted (and they have been).
    • But why uproot Dover Township, Minnesota because of a vote in New Jersey? (This is a hypothetical; actually, it's still ambiguous - but suppose it weren't). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason why Dover Township, Minnesota should be uprooted in this hypothetical case is because it would no longer conform to the naming convention (it would no longer be ambiguous, hence no disambiguator would be needed). Again, since the editor making the change would undoubtedly check the pre-change disambiguation page anyway, it is not that much work to move two articles instead of two. Such procedure is already being done in many other areas of Wikipedia, and I don't see anyone complaining that it's too difficult to do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, if we adhered to that naming convention, we would move it. But moving it is a cost to Wikipedia in drudge work of link repair. Yhis additional unnecessary cost is a reason why changing conventions is a bad idea, unless moving it would be a good thing independent of convention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, now that we have pros and cons neatly laid out (for a change), let's see what others have to say. I somehow don't think that just two of us can decide something on this scale even if we find a mutual consensus :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro Conventions are most important where there are reasonable justifications for more than one way of doing things. Otherwise we end up waisting time rearguing the same questions over and over, article by article. --agr 14:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disputed. That's true in general, but, because exceptions are always allowed, when conventions go too far, like this one, requiring disambiguation even when referring to the subject of a given article is clearly the only usage, or unquestionably the most dominant usage, of the most common name used for that subject, the "wasting time rearguing the same questions over and over" is actually increased. Evidence of this is the reduction in such arguments in countries where the naming conventions are not so strict (e.g., Canada and Russia). --Serge 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice Serge didn't use Australia as an example - the guideline for articles on Australian city and town articles is as strong as the USA one, with no disputes in the last two years. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's incorrect. Australia has a relief valve, if you will, in that it allows, even prefers, capital cities to be at city name only. This is particularly significant in Australia where the best known and largest cities tend to be the capitals. In other words, there is no city in Australia the size and significance of Chicago, for example, which is not a capital. So while the guideline specifically calls for capitals to be at city name only, the practical effect is that all large/well-known Australian cities are at city name only. That's why there are no disputes. See Adelaide, Sydney, Canberra, etc. I would certainly support a guideline with a similar effect in the U.S. --Serge 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps Serge is right that the Australian convention has a relief valve. It was voted before I joined Wikipedia. Considerations for a similar relief valve for US city articles must be:
          1. The list must be short enough for regular editors to keep in their head (there are 6 for Australia)
          2. The list must be defined objectively and unambiguously
          3. With no context, that city must be the first and only concept to come to mind instantly for the word
        • I don't know if there is any criteria for point 2 that will yield a list satisfying point 3. The top of the list at Global city might go close. New York City satisfies them, but I don't believe Philadelphia and Chicago do. The rest of my list might look like Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, Las Vegas, Pittsburgh. Are there other major city names that instantly bring only that city to mind given the name without even the context that it's a placename? Note that Australia has many places named after local or indigenous words that are likely to remain unique, but follow the naming convention. Washington, D.C. does, but only with the "D.C.". Perhaps we should add a section here for "Status quo but exceptions for Alpha and Beta world cities" and see how it stacks up. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Australia is a unique situation in that it's most commonly known cities are it's capitals, so I'm not sure how applicable the "relief valve" comment is. It could be that the reason why the Australian convention is stable is because the other cities in the country just aren't that well known and need the additional location information. That isn't applicable to the US as the state capitals are often one of the least known cities in that state. Seattle is far more well known than Olympia, Portland, Oregon is better known than Salem, Oregon, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego are better known than Sacramento.
          • Putting up Global cities would be a good idea, but I can think of a couple of cons, the most prominent being that the list of Global cities isn't very commonly accepted outside of the tourism departments of the cities on that list and what qualifies as a global city is still being defined.[1] --Bobblehead 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro (but without exceptions). Having "comma consistency" is a sure way to have one rule and one rule only: all cities/villiages/burbs/ect. get a state after them. If there is more than one habitable place with the same name, make a disambig page. Many, many US cities are named after OTHER cities, be they foreign or domestic (see this external link. That's the key reason for needing commas: No one wants to get the wrong Franklin out of 36 U.S. places. As for New York, that should also be comma-ified, as someone can say "I'm from New York" and be well over 300 miles from the eponymous city. —ScouterSig 15:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AP style sheet as exceptions

Follow the AP style sheet for a list of cities that do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.

• Pro. Limited size list that is clearly defined. Vegaswikian 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Not every city on the list should be renamed since they are not the primary use or because a redirect to a different article should be used or the city name alone should be a dab page. Vegaswikian 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like Vegaswikian stole my thunder. I typed out the exact same pros and cons. The only thing I have to add is examples: Shortening Washington, D.C. to Washington conflicts with the state, Phoenix conflicts with the mythical bird). Others on the list would likely result in a trans-Atlantic dispute (See Talk:Boston and Talk:Boston (disambiguation) for an example) as editors in other countries squabble over if the city should go to City, or if it should remain at City, State.--Bobblehead 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Boston already redirects to Boston, Massachusetts, as do the vast majority of the others on the list. The only clear exceptions are the aforementioned Phoenix and Washington, and perhaps Saint Louis. But a "use the AP list, unless there's serious ambiguity issues," seems like it would be sensible. john k 05:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ConThe AP style sheet is not an appropriate model because it has the luxury of people knowing from the location and placement of the dateline that this is a place. People seeing a category listing on Wikipedia do not. Gene Nygaard 14:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cities tend, in general, to be in categories where all the articles in them are places, and where it is clear that it is a place from the category title. The only exception for, for instance, Boston, Massachusetts is the utterly stupid category Category:Articles with unsourced statements, which ought to be a talk page category, anyway, and 1630 establishments, where I think nobody would have any big deal figuring oout that the city is meant. john k 15:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AP style sheet as exceptions II

Follow the AP style sheet for a list of cities that do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names unless they are not the primary use of the name (i.e., if the city name is on the AP list and the name alone currently redirects to the article about the city, use the city name alone as the title of the article).

• Pro. Limited size list that is clearly defined. Vegaswikian 00:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think any use of the AP list would have to be more or less limited in this way. Moving Washington, D.C. to Washington is out of the question, for instance. john k 05:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State capitals

State capitals do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.

• Con Some state capitals are ambiguous like Augusta, Maine & Salem, Oregon Agne 21:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con Somewhat arbitrary to say that only state capitals are eligible; state capitals are not always their respective state's largest, most important or most famous city. (e.g. Springfield, Illinois, Albany, New York.) Bearcat 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As Bearcat says, this would be silly as the only way for US cities to not use the comma convention. But this would be fine as a supplement, I think, to the AP list, so long as obviously ambiguous names like Salem, Springfield, Frankfort, Olympia, Augusta, and so forth are excluded. I can see little harm, though, for articles at Juneau, Jefferson City, Carson City, Baton Rouge, Des Moines, Boise, and so forth. john k 05:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Settlements would best be treated as a whole with a unique rule. Who says the reader knows the city is a state capital? Should he have to do the extra leg (eye) work to figure this rule out for himself? THEPROMENADER 13:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Many state capitals are ridiculously obscure. For example, when someone says Bismarck, I am more likely to think first of a German politician than a small city in North Dakota. --Coolcaesar 08:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con - per Bearcat and Coolcaesar if it's the only one adopted. DB (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State capitals II

State capitals do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names, unless there is an ambiguity issue (i.e., if the city is a state capitol and the name alone redirects to the article about the city, use the name alone as the title).

• Pro Simple, clearly defined list. --Serge 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Just less than half of state capitols meet this requirement, thus resulting in confusion as most will have to remain at City, State convention. --Bobblehead 05:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would those capitals that don't require disambiguation not be disambiguated, and those that require disambiguation be disambiguated, cause "confusion"? It's the wiki way. For the life of me, I cannot understand this argument. --Serge 04:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because most people aren't aware of which state capital names are unique and which aren't. The same logic applies to most American cities. For example, until recently something like 1/8th of the U.S. population thought that New Mexico was part of Mexico (this was an NSF study reported in National Geographic). Serge, you need to take a wikibreak and and talk to real people to understand how geographic knowledge is such a precious thing. Most people don't have much of it because they're too busy with more important things like earning a living and making babies. The confusion comes from not knowing in advance which names overlap with those of other cities. Rather than have to check out every single city article I'm linking to, just to determine whether I'm linking to a disambiguation page, it's easier to just know that the vast majority of city names are already consistently unique. --Coolcaesar 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I agree that the state capital convention isn't a great idea, do we really need to cater to the Americans who are so ignorant that they don't even know what's part of the US? DB (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City size

Cities larger then a certain size do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.

• Con even large cities can be ambiguous and conflict with other cities Portland, Oregon & Portland, Maine. Agne 21:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Selecting a size is choosing an arbitrary number. Is 500,000 any better then 1,000,000? Vegaswikian 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Could require future article moves since the size of a city can change, up or down. Vegaswikian 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro. Adds a clear demarkation. If city is over a certain population it's City convention, otherwise City, State. --Bobblehead 05:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Clearly ambiguous names like Portland would obviously be excluded from any rule like this. I would suggest that metropolitan area size, rather than size of the municipality, is the more important figure, except in cases where this is impossible, like secondary cities of major metropolitan areas, such as Oakland. I think any kind of change ought to require at least some minimum population to not have the state. But this would never be sufficient. john k 05:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con Some quite large cities are not well known outside the USA. By definition, it's hard to identify examples of this. Fort Worth, Texas is over 600,000 and not well known. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? If the people haven't heard of the place, what does it matter whether the state name is in the article title. Fort Worth is unambiguous, and I'm sure many international travelers, at least, have heard of it, since it's in the name of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, which is the third busiest airport in the world, and the 10th busiest international hub in the United States. I'm not sure I understand what familiarity to the world has to do with it. Personally, I would say that familiarity to other people in the United States is really the key issue, since it is only Americans who would actually be helped very much by disambiguation by state. And Fort Worth certainly has familiarity to Americans from outside the Metroplex. john k 15:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking personally, I thought "Dallas Fort Worth Airport" was like "Melbourne Tullamarine Airport" - that the small place nearest the airport is actually called Fort Worth, but the major city it serves is Dallas, unlike Baltimore-Washington International Airport, or was just a name of the airport like Washington Dulles Airport or Chicago O'Hare Airport. This misunderstanding was due to never having heard of "Fort Worth" before first hearing the name of the airport. I also consider that the state is more important for readers outside the USA — I (and many others) may not be able to list all your states, but I would recognise the names of most of them as US states if I heard/saw them. Remember that ", state" can be seen as a stylistic issue as much as a disambiguation issue. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many non-Americans have stated more or less the opposite, at least for the larger cities - i.e., they have heard of Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, and so forth, but couldn't name the state they're in. john k 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. The "bigger than thou", "big enough to qualify" and "known enough to qualify" battle would be endless. THEPROMENADER 13:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Whatever city size is chosen as a threshold, there will always be someone who thinks it's too big/small. Plus, this doesn't address the roots of the problem with current disambiguation practices.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con - per Agne27. Some large cities would still need disambiguation. In general, it would just be too arbitrary. DB (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cities with unique names

Cities with globally unique names do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.

• Con. Could require future article moves if the name is no longer unique. Vegaswikian 23:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Editors may not know the correct name to use for an article requiring extra article moves. Vegaswikian 23:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro. Large support base from editors who's city name is unique. Vegaswikian 23:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Could result in odd situations where more widely known city's, like Atlanta, have to stay at City, State convention while only locally know cities, like Issaquah, are at City. --Bobblehead 05:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro. Eliminates disambiguation on articles that do not need it. --Bobblehead 05:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con Some unique names like Issaquah and Assawoman don't serve well in conveying what exactly the subject of the article is -i.e. a city. While the City, State convention of Issaquah, Washington and Assawoman, Virginia convey their subject matter perfectly. Agne 05:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that the article name should convey additional location information? Are you suggesting that Issaquah, Washington should be considered as the common name? Is the problem with this alternative that it may not use a place's common name? Vegaswikian 00:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro. My comments below the next question apply here as well. THEPROMENADER 14:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand that comment there. Is this a duplicate of the second "Pro" above, Eliminates disambiguation on articles that do not need it.? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con as below. If this is a call for IAR rexceptions, it is redundant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro. To me, at least, this statement seems to be obvious.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro - If there's no other city with that name, then there's clearly no need to disambiguate. DB (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cities as primary use

Places where the city name alone uniquely identifies the place in a non ambiguous way do not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.

• Con apparently the level of primary use can be subjective see Vancouver & Vancouver, Washington and the Newark & Cork discussions. The kicker here in the "uniquely" part. If there was more establish guideline for disambiguation where there are other pertinent and important consideration in addition to just the "primary city", then it would be easier to support. Otherwise, this only allows continued subjective arguments, debates and move request. Agne 21:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con Each page move would require an individual discussion on whether or not that a particular city is both A.) The Primary use and B.) substantial enough of a primary over other articles with similar titles to warrant the singular article title instead of a disambig page. As observed in several cases, discussions on individual city pages do pose the risk of "conflicts of interest" with very natural and human bias to view their city or country in higher focus then it maybe in the grand scheme of the encyclopedia. This, unfortunately, adds alot of emotions to these discussions and makes consensus (in any direction) harder to achieve. Ultimately, it needs to be established that articles are written and titled for the benefit of the reader--not the editors and not a particular city's residents. Agne 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro. Primary use has already been largely determined by redirects - when City redirects to City, State, then that particularly city is already considered the primary use for City. Most such redirects have been stable for years, despite occasional disputes. john k 05:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not always true. I tried once to figure out where to move the incoming links to Las Vegas. Most are not about the city and the context frequently did not help at all in choosing the correct redirect. So just because the redirect is there, it does not mean that they are all correctly redirected. This is a risk whenever there are multiple uses. Vegaswikian 06:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vegas is a particularly odd case. But Las Vegas, Nevada isn't actually any more clear that the municipality, and not the general area, is meant. City of Las Vegas would be the only clear way to do that. john k 15:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you happen to notice what that City of Las Vegas link is about? Yea, I was surprised too. Vegaswikian 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that certainly seems wrong. john k 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is analogous to City of New Orleans, which took me by surprise, and several others listed on Category:Named passenger trains of the United States
• Pro. At least, I think - the question is not very clear - "uniquely identifies" - do you mean "is not ambiguous"? Let's just say: if there's no need to disambiguate, don't do it. THEPROMENADER 13:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworded the description. Does that help? If not, fell free to tweak or create a different option. Vegaswikian 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm - thanks, but it still looks like my reply would be "If it ain't ambiguous, don't disambiguate it". Agreed, I guess. THEPROMENADER 00:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con This would include some very small and obscure places (Loch Arbour, New Jersey, for example). Why should we have to check whether it is unambiguous before we link to it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't one normally do that when making links to articles about non-city topics. Why are cities being subjected to a different rule than the rest of the enyclopedia? There do exist articles on obscure topics that do not have disambiguation and that the average reader might need to read the first sentence to see what the article is about. Obscure cities should be treated no differently than other obscure topics. --Polaron | Talk 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst writing a biography article for example, it is easy to link to Loch Arbour, New Jersey knowing that the title has enough precision to be unique, and the editor need only verify that the link is blue. If the link was made to "Loch Arbour", the editor must check whether this is the article intended, or some other place with the same name, or a dab page, and then follow one or two links to find the right target, before continuing with the primary task of writing that other article. This is wasted time, effort, and bandwidth, especially for dial-up editors or people with a life outside Wikipedia. Many Wikipedia articles have a longer title than the absolute shortest unique identifier for the subject. Sometimes this is for disambiguation purposes, and sometimes it is for stylistic or clarity purposes. This is not about subjecting cities to a "different rule", but about making details of the general rule specific for cities. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If this statement means "if it is not ambiguous, don't disambiguate it", then I'm all for it (pro).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro - if it's a well-known, unambiguous city name (such as L.A., San Fran, Houston, Phila, Boston, etc.), then it makes sense to just write the city, since that's how it's often referred to anyway. DB (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comma convention only when needed

Use city names alone for articles whenever possible. Only use the comma convention for disambiguation when city name alone has an ambiguity conflict within Wikipedia per WP:NC#Use common names of persons and things, WP:NC(CN) and WP:DAB.

• Pro This is the only logical solution consistent with the idea that category-specific naming conventions should only apply to articles within a given category that require disambiguation; articles for which the most common/best-known name is available should just use that. It's the most consistent option of all with respect to how Wikipedia articles are named. --Serge 21:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con Very vague and subjective. For some Vancouver, British Columbia needs a comma. For others it doesn't. This solution doesn't quell the debates any better then the status quo has. Agne 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The debates have greatly been reduced with regard to Canadian cities since they relaxed their guideline. Do you have any reason to believe it would be any different for U.S. cities? --Serge 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, your example hold less weight since the flaws in the Canadian convention became apparent with issues like Vancouver, Lethbridge, Gatineau, etc. It is quite easy to foresee similar problems being compounded on if the US went with the vague and subjective "only when needed" clause. Think about Newark. The New Jersey city is obviously bigger but what about the Delaware city or the UK one? I could think of a laundry list of examples in a short time but the truth is there is probably countless more debates and headaches to be had when everyone's own subjective standards are applied. Agne 07:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro Very clear and objective. Just like naming any other article in Wikipedia. Cities very likely to be without conflicts are trivial to identify: those where the city name alone already redirects to the article. e.g.: San Francisco → San Francisco, California. Those that turn out to have a conflict in the future can be managed at that time, just like any other article in Wikipedia that may develop a naming conflict in the future. --Serge 00:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro. Appears to be the most common country guideline in use. Vegaswikian 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Raises conflicts when the city name is used elsewhere. Regional and global familiarity with the name can affect editors opinions about what the primary usage is. Also creates conflicts with historical cities and modern cities with the same name. Vegaswikian 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a con. Can you name even one example of a city where the name alone redirects to the city article, and is still subject to this hypothetical type of conflict? These have mostly, if not completely, all been identified. Either the name is a dab or it goes to the U.S. city article. --Serge 00:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there are several and that were listed in the previous discussions about using the AP list. I'm sure that there are more. For this guideline to work, disambiguation should be the alternative when there are multiples places using the same common name. Without this, a significant number of readers can get redirected to the wrong article. That is a problem. Vegaswikian 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure which previous discussions you are referring to. If there are several examples of city name alone redirects to city articles where the city name alone is subject to a "conflict", surely you can name one. And, while you're at it, why not just fix it once you identify it. This is a red herring. --Serge 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Since an encyclopedia is suppose to have some consistency between articles, this proposal makes the naming of city articles appear random to all but those who understand the convention. Since the articles are for readers, their views should be considered. Vegaswikian 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Disputed. Consistenting naming throughout the encyclopedia, including using the most common name when possible, is the higher goal, not consistent naming within a category of articles. Disambiguating the most common name when disambiguation is not required is what leads to inconsistency and confusion for readers. --Serge 05:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro. Encyclopedia methods must be a logical aid to comprehension for all before anything else - including "consistency". It is very possible to be consistantly wrong. Still, I find the "use only if necessary" comma question to be loaded: I don't think it should be used at all. Actulally, not using it is even more an answer to the "consistency" question: most all of Wiki uses parentheses for disambiguation, and placenames (disambiguated with names that are not the actual name of the place itself) are one of few exceptions. THEPROMENADER 13:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Confusing for American editors who are generally accustomed to referring to all out-of-state cities by city and state in formal writing. --Coolcaesar 08:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is bit circular, isn't it? Surely anyone who constantly uses a comma convention would rather see it used everywhere. --Yath 13:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of formal writing? What are you talking about? john k 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What formal writing does this refer to? When I write something that involves a city name, if it's a major city that requires no disambiguation, I just use the city name. I've never written "San Francisco, California", or "Houston, Texas". It would just be "San Francisco" or "Houston". DB (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con: as Above; why should anybody have to check whether Loch Arbour, New Jersey is unique to know where the article is? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro, per policy cited in description. --Dystopos 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Con The policy cited in description says explicitly "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication"; all guidelines admit exceptions. This is one such exception; there are others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro. Very clear and objective; the only logical solution, really. I should also note that this exact same convention is working without a glitch with Russia—a country the number of settlements in which is comparable to that of the United States. As for the "why should anybody have to check whether XXX is unique to know where the article is"-like arguments, we should remember that naming conventions are here for the benefit of readers, not editors. A thorough editor is supposed to verify where all the links in the content s/he created point anyway, otherwise his/her job is going to be sloppy at best.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strongly disputed. Readers should be able to predict where an article should be. Not the only "logical" solution; the always-disambiguate solution is more logical, and the disambiguate unless world-renowned makes much more sense. I should add here that the present exception for New York City is because of a local problem: New York, New York is not coterminous with NYC, and New York City, New York is unidiomatic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Readers should be able to arrive to the article they are seeking with the least amount of effort and be reasonably sure they found what they were looking for. If I am looking for "Asheville", I don't necessarily know in which state it is located; as a matter of fact, it may be the reason why I am looking for this article in the first place. If there were no redirect at Asheville, I'd be stuck; all because somebody thought that Asheville, North Carolina somehow makes more sense. For the town residents, maybe it does. For readers who look for the information about this town it does not. The other point is that even after being redirected to Asheville, North Carolina (since the redirect is oh so helpfully there), the readers are still left to wonder why the title is disambiguated—perhaps because there is another town by that name?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Asheville didn't redirect to the city in North Carolina then it would have redirected to a disambig page which would have helped you find the article that you are looking for with very little effort. Agne 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point exactly. A link should either go to an article, or to a disambig; not to an article via a redirect which is there for no good reason at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Redirects are cheap. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry, I am a newcomer to this discussion, but I am starting to see why it has been going and going and still keeps going... nowhere. People aren't really listening to each other. My point was not that redirects aren't cheap, my point was that a redirect from a title to a disambiguated title is confusing to readers. There are many good uses for redirects, but the one this discussion and proposals related to it deal with is not one of them. A redirect should generally lead from a variation to either the main title or a disambiguation page; it should not lead from the main title to a variation, because such practice is confusing, misleading, and generally serves no useful purpose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Does anyone else agree with this? The chief use for a redirect is to get a reader to the article he wants. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • ...without introducing unnecessary ambiguity, hesitation, or confusion in the process. In other words, a reader should be reasonably sure that the place s/he was redirected to is the place s/he wanted to find.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And if she types Asheville, and gets to Asheville, North Carolina, what's the problem? It's the only Asheville (as searching on it shows); therefore it is the one she wants. It even has a dab header in case the reader meant one of the Ashvilles (in which case, she is more quickly warned than if we called the main article Asheville. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That, I guess, is a fundamental difference between people who vote for this proposal vs. those who vote against it. To me, "Asheville, North Carolina" is a red flag showing that there must be another Asheville elsewhere. If this is indeed the only Asheville in the US (or in the world), then adding comma disambiguation (to me at least) is a direct violation of Occam's razor principle, because an extra disambiguator here is nothing more but a redundant entity. It all boils down to logic, and you, as well as other people voting against this proposal, are yet to convince me that the logic of the proposal is faulty. Using your reasoning, why not use "Asheville, North Carolina, United States[, Earth]"? Why not move the article about the state to "North Carolina, United States"? After all, the more disambiguators we cram into the title, the more warnings/confirmations the end reader receives.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Ezhiki, you seem to be operating under the assumption that the supporters of the status quo can be persuaded with logic and reason to change their minds. Good luck with that. That fact is, they are simply blind to the wrongness of having any Wikipedia article at a title that is unnecessarily disambiguated. They don't care about the implication that there must be another Asheville, or in the case of San Francisco, California, the implication that there must be some other subject named San Francisco that is sufficiently prominent to keep the famous city from being at that name. They are blind to the inconsistency with the rest of Wikipedia. All they see and seek is "consistency" within the particular category (U.S. cities). They can't see out of that box for nothing. It's very frustrating. Chivo nyet, tavo nyet. --Serge 22:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I replied to Serge on his talk.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • That's because it's neither wrong nor inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. There is no such implication. We use Asheville, North Carolina for the same reasons we use Louis XIV of France; because it's clear, straightforward - and, despite Serge's protests, idiomatic - American English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Louis XIV of France is an exception, and a questionable one at that (in fact, now that you've brought it to our attention, I'm questioning it at the talk page). But, the point is, if there is no good specific reason to have that article disambiguated with of France, then it too should be moved (to Louis XIV, which redirects to it already) to be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. The implication is that there is some other (significant) Louis XIV and that either Louis XIV of France is either relatively insignificant, and there is some other primary use of Louis XIV, or Louis XIV is a dab page. --Serge 00:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • How about we handle one problem at a time? Judging from the banner at the top of this talk page, jumping from one topic onto another is precisely what stalled the discussions in the past. Also, Septentrionalis didn't seem to address any of my concerns I raised immediately before first Serge's comment in this thread. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (move left); Serge, Wikipedia is inconsistent; the single rule you would impose everywhere is a good thing; but it is not the only good thing; that's why we don't universally adhere to it.
  • Ezhiki, I was waiting for someone else to agree with you; I don't see any such red flag and I don't know anyone who does. This is in part because Portland, Oregon and Trenton, New Jersey are idiomatic American English, pace Serge; often used when there is no need of disambiguation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I guess your first point is a good one—let's see what others have to say. I still, however, disagree regarding sticking to idiomatic usage. No one, of course, would argue with the fact that the usage is indeed idiomatic. Yet, Wikipedia seems to be the only encyclopedia out there that adheres to this usage. If other encyclopedias can ignore "idiomatic usage" with no apparent harm to readers ([2], [3], [4]), why can't we? The very least that doing away with pre-disambiguation can accomplish is bring the US cities naming conventions in line with those used in Wikipedia for the rest of the countries (consistency=good thing). The downsides? I don't see any. If we can root out confusion (or potential confusion, if you wish) with no losses, how is that a bad thing?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because Asheville, North Carolina is, by nature, less confusing; it contains more information. The only confusion is the implication that Ezhiki imports, and it is clear to any reader of this convention, and will rapidly become clear to any browser of WP, that we make no such implication; for instance, they need only look at Category:Cities in North Carolina. In fact, what would be confusing is to ambiguate only when necessary; then that same cat would include Burlington, North Carolina, but Asheville, for no obvious reason. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But this does suggest a proposal; how about Category:Uniquely named places in the United States, which would contain the information that there is only one Asheville, for those who care? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, but it looks like we start going in circles here. I already explained my position regarding these same arguments: while Asheville, North Carolina contains more information, "Asheville, North Carolina, United States" contains even more of it. I also disagree with the statement that it "will rapidly become clear to any browser of WP, that [the redundant disambiguator is not meant to imply existing ambiguity]". If a reader was browsing articles about settlements in other countries, those in which redundant disambiguators are not utilized (which seems to be an overwhelming majority), it seems to me that the confusion is pretty much guaranteed once that reader ends up in a pre-disambiguated article about a US city. As for "ambiguating only when necessary" being confusing, I beg to differ. Take a look at Category:Cities and towns in Moscow Oblast, for example—it's populated in precisely the same way that you believe would be confusing to readers. So far there haven't been any single complaint, and the system is working flawlessly (also note that each and every ambiguated article contains a dablink leading to the disambiguation page, whih helps dealing with potential confusion quite nicely). Finally, regarding introducing Category:Uniquely named places in the United States. To me, again, this is a violation of Occam's razor principle—why introduce a new entity and complicate things when that same result could be achieved via far simpler means (that is, by abandoning the practice of pre-disambiguation)?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Asheville, North Carolina, United States is not idiom, and would therefore violate WP:UE. Furthermore, it is redundant to anyone who has heard of North Carolina, which includes most native speakers of English. (This is presumably why it is not idiom.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Category:Cities and towns in Moscow Oblast illlustrates both another problem with this idea; it is disambiguated inconsistently. It also displays a difference between the United States and Russia; disambiguated names there are rare; in much of the United States, it is unambiguous names which are rare.
            • As for Category:Uniquely named places in the United States: including that bit of information is the only merit I can see to this proposal. If it does not interest you, I do not see asny merit to it at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Umm, judging by your edit summary, I see that you intended to close this (admittedly ovegrown) thread. I do, however, have another thing to say, if you forgive me for dragging this dead horse even further. When you speak of "idiomatic usage", you seem to imply that there is only one usage that is both idiomatic and policy-compliant (in other words, "correct"). The policy's intent, however, is not to determine a single set of idiomatic patterns and carve it in stone, but rather make sure that no unnatural constructs are utilized. It's true that "Asheville, North Carolina" is both idiomatic and correct in American English, but so is just "Asheville". Neither version is gramatically incorrect or awkward, as the three examples I used above ([5], [6], [7]) attest. Both are considered standard (American) English usage. Your argument does not seem to hold water.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Then I have not conveyed the argument. If I had meant correct. I would have said so. Yes, both Asheville and Asheville, North Carolina are idiomatic; but use of the latter does not imply ambiguity; use of the former does not imply uniqueness; merely that the speaker and hearer agree which of the conceivable Ashevilles they are speaking of. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry for misunderstanding. Yet, if in most of the rest of Wikipedia the usage of a disambiguator implies that ambiguity exists, then the usage of a disambiguator next to a name of the US city logically implies the same thing. It does not matter whether such usage is idiomatic or introduced artificially—it's still ambiguous and confusing. And if we can replace one idiomatic usage with another getting rid of confusion in the process, then why not?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • As for Category:Cities and towns in Moscow Oblast being "disambiguated inconsistently", that is also untrue. Places that need to be disambiguated are disambiguated using the same pattern, while places that do not need to be disambiguated are, well, not disambiguated. Just the way it should be, in my opinion. You are, however, right about the names of the US cities being overall less unique than those in Russia (although Russia also has its share of bland generic names). I still don't see it as a problem, however.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • What? If I count correctly, there are three entries disambiguated (town), two disambiguated (city) and seven disambiguated ", Moscow Oblast". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I see what you mean. To explain: city and town are different things, location disambiguator ("Moscow Oblast") is used when another settlement of this name exists elsewhere in Russia, and type disambiguator (city, town) is used when the settlement name is unique but conflicts with another concept. To illustrate: Roshal (town) is the only settlement by this name in Russia (and for all I know, in the world), but it conflicts with Leonid Roshal, who is well known by his last name alone. Krasnoarmeysk, Moscow Oblast, on the other hand, is disambiguated by located to distinguish it from different settlements by this name. Logical?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Sorry to butt in again, but I just want to point out that the naming system you're discussing (which I favor), the result of which PManderson mischaracterizes as "disambiguated inconsistently", is standard Wikipedia. Rather than disambiguating everything in a given category with the same format, I think it makes much better sense and is much more useful to consider each name independently, and to disambiguate based on what the "competition" is for the name. It's the wiki way. It is, for example, why the city in Ireland is at Cork (city). We don't want to disambiguate independent of why the name requires disambiguation. The fact that Cork is at Cork (city) informs the user that there is no other city named cork, and that it is disambiguated to differentiate from the topic(s) named cork that are not cities. If, on the other hand, there was another notable city named Cork, then the appropriate name for this article would be Cork, Ireland, to differentiate it from Cork, England, or whatever. It is a very logical, useful and wonderful naming system used successfully throughout Wikipedia. I cannot for the life of me understand why so many of you believe U.S. cities should be an exception to using it. --Serge 23:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Cork (city) is not a good example - it received that name after a long discussion of several names, and appears to be a unique situation: Cork, Ireland is ambiguous with County Cork, but Cork, County Cork or Cork, Cork appeared to be technically wrong as several Irish editors said that the city is not in County Cork, but as a city has equal legal status to a county, and is surrounded by County Cork. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. Produces a biased result, frequently the location that first has an article at a name retains that name. Since a change to rename per WP:RM goes only on the affected page, all editors who might have an interest in renaming may not be aware of the discussion. The only way for this work might be if the guideline was that no other location had the same unprecise name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs)

  Sorry, but I don't see the logic in this reasoning. If the renaming is to be done according to the naming conventions, then there is no need for all interested parties to be aware of the discussion. What are they going to say, anyway? "Even though the renaming is per naming conventions, we are opposed to it because the article to be renamed occupied the spot first?" Somehow I don't think it's going to fly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't be at all surprised if they said exactly that; the clause in WP:NAME about defaulting to the usage of the creator of the article is routinely abused. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess you have not looked at the history of city naming issues. Cork was one example, Syracuse, and also here, was another. Primary use is very subjective and the perspective of editors can be very different. I almost think that for cities, we might be better off to just say if there are two cites that claim to be the primary use, the main page by default should be a dab page. Might work better in reducing the intensity of the discussions on no consensus surveys. However I don't think it would gain any traction. Vegaswikian 00:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  For the life of me, I can not figure out the aversion to disambiguation pages. They are exquisitely useful to a reader looking for a topic and by far easier to maintain if things are linked improperly. I can only imagine how many headaches that could be avoided if we were more active in encouraging competing "city names" to default to a disambig page--especially among cities in different countries and states where editors loyalties and biases can affect judgment. It would encourage more neutrality and less emotion, which could only benefit the project. Agne 08:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support adding this to the guideline. Where two cities in different countries are different in character, no meaningful comparison can be made. Windsor, Ontario is huge compared with Windsor, Berkshire, but what weight do you give to a thousand years of history? CarolGray 08:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The following has recently been added to the guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation :

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title ...

CarolGray 11:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Con Disambiguation will in fact be done incoherently and inconsistently, as it is Category:Cities and towns in Moscow Oblast; this will in practice be another difficulty in reaching and linking to articles.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
• Pro - brings the convention in line with all other countries. DB (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Modified pro -- the United States should not be the only country without undisambiguated cities. I wouldn't be against using the comma convention worldwide -- London to London, England, for example -- but ISTR that there was a rather emotional response to that proposal. --Trovatore 08:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment OK, here's my "modification" -- while Asheville, NC, is an absolutely lovely town, I have to agree with Septentrionalis that it shouldn't be at just Asheville. The standard for world cities appears to be something like whether the city is internationally understood from the stand-alone name. That's a problematic standard, but if it's to be the standard for London, it should also apply to Los Angeles.
  • So what cities in the US should be at their stand-alone names? The big three are an easy call: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago. After that it gets trickier. Not Houston, I think. I'd say San Fransisco, yes, for sure, in spite of its relatively small population, because of its international recognition and representation in literature; similarly for Boston and Las Vegas. Possibly Miami and Dallas; TV shows of sufficient international success were set there that the names probably ring a bell most places. --Trovatore 08:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate depending on ambiguity conflict, and only when needed

Use city names alone for articles whenever possible. Disambiguate with a type qualifier of (city) or (town) when the conflict is with a subject that is not a settlement. Only use the comma convention for disambiguation when city name alone conflicts with another U.S. city name.

• Pro This is consistent with the naming used by the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, including the majority of city articles of other countries. For examples, see Paris, Cork (city) and Category:Cities and towns in Moscow Oblast --Serge 23:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con Makes the location of articles absolutely unpredictable for reader and editor alike, as the explanation given above for the three (!) different disambiguators in that category should make clear.
  • Strongly disputed. Neither readers nor editors need to "predict" where they will most likely find the article they seek. All thy need to do is to plug the name into the search box, and be directed either straight to their destination or to the disambiguation page listing all possible variants. No crystal ball needed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly disputed per Ezhiki. --Serge 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con Offers enormous scope for confusion and simple error in naming and moving articles.
  • Strongly disputed. This is how all articles in Wikipedia are named - it works. --Serge 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con Ignores the consistent and historic system by which the speakers of American English actually disambiguate their settlements.
  • Strongly disputed, since it uses the comma convention to disambiguate those U.S. cities with names that are shared by other U.S. cities (e.g., Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine would stay where they are, but San Francisco, California would be moved to San Francisco). --Serge 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con Involves an arbitrary, and in many states unregulated, choice of disambiguators. In California, every municipality, however small or rural, is a "city"; in other states this is not so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly disputed. First, regardless of what the guidelines say, all naming in Wikpedia is regulated by consensus and convention. You make it sound like this would allow Portland, Oregon to be at something completely arbitrary like Portland (any bullshit). There is no basis to believe that would be the case, since, again, all articles in Wikipedia are subject to the same abuse, and there is no reason to believe that category specific guidelines reduce the incidence of absurd names and totally inappropriate vandalized names. --Serge 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro for the reasons I voiced in the section above this one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro. An article title should be the name of its subject only whenever possible; the name of a city's parent state is not this, and should only be used for disambiguation. Such practices (city, state) originate from the habits of habitants of a certain country speaking of locales within their own country - and people rarely write articles on places they do not live in. Wiki is an international media that should be above this local practice. THEPROMENADER 21:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest city

The largest city by population in each state does not need to adhere to the comma convention for article names.

• Con. The largest city can change, so over time this would not be much of a standard. Vegaswikian 07:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. While one city may be listed with a population of 8,000 people, other much larger cities would not be exempt from the guideline. Vegaswikian 07:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. This also is a loaded question - how about all cities? Also, deciding what is or isn't a "big city" (or "biggest city" - surface, population wise?) is an endless debate (and will no doubt ire many) - best treat settlements as a unique whole with a unique method. THEPROMENADER 13:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con. In addition to all of the above, I should point out that sometimes direct comparison between cities in different countries is impossible, because available population data could be for different time periods.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? "State" here means one of the constituent States of the United States; and there have been counts for every American city since 1790. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was not referring to situations when ambiguity exists only between US cities. I was referring to situations when the name of a US city conflict with the names of cities in other countries. If you have 2000 Census data for a US city and the Census data from another year for, say, an Australian city, then direct comparison would not be valid, especially when the delta is low. All in all, using population thresholds to define naming conventions is generally a bad idea in any case.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that's not what this proposal is about; although I agree it's a bad idea. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The proposal was not really clear on this point, which is why I posted my comment in the first place. I guess the case is closed then.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con - Per Vegaswikian. Plus in small states, the largest city may not be nearly as notable as 2nd cities in other states. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 08:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con - As per Bethling, the largest city by population is often based on city boundaries. For example, the Miami, Orlando, and Tampa Bay metropolitan areas are much larger than Jacksonville, Florida, yet Jacksonville ranks as the largest city in the state due to its city boundaries encompassing all of Duval County, whilst Miami, located in a metropolitan area of 5 Million, the largest in the state and region, would rank lowest of all as only 300,000 of those people live within its official boundaries, thus, this method would allow for Jacksonville to have the comma removed, but Miami, Orlando, and Tampa would keep it regardless of greater importance in the state. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Con - if none of the other suggestions are applied, this would mean a city like Cheyenne would be standalone but Cleveland wouldn't. DB (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]