Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)/Archive

; Archives
	2003 December –; 2004 March –; 2005 July –; 2005 August –; ; ;

This is the final archive for WP:Naming conventions (places), following its merge with WP:Naming conventions (geographic names).

I've tried to gather the relevant discussions from other places so that we can continue the debate in just one place. I'm aware that there have been other conversations about this topic and if anyone feels those should be included, obviously please just go ahead and copy them over.

I decided to leave the originals in place rather than move them here as they often have some relevance in those other Talk pages. Chris Jefferies 20:17, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

guideline

I've added the guideline tag because it looks like discussion has died down here, and also, being a guideline doesn't remove the fact that discussion can be ongoing. I also removed the merge tag as I can't see any current discussion on it and it has been on for a while. Hiding talk 13:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

placenames within countries review

After reading as many of the related pages as I could find, I've tried to gather the threads into a potential MoS article, or something that could be integrated with this article. Please review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities)#Proposal UP text.

It's based upon Proposal B, that received the consensus in August 2005, with a renewed emphasis on ease of editting articles, and following local conventions (instead of the one size fits all of Proposal A).
If the page has been vandalized again by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tobias Conradi, just look at the latest history version by William Allen Simpson, and post comments on the talk page. Thank you.

William Allen Simpson 14:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The MedCabal volunteer found the problems with edit wars by Conradi to be so egregious that he started Wikipedia:Request for comment/Naming conventions (subnational entities) and froze the page. Unfortunately, the page is frozen in a damaged state. I'll bring the specific text sections here.

William Allen Simpson 17:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William's representation here is wrong. He posted errors and destroyed the quality of the overview. After marking his errors he re-inserted them again and again. He did not remove his fatual wrong claims. There was absolutly no vandalization by Tobias Conradi. This is only defamation attempt by William. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

diacritical marks in article names and cross-references

Over on Talk:List of Latin place names in the Balkans, a dispute has arisen about using diacritical marks. This page is my recent split from a massive table of cities that started several years ago, and follows the long-standing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) practice of using the "English Name" followed by the native language in parentheses.

Lately, some Albanians and Romanians have been moving their city and other placename pages from the English to use diacriticals. That doesn't bother me, although I'm not sure it follows MoS. As long as the redirect still works!

Unfortunately, they're changing all the reference links in articles to point directly to those. That's a problem in this case (and the related Names of European cities in different languages, List of European regions with alternative names, etc.) as these are translation pages. It makes no sense that both the "English" name and "Romanian" cross-reference are identical!

The stated rationale (so far) are:

"Everywhere in Wikipedia, the 'local spellings' are used and AFAIK that is the policy. And in some cases, such as Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, these are actually transliterations of the Cyrillic names."
"There are no English names for those places."

AFAIK, that's *NOT* the policy. Transliterations don't make them any less the "English" name. Proof by assertion is not a compelling argument. And these English names are from 100+ year old references, not some recent invention!

William Allen Simpson 17:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Road street name

What is the consenses on street and road names with common names versus official names and the use of redirects between them? Roads can have different comon names as they pass through different towns and use of common names may lead to duplicate articles. Please treat my question separate from Deletion policy/Roads and streets. I recently exchanged messages on this specific topic with an editor converting a official name to a redirect, after I had done the opposite. The policy I propose would give less ammo to the people supporting more deletes.

Proposed Policy should be to use official names for articles and list common names in the article. For non-unique names, the city should be included in parrenthesis. For example: University Avenue (Minneapolis-St. Paul). When a new article is created for an otherwise existing streetname, a disambiguation page can be created at that time. Market Street is one such non-unique streetname that will require a disambig page for all the notable Market Streets in the world. Using Common names muddles Wikipedia. Cafe Nervosa | talk 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take the opposite view. Articles should be named when they are "famous" or "notable" by the actual known name, whether official or common.

"Route 66" is a somewhat official name that is notable.
"Skyline Drive (Chicago, Illinois)" or "Michigan Avenue (Chicago, Illinois)" are local names that are notable in national news sources, and nobody cares that it might officially be "Business I-694E" (or "Richard J. Daley Expressway" or whatever). That should go without saying for "Ontario provincial highway 9" (and others). Stick the official name in the article lede.
Speaking as an Allen (yes, even a William Allen), I'm mighty suspicious about an "Allen Road" being notable in any way. In fact, I've driven that road, and know it by the expressway name, and never noticed there were any local names or renames at all. It's not on my CAA map. It's not notable, either in the short or long versions.
I'm in favor of nice categories and disambiguation pages of otherwise common (yet notable) names!

William Allen Simpson 22:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer either Ontario Provincial Highway 11, or Ontario King's Highway 11, but after reading the naming conventions and policies, I am forced to agree that Highway 11 (Ontario) is the best title contender so far. The idea is to go common in the article title, and then be more specific in the lead sentence, in order to draw more search engine traffic to the article. --DarrenBaker 02:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning behind the Ontario highway moves is thus: (1) many of these highways have been downloaded to local municipalities (Highway 27 comes to mind) so Ontario provincial highway 27 is misleading, (2) Highway XX is an official and common naming convention for Ontario highways (one that is even used by MTO), and (3) Ontario provincial highway XX or Ontario King's Highway XX is unwieldy and unattractive.

As for Allen Road, (1) the road is widely known by its common name and people are more likely to search for it using the common name over an official name and (2) the road is notable if only for its connection to the failed Spadina Expressway project. Darkcore 07:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your naming, but not with your reasoning. Here's why...

(1) The thing is, Highway XX is *not* official. It's informal, and easier, and therefore everyone from slobs like me to government slobs use it. The problem I initially had was that since I come from a data organising background, my default response is to catalogue something according to its heirarchy, using the most verbose terms possible. So in my mind, it goes Province, Road types, Specific road; though as I said earlier, the way I want to do it is contrary to the aims of the WikiPedia. Take that, me.
(2) I'm not sure where downloading plays into it, because even though the roads have been downloaded, there are certainly still segments that follow the naming protocol - they are still King's Highways, though admittedly not as long as they once were. If a highway ceases to exist (King's Highway 3B, for example) then it should still be listed, but listed in the past tense.
(3) I disagree... I think the formal title looks quite attractive, and is inimitably wieldy.

--DarrenBaker 07:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the discussion and I re-emphasize that notable or famous is a separate issue discussed at length over at Deletion policy/Roads and streets. (BTW, I lean towards inclusion as wiki is not a dead tree encyclopedia) Cafe Nervosa | talk

There is an existing guideline for using the common name for places Naming conventions#Places. A big part of the rationale for the policy is the wiki NPOV policy which is against automatically applying the government's naming convention to places, (so that's a point in support of the work of Darkcore, redirecting a large number of highways in Ontario to common names. However roads and streets are not specifically addressed and I don't think the guideline for places or cities should be automatically applied to roads and streets. It may be possible to form a guideline that cover all roadways from expressways, to city streets and lanes. Exceptions to any guidline will likely apply to the roads that have an official name but meander from town to town with different common names along the route.Cafe Nervosa | talk22:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wholeheartedly agreed. Don't ask me what the guideline should be, though. My brain hurts enough as it is. --DarrenBaker 22:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain consistency within each country

This text was developed based on the existing consensus of August 2005. I'd like to add this non-controversial section. Comments?

--William Allen Simpson 17:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merged into main article. Conforms to consensus poll and RfC.

--William Allen Simpson 10:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow local conventions

This text was developed based on the existing consensus of August 2005. I'd like to add this non-controversial section. Comments?

--William Allen Simpson 17:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merged into main article. Conforms to consensus poll and RfC.

--William Allen Simpson 10:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial prevalent usage text

This text was more controversial. It is currently phrased as a separate guideline, but could be easily integrated here. Comments? --William Allen Simpson 17:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No comments. Merged into main article. --William Allen Simpson 06:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions (geographic names)

There is a long discussed proposal for handling historic place names at recently renamed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) that seems to answer nicely Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#General issues. Please take a look. Without significant dissent, I would like to merge that here.

--William Allen Simpson 09:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islands

This text moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Islands -- Chuq 08:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that most disambiguated articles use parentheses, and towns/cities generally use commas.

Is there a standard for islands? I have seen both used:

Which one is the preferred method? The same answer would probably apply to mountains, lakes, etc etc. -- Chuq 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) speaks, somewhat obtusely, to this. Essentially, the rule is that if the island is usually referred to simply as "James Island", then you should use parentheses, but if it's usually referred to as "King Island, Alaska" then it should use commas. If you have questions, you should bring them up on that talk page; the rule for entries on disambiguation pages is blessedly simple—always use the unpiped canonical title in its entirety so long as it contains the disambiguation term (if it does not, you may use a redirect that contains the disambiguation term instead). --TreyHarris 01:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Trey, this is a matter of naming conventions rather than disambiguation. There's a lot of variation in naming places, not only islands. In the U.S., in order to differentiate geographic entities from cities or towns (which fairly consistently use comma disambiguation), there is a tendency to disambiguate geographic entities with parentheses. Outside the U.S. this tendency is not as prevalent (and even in U.S. articles there are numerous exceptions). I thought this had been articulated somewhere, but I'm not able to find anything readily at hand in the heaping mounds of pages in varying degrees of chaos and contradiction that make up the Wikipedia namespace. older ≠ wiser 02:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Aha, I found the reference I was thinking of at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming. There's a similar sort of note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains#Naming conventions.[reply]

Districts in Afghanistan - advice please

I'm not sure I'm understanding these guidelines correctly, so I thought I should bring it here rather than possibly continuing to do things wrong. I've recently started creating articles for each of the Districts of Afghanistan. So far I've been doing it like this:

Where a district name appears unambiguous, it's been created just at the plain name - e.g. Ab Band, with a redirect from Ab Band District (and I should probably do one from Ab Band district as well).
Where disambiguation is required between two places in different countries I'm using parentheses - Nawa (Afghanistan) and Nawa (Syria).
Between two identically named districts in Afghanistan, I'm using the province name with a comma - Muqur, Ghazni and Muqur, Badghis. I'm thinking that maybe it should be Muqur, Ghazni province rather than just Muqur, Ghazni - is that right?
Though it hasn't come up yet, I'm going to have to deal with districts named after their main town, and provinces named after their main district. Should it eventually be Ghazni (city), Ghazni (district) and Ghazni (province)?

Any advice greatly appreciated. I don't want to find that I'm storing up problems further down the line for myself/other editors. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for arbitration

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Administrative divisions.

--William Allen Simpson 04:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese location names disambiguation

In the cases where we need disambiguation of location names, which happens lots of times, for example, in Portuguese parish names (because they are named after the same Saint or something like that) which of the following rules shall we use?

Parish, Municipality
Parish (Municipality)

I would like to create a standard for Portuguese parishes. Would you comment? Thanks. Afonso Silva 10:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American vs. United States

It seems like a lot of people write "America" when they mean "United States". I have read that people living in other American countries feel a little put out by this, and on top of that it is a bit ambiguious. I propose that, when refering to the US, "US" or "United States" should always be preferable to "America".

"Official" names

There is some controversy (Côte d'Ivoire, Myanmar, etc.) about what name to use when a government decrees that a name other than the common English name be used for a country. I propose that a convention like the following be added:

If the government of a country or other sovereign entity has requested that a name other than the common English name be used by English-language publications for a place under its sole effective jurisdiction, then Wikipedia will use that name. Note that this does not imply a position on the legitimacy or otherwise of the government in question or its right to determine the name of that place, but is purely a pragmatic policy: failure to obey such a rule could pose legal problems for anyone accessing or redistributing Wikipedia in that jurisdiction - and even when it does not, it is a matter of equity to extend the same courtesy to all sovereign entities.

Examples: Côte d'Ivoire (not Ivory Coast), Myanmar (not Burma)

The common English name should be redirected as appropriate to the official name and mentioned at the top of the article; any history of or controversy over the name should be mentioned below.

This policy overrides Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).

EdC 21:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that people in Cote d'Ivoire would face legal problems looking at web resources that call their country "Ivory Coast"? This seems incredibly unlikely to me. Really really really incredibly unlikely. And if SLORC were to waste their time preventing people from accessing wikipedia, or whatever, because it refers to the country as "Burma," this would be pretty insane, too. If the justification for such a policy is to be potential legal problems, you should provide some evidence that this is actually an issue. john k 23:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)

I feel that we should either discuss this and/or do a straw poll, or give up and label this as a former proposal. Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, though I appreciate all the effort that was put into it, I think it's been given enough time, that it's worth formally closing it at this point. --Elonka 23:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that some other people who also put some time into this in the past months are still willing to work on it, so I wouldn't throw it out just yet. PS. In January you wrote that the proposal is 'too complicated'. Since then we have tried to rewrite it to be more user friendly,and if you can think of any language improvements to make it further so, please propose the changes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes on Polish naming

Interested readers of this page are invited to vote on some issues that are currently being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland. Specifically:

~~Whether to use English/Latinized or Polish names for a given region~~
- Consensus decision: English/Latinized names should be used for article titles about Polish geography
~~What should be the most appropriate translation for the term województwo, such as "Voivodship," "Voivodeship," "Province," or simply "Administrative district or region".~~
- Consensus decision: Voivodeship is an official English word, and should be used when referring to these regions

--Elonka 11:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(posted updates) --Elonka 23:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes on Tenedos and Imbros

Interested readers of this page are invited to consider the issues on Talk:Tenedos and Imbros.

Much voting seems to be on the issue: Are the islands Greek or Turkish?
Less attention is being paid to: Which name is intelligible, or has been heard of, by most anglophones. Septentrionalis 19:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on renaming Polish Voivodship categories to Voivodeship

Per consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland, an official request on renaming all the "Voivodship" categories to "Voivodeship" has been submitted, at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 16#Category:Voivodships of Poland to Category:Voivodeships of Poland. However, there appears to be some controversy. Anyone with an opinion on the matter is invited to participate. --Elonka 01:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(update) Poll closed, CFR umbrella nomination of all Poland-related categories to the "Voivodeship" spelling approved. --Elonka 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political division prevalence

When two political divisions have the same name, which one should get the namespace? It seems most people agree that the higher-order division should get it, the way it is done with Washington and New York. But the Georgia article is a disambiguation page. Poll there two years ago and at Georgia (country) more recently were indecisive, so the situation wasn't changed. I suggest there should be some guideline, whichever it is, and that that be followed everywhere, to avoid a lot of time being wasted on bickering. There are quite a few places that need some disambiguation, as testified by the length of the List of misleading place names so this needs to be resoved asap, I'd say DirkvdM 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we need a new rule, we need to apply the guidance at Wikipedia:Disambiguation more consistently. An article should have primary topic status only where there is fairly strong evidence that one specific usage is predominant over others. There are other factors as well, such as whether there are alternate names that are unambiguous. Washington and New York are not really very comparable to the situation with Georgia. The city, Washington, D.C. is commonly refered to as such, so it is an easy way to disambiguate from the state of Washington. Similarly, using New York City is a very commonly used way to distinguish the city from the state. With Georgia, there are no such easy or common alternate names. Both entities are most commonly referred to as "Georgia" and with neither being a clearly predominant usage of the term over the other. The List of misleading place names is of interest, but I'd hold off on turning every common name into a disambiguation page. In most cases, where a specific entitiy is a primary topic, it is not unreasonable. Certainly Berlin or London should not be a disambiguation page simply because there are some other things with the same name. But there are likely to be other articles that are primary topics simply because they were created first and have never been questioned. older ≠ wiser 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the draw in the two polls is a result of half the editors being from the US and the other half from elsewhere (mostly Europe). I suppose to most Europeans, Georgia is the country ("oh yes, and then there is the US state too"). So the fact that there is this dispute is indeed a good reason to give the namespace to a disambiguation page. However, I still feel that there should be more of a logical reason (in stead of a contingency, or what should I call that), such as the political division order. And many other people seem to agree with that. After all, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a democracy (although it often comes down to that). So we'd have to make a decision on how to make a decision ... is there a meta-meta-rule for this? :) DirkvdM 08:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one place was named for the other, I think that ought to be decisive. Is there any place called London that was not named for the one on Thames? Georgia (Caucasus) and Georgia (America), on another hand, were named independently of each other and so neither has logical priority even if, in the opinion of some, one has practical priority. —Tamfang 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with Primary Topic disambiguation pages. They should be rare, and only with consensus.

The software for finding links to disambiguation pages doesn't work for Primary Topic pages, so each and every such page needs a dedicated cadre of folks that regularly patrol the links. Any page that builds up a set of irrelevant links doesn't have the necessary resources to be a primary topic, no matter how many polls. Every related topic editor has to agree, and be willing to do the work.

We already have the guideline!

--William Allen Simpson 19:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to it? DirkvdM 05:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with William. Only see one flaw:

Any page that builds up a set of irrelevant links doesn't have the necessary resources to be a primary topic, no matter how many polls.

this should not mean that a page "A" that has no irrelevant links deserves to be Primary. Maybe the editors of topics related to pages "B", "C" and "D" only cleant up their stuff as opposed to those editors of topics related to "A". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dirk, regarding the ambiguous place names mentioned in your 19th July post: I disambiguated lot's of city, district, province, village etc pages. Creating dab pages seems really usefull, since then one can easily detect unprecise links (those that go to the dab). Otherwise one can have wrong links but it may be hard to detect them. I also favor dab in the following case: a city with 5000 inhabitants and a village with 500, both almost only known in their region or country. 99% of the people in the world would not know one of these places. This is probably not the case with Berlin. Another case could be one city with 100 000 and 100 other towns and villages with 50 000 down to 100 inhabitants. IMO this should get dab. Use dab to force editors to be precise. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subnational entities

I removed [1] the part of the unilateral William insertions from december 2005 [2] that had to do with subnational entities. I added a link to the guideline-proposal Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities) instead. William reverted [3] . His proposal that he now seems to just offer as official guideline contains false claims and/or examples. I would rather delete them and polish the guideline-proposal at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions (administrative divisions)

I propose we reach a convention to Naming convention (administrative divisions). I find it extremely NPOV that hungarian editors keep providing the names by which hungarians refer to administrative divisions of Romania as alternative names for those divisions. I consider this revisionism. They are not content with providing the hungarian name in the section of the article where mention of hungarian minority living in that division is given, they push for an alternative hungarian name of an administrative division of Romania in the lead paragraph. I shown them Britannica, Encarta, which dont use such hungarian names for administrative divisions of Romania in their articles and maps, I explained them there is no current use in any english source (english maps, english media, english encyclopedias, etc), yet since there is no Wikipedia Naming Convention (administrative divisions), I cant ask for administrative measures. Criztu 09:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think naming conventions are mostly about article naming. What you address is content. regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When do certain place names always have a disambiguating term?

moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved back from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) since this question address a statement on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), not Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names). --Serge 15:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- moved here from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did this get moved? It was a question about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), not about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)? If you wanted to bring it to the attention of folks on the talk page for city name conventions page, you could have referenced it accordingly. But moving it entirely was not appropriate. --Serge 15:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under Follow local conventions it currently says:

Usually, the shortest form is preferred. However, certain place names always have a disambiguating term as well.

What does "certain place names always have a disambiguating term" mean? Does anyone have any specific examples? I think this is nonsensical, and, unless someone can explain it, and there are no objections, I will delete it. --Serge 18:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know exactly what this means (at least in part). This is just another sympton of your seeming obsession with overturning the long-standing (and generally accepted) U.S. city naming convention. older ≠ wiser 19:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make this personal. But, yes, I do want to overturn the unconventional "convention" -- for very good reasons I might add -- and strongly disagree that it is generally accepted. It is the source of constant consternation on countless pages, because it is inconsistent with common sense (not to mention WP:Naming, which is consistent with common sense). Anyway, I suspected that's what it might mean, but it wasn't entirely clear, and I didn't want to assume anything. So, thanks for the clarification.

Why are we overloading the name attribute of an article, that has no ambiguity issues, with information that is normally and consistently gist for the text of the article, not the title? It is time for Wikipedia to grow up and professionalize the names of the U.S. city and community articles accordingly. They should be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, and all other publications, including all other encyclopedias, where usually the shortest form IS preferred, period. --Serge 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He failed to answer the question, but I assume it means that some place names don't have any particular best-known entity which could be given the unadorned article name. Which sounds reasonable enough. --Yath 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We also prefer the short form. But there are lot's of ambigous names. Some we might even know they are. So we do it preemptive. We can review this by the time WP is complete. Maybe around 2040. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the preemptive disambiguation argument makes no sense. In any situation where the ambiguous names don't exist or are not known, the ShortName redirects to the LongName. If and when an ambiguity is discovered, it has to be handled anyway. All this is about not having to burden editors with the chore of fixing links to the short name? That's favoring editors over readers, which is contrary to the primary principle of WP:Naming. --Serge 00:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current naming convention for cities/towns/settlements/suburbs/neighbourhoods/whatever in a number of federal countries is (and has been for quite some time) to do preemptive disambiguation. I find it fascinating that the USA may have been the first, but it is the one that seems to attract the most complaints. Australian towns are also always qualified by a state (with a small set of agreed exceptions) in article titles, with very little concern whatsoever. The claim that If and when an ambiguity is discovered, it has to be handled anyway is true, to a point. If the town was already at the qualified name, and most links go to the qualified name, the effort to create a disambiguation page is simply to create the new dab page. If the page needs to move first, then someone has to go and fix all the links that did point to the primary name, and check whether they should now point to the qualified name instead, changing most of them. In a "complete" Wikipedia, most of those town names will need a dab page, to distinguish the town, the footy club, the bus crash/earthquake/plane crash/mine accident, the shopping centre, the school, etc as well as other towns, places, people and things. Why is it such a hassle for the USA, where most of the town articles have been created already with some basic machine-generated information? --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a lot of controversy over this convention, but am not aware of any complaints that allege that it's wrong for the US but OK for other countries. Indeed that would be strange, but it's my guess that you are seeing a bias that doesn't exist. --Yath 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean people said it's wrong for the USA and right for other places - I meant most of the people who start saying it's wrong identify the "problem" based on their experience with USA articles. Before separating the US and Canadian sections, a few Canadians resented being lumped with the USA, and wanted the ability to identify their own (small) list of exceptions, which they now have. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

readors v editors: As a reader I like correct links. And with the US links I allways know where the settlement is located - before clicking. Great feature. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This convention isn't just about disambiguation. The U.S. cities convention expresses a taxonomy, and also identifies the subject as a community. Naming conventions should improve information, and this one does. The entire purpose of naming conventions is that they are large-scale extentions to the general naming convention. This one fits that mold. Other examples of fields where names follow conventions rather than popular usage are aircraft (Hughes H-4 Hercules, not "Spruce Goose") and royalty (Diana, Princess of Wales, not "Princess Diana".) Like those, this convention conveys additional information about the subject, and keeps names consistent within a field. Further, this scheme makes it easy for readers and editors to differentiate settlements from landmarks. "Fort Meyers, Florida" is obviously a city, while "Fort Meyers (Florida)" or "Fort Meyers" could be a fort. Thus, this conventions fits solidly within the norm for other naming conventions, and it serves several useful purposes. -Will Beback 07:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The entire purpose of [city] naming conventions is that they are large-scale extentions to the general naming convention." - if I may interpret, you mean that adding information to the article titles is a) what these conventions are about, and b) that's good. I don't think this is a novel admission. It is pretty obvious that these city naming conventions cause the article titles to serve double duty now, giving not only the name of the cities, but other information as well. In the rest of wikipedia, that's done only when disambiguation is needed; with cities, the convention forces them all to do so.

You mentioned "this conventions fits solidly within the norm for other naming conventions" but I believe you have overstated this. The naming conventions for asteroids include an index number in the title, and are an example of storing additional information in the title, but aircraft sometimes do (Focke-Wulf Fw 190) and sometimes do not (F-16 Fighting Falcon, H-3 Sea King). The title "Diana, Princess of Wales" is simply including her formal title, not merely describing what she was. There is a difference. --Yath 08:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A) Adding information is one of at least three reasons why this convention is helpful to everyone. There are more isues with article names than just disambiguation - there's also NPOV. Which community gets Brentwood? Multiply that problem by a thousand other common placenames. Longtime editors may recall the Lancaster battle, a transatlantic naming dispute.

B) Naming conventions are important guidelines for creating a self-consistent project. But this project is flexible enough to allow for exceptions as well, and that is why conventions are just guidelines. Redirects can ensure that readers will find the exceptions. We don't have to be dogmatic, but we should try to move forward.

C) The existing protocol is sufficient and in place across thousands of articles. We can have exceptions without changing the guideline. -Will Beback 09:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A title is a poor place to keep information other than something's name, which is why most of Wikipedia doesn't do it. As for NPOV, there are better ways of dealing with it than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The convention says that no city shall get the unadorned name, ignoring the fact that many cities are prominent enough to deserve it. And here you repeat the "multiply that problem by a thousand" -- which is an often heard warning, but is extremely overinflated. Wikipedia can handle a few naming disputes if it means keeping the overall quality high. It's sad that so many editors have decided to throw their hands up regarding this issue. It's even sadder that you have decided to impede the rest of us. --Yath 10:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I read "Lancaster", I first thought of Lancaster bomber (which redirects to Avro Lancaster). I had to read the sentence again to realise it was about a city, and had no idea there is more than one of them until I followed the link.
As an editor, it's actually quicker and easier to type [[town, state|town]] than it is to type [[town]], <alt>-P, wait for the page to reload, follow the link to see if it's the town I meant or somewhere else or a disambig page and fix the link if necessary.
As a reader, I often wave my mouse pointer over town/city links to see the qualifying info to get the proper context, then don't need to follow the link and get a huge page just to read a few words of the intro.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is much easier to type [[town (state)|]] than it is to write [[town, state|town]]. The Wikipedia engine was designed to use parentheses for disambiguation. Using the city, state construction would mislead people into thinking that the state name is part of the city name if they didn't know about this naming convention beforehand. --Polaron | Talk 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still no answer to original question.

After all that, I still don't see an answer to my original question: When do places ALWAYS have a disambiguating term? I believe the answer is never, and, so, the statement in question, certain place names always have a disambiguating term as well, is false and misleading. --Serge 15:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objections to deleting the statement, certain place names always have a disambiguating term as well? --Serge 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you got answers in the context of where this got moved to, rather than where you asked. Sorry. I can't answer your question, and agree the sentence could be removed or replaced by something like "Articles about cities or towns in certain countries are usually given a name qualified by the enclosing state or province name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) for more details." --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I object to the deletion; I would phrase the exception "in some very well-known cases, like London, one place will be the primary sense of the name, despite the existence of other Londons"; I might make the original "almost always".

I find this whole argument odd. Springfield, Illinois is perfectly conventional usage. In any context where the state may be uncertain, it is standard American usage. (The extension of this to other countries, like "Paris, France", has a rustic tinge; but Paris, Texas is correct.) Septentrionalis 15:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just addressed this same point at Talk:Chicago, Illinois and am copying it here. Let's continue the discussion here, since the general discussion belongs here

Context is everything. Indeed, Springfield, Illinois is perfectly conventional usage, when referencing the location of the city named Springfield in the state named Illinois. But the name of the city is Springfield, not Springfield, Illinois. Yet the opposite is suggested when we name the article Springfield, Illinois. Note that no other encyclopedia does this, for good reason. On the other hand, if we specify the disambiguation information in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia disambiguation conventions, in parentheses, then we have Springfield (Illinois), which clearly distinguishes the name of the city, Springfield, from the disambiguation information, which in this case happens to consist of the name of the state in which it is located. To be entirely clear, perhaps it should be something like Springfield (city in the U.S. state of Illinois). But, just like for any other Wikipedia article, regardless of what the disambiguation information is, it should be clearly demarcated inside parentheses, to distinguish the name of the subject (Springfield) from the disambiguation information. Use of the CityName, StateName location reference format for article names fails to do that, regardless of how conventional that usage is when referencing the location, not the name, of the city. --Serge 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also object. This is a solution in search of a problem. The only real problem is that some people just won't give up despite being repeatedly rebuffed in their attempts to overturn the U.S. city naming convention. Aside from that, parenthetical diambiguation would quickly run into problems because that method is used for disambiguating geographic features, which in the U.S. often share names with cities, towns, etc. For example Indian River, Michigan is the town while Indian River (Michigan) is the river (actually two rivers). While you (and a handful of others) may dislike the convention, it as arbitrary as any other convention -- that is the very nature of a convention. What works about this convention is that it is easy to remember and in general is less confusing because it is consistent (at least within the U.S. and some other places). IMO, there might be some room for leeway with some world class cities like Chicago or Los Angeles, but I would strongly object to tossing out the rule entirely. Also, I do not think that the comma-delimited format is very good for identifying neighborhoods of larger cities, but that is really a distinct matter I think. older ≠ wiser 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of solutions in search of a problem... that's what city-specific naming conventions are. To be consistent with general Wikipedia naming conventions, the Indian River "problem" would be handled like this: Indian River would be the dab, Indian River (town) and Indian River (river) for the two articles in question. Note that the content of the disambiguation information should reflect what the disambiguity is. If there is an ambiguity between two cities in different states, then the disambiguation information should specify the states. If, like in this case, the ambiguity issue is regarding a town and river, then one should be disambiguated as the town, an the other as a river. No city-specific convention, or "pre-disambiguation" baggage, is necessary, just a little common sense and the general conventions. Consistency with basic Wikipedia naming and disambiguity conventions handles it. The only reason there is a "problem" at all is because of some misguided sense that there needs to be a convention beyond using the name of the subject, with disambiguation information as required in parentheses, for article about cities. That's the only solution in search of a problem that we have here. --Serge 16:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to be clear, are you objecting to deleting the statement, certain place names always have a disambiguating term as well? Yet you nor anyone else can answer my question... When do places ALWAYS have a disambiguating term? I don't get it. If there is no such place that ALWAYS has a disambiguating term, then why object to deleting a statement that says there are such places? --Serge 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I'm objecting to. As indicated by conventions, some place names are always disambiguated. Just because you don't like that or you think it doesn't make sense is not a good reason to remove it. BTW, in case you didn't notice, Indian River already is a disambiguation page. You object to City, State as arbitrary but you can with a straight face advocate a name like Indian River (river). Please. Besides, there are numerous targets for rivers with that name. older ≠ wiser 17:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is true that there are "some place names [that] are always disambiguated", surely you could specify some that are.

On what basis do you contend that I object to "CityName, StateName" as being arbitrary? Are you reading what I'm writing? I object to "CityName, StateName" as being inconsistent with Wikipedia naming conventions. I object to the "CityName, StateName" format as specifying incorrectly that the name of the city is not CityName, but CityName, StateName. It's flat out wrong. Because it is not in parentheses, it is not at all clear that the , StateName is disambiguation information, that it is not part of the name. It muddles the name attribute of an article with disambiguation information.

As far as Indian River already being a dab, great. My only objection with respect to Indian River is with how each is disambiguated from the others. And, following general naming conventions, the only one that is a city should simply be disambiguated from the rivers as Indian River (town). There is no reason to specify any location information in the disambiguation information since there is only one town with that name. That's another problem with the , state "disambiguation" format. It leads to unnecessary and inappropriate disambiguations, like Indian River, Michigan. --Serge 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you presume that one arbitrary naming convention is better than another arbitrary name convention (or perhaps it is that one arbitraty naming convention has some sort or primacy of other conventions)? I see nothing inappropriate about an article title like Indian River, Michigan. You say There is no reason to specify any location information in the disambiguation information since there is only one town with that name. Why not specify the location? I and many others find it quite helpful. It appears that you do not. So take a survey on whether to overturn the U.S. naming conventions. Oh wait, that's already been tried and rejected several times. Sorry. As for the rest of your argument, the title of an article is not identical to the place described in the article. If you wanted the name of the article to correspond with the actual name of the place then we would have titles like City of Springfield or, perhaps my favorite, City of the Village of Clarkston. Conventions are by their nature arbitrary. And although Use Common Names is a valid guideline for naming articles, it is only one consideration. As others have pointed out, there are other specific naming conventions that may supercede it in specific situations. There is no need to get so bent out of shape simply because there are inconsistencies in Wikipedia. Sheesh--even if nothing new were ever added to Wikipedia, it might take several lifetimes before everything was completely consistent. 18:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)older ≠ wiser

I'm sorry, but I am unable to connect how anything you're saying is related to my question and point. You're going to have to spell it out for me, please. Please complete the following sentence: Examples of place names that always have a disambiguating term are _________________. Anyone who objects to removing the assertion, certain place names always have a disambiguating term, should have no problem filling it in. Thanks. --Serge 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since you're pretending to play dumb, I'll play along. An example of place names that always have a disambiguating term according to Wikipedia naming conventions are most U.S. cities and towns. older ≠ wiser 21:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU. Finally. An answer to my original question: "most U.S. cities and towns". Now, here's my problem. If it's true that certain place names always have a disambiguating term, and the examples of that are "most U.S. cities and towns", then the implication is that most U.S. cities, like San Francisco, California, always have disambiguating terms. Something doesn't match there. A given city either has a disambiguating term, or not. There's no time element involved, so "always" does not make sense. Okay, here are both sentences as they currently stand:

Usually, the shortest form is preferred. However, certain place names always have a disambiguating term as well.

Now, keeping the example of "most U.S. cities and towns" in mind, let's look at these statements slightly clarified.

Usually, the shortest form is preferred. However, for certain place names (like U.S. cities and towns) the convention is to always include a disambiguating term, even when there is no need for disambiguation. (This clarification would be incorrect, because of at least the New York City exception.)
Usually, the shortest form is preferred. However, for certain place names (like U.S. cities and towns) the convention is to usually include a disambiguating term, even when there is no need for disambiguation.
Usually, the shortest form is preferred. However, for certain place names (like most U.S. cities and towns) the convention is to include a disambiguating term, even when there is no need for disambiguation.

My point is, if "certain place names" refers to something like "most U.S. cities and towns", then saying always does not make sense. But if it refers to something like the general category of "U.S. cities and towns", then always is inaccurate. In other words, for no specific example of "certain place names" is the original assertion not problematic. --Serge 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your pseudo-logic looks more like wikilawyering than common sense. Point is, if you really think your proposal has merits, then go ahead and hold a (yet another contentious and divisive) survey to gauge whether you have a consensus for change. older ≠ wiser 23:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN. The discussion in the way it continued does not belong here. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - we're discussing cities, not places. -Will Beback 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't control how others (mis) interpret my question and point and where they take this discussion. What we're discussing is a specific assertion made on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), that's why the discussion is on this Talk page. Supposedly, cities are an example of certain place names [that] always have a disambiguating term as well. Though no one has even come close to providing material that supports this assertion, particularly the always. Also, cities are places. --Serge 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that I answered the question above - It's not just about disambiguation. -Will Beback 19:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed it. Please fill in the blank above. Thanks. --Serge 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead I'll repsot my comments that you missed:

This convention isn't just about disambiguation. The U.S. cities convention expresses a taxonomy, and also identifies the subject as a community. Naming conventions should improve information, and this one does. The entire purpose of naming conventions is that they are large-scale extentions to the general naming convention. This one fits that mold. Other examples of fields where names follow conventions rather than popular usage are aircraft (Hughes H-4 Hercules, not "Spruce Goose") and royalty (Diana, Princess of Wales, not "Princess Diana".) Like those, this convention conveys additional information about the subject, and keeps names consistent within a field. Further, this scheme makes it easy for readers and editors to differentiate settlements from landmarks. "Fort Meyers, Florida" is obviously a city, while "Fort Meyers (Florida)" or "Fort Meyers" could be a fort. Thus, this conventions fits solidly within the norm for other naming conventions, and it serves several useful purposes. -Will Beback 07:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this were about taxonomy, then why aren't the US states at say Washington, United States. Wouldn't this make it clear that one was referring to a US state. That would also solve the problem of Georgia (U.S. state). --Polaron | Talk 22:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we aren't discussing state names here. Certainly, similar issues come up. However since there are only fifty states it is easier to handle them individually. -Will Beback 22:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A) Adding information is one of at least three reasons why this convention is helpful to everyone. There are more isues with article names than just disambiguation - there's also NPOV. Which community gets Brentwood? Multiply that problem by a thousand other common placenames. Longtime editors may recall the Lancaster battle, a transatlantic naming dispute.

B) Naming conventions are important guidelines for creating a self-consistent project. But this project is flexible enough to allow for exceptions as well, and that is why conventions are just guidelines. Redirects can ensure that readers will find the exceptions. We don't have to be dogmatic, but we should try to move forward.

C) The existing protocol is sufficient and in place across thousands of articles. We can have exceptions without changing the guideline. -Will Beback 09:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What question do you think this answers? --Serge 21:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm answering your question by saying that the addition of the statename is not just for dismbiguation purposes. -Will Beback 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My question wasn't about state names, nor did it assume anything was just for disambiguation purposes. And you still haven't revealed which question you think you're answering with these irrelevant points. --Serge 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow local conventions (2)

With all that clarified (jeez, did it have to be so difficult?) let's try again, hopefully this time without all the irrelevant tangents.

Under Follow local conventions it currently says:

Usually, the shortest form is preferred. However, certain place names always have a disambiguating term as well.

Does anyone object to changing it to clarifying the above as follows?

Usually, the shortest form is preferred. However, local conventions for certain types of place names vary from this practice by adding a disambiguating term, separated from the name by a comma, even when no disambiguation issue exists.

If you object, can you please at least acknowledge that the current wording is problematic and suggest a compromise? Thanks. --Serge 23:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you had suggested this in the first place we might have avoided expending so many words on the matter. I've no objection to the suggested clarification. older ≠ wiser 00:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can suggest the alternative only now that I can make a reasonable guess as to what the original words were intended to mean. Earlier, I could make no sense of it, and could only ask the question that I asked (which took most of the day to get answered - thank you for finally doing so), or suggest deleting it, which is what I did. --Serge 00:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the convention for cities should be "city, state", for other places, such as peaks, lakes, etc, the convention should be "place (state)". That is a helpful distinction that we shouldn't lose. -Will Beback 00:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The change suggested seems okay. Going further than this to try to entirely overturn the use of "City, State" is not only, in my opinion, a bad idea in its own right, but doomed to entire and utter failure. There is no way you are going to get people to support this, and there's no point in wasting your time trying. The use of the comma to disambiguate places is, furthermore, not restricted to US places. We have Reading, Berkshire and London, Ontario and Newcastle, New South Wales, too. As far as I can tell, use of the comma is pretty standard for naming in anglophone places. By continuing to insist on it, all you are doing is frightening people away from the perfectly sensible idea that for some cities it's okay to move away from "City, State" because they don't actually need to be disambiguated. [ETA, as I got edit conflicted, that I agree with Will Beback as well] john k 00:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Will - the (possibly unwritten) convention has evolved that populated places (cities, towns, suburbs, ghettos, villages, hamlets, neighbourhoods, communities, ...) are disambiguated with a comma but natural features (rivers, lakes, mountains, ...) are disambiguated with parentheses. This has evolved into a useful convention in Wikipedia. Some national wikiprojects have adopted the convention that almost all articles about populated places in those countries use ", <state>" in the article title first, to provide readers with a little more information up front, and to facilitate any current or future need for disambiguation. Other countries do not have that convention, and only disambiguate when the demand has been identified. The fact that the comma convention applies to cities etc is why Tobias tried to move the discussion to a different talk page.

I agree with Serge that the sentence as it is quoted needs work. My suggestion might be:

Usually, the shortest form is preferred. Articles about cities or towns in certain countries are usually given a name qualified by the enclosing state or province name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) for more details.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 00:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all populated places are disambiguated with a comma, only in some countries. john k 15:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a vote for my suggested wording rather than Serge's? I didn't mention comma, just to look at the other page for national details for naming populated places. Perhaps it should say "...state, province, county or country name..." to allow the Berkshire, New Zealand and Fiji examples. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all populated places are disambiguated with a comma - which not? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move the answers to Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (city names), I will reply there. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from my talk Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, would you please stop moving other people's contributions to discussions from one talk page to another? If I put my comments on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places), that's where I want them to be. If you want people who watch Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) to see them, put a comment on that page advising of the discussion on the other page, but don't delete my comments from where I put them and copy them elsewhere. Thankyou. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make the discussion easier to follow and not to double so much talking. Why talk here about city naming if there is a city naming page? It simply does not belong here and will only confuse future readers, who read about flowers here, while this is the elephants page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comma

IMO we should make a policy to disallow "X, Y" if X is not a settlement. Would appriciate your help at Ba in Fiji [4] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: comma currently is used a lot for "X County, Y". So this should not be disallowed right now. If a qualifying term is present, less people would take "X" for a city. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proposal: comma is only allowed for

"X, Y"
- if X is a settlement
- maybe also for municipalities
"X Term, Y"
"X (term), Y"

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike "X (term), Y", and would generally prefer "X (Yian term)" if both a place and kind are required to disambiguate and more words are not appropriate (such as "X Term" or "X Term, Y").

As for Ba, the "correct" form of comma disambiguation for the town as used for USA and Australian towns among others, would be Ba, Ba which is unlikely to be "correct" in Fiji, and reminds the rest of us of nursery rhymes about black sheep, so Ba Province and Ba (town) make sense in context for much the same as one of the reasons that New York, New York is generally not preferred even when other US cities are done that way. I also note that you have recently changed Ba, Fiji from referring to the province to now referring to the town. While that may be more correct according to the convention we are trying to describe here, it has left many links that now need to be cleaned up, not least of which is the disambiguation page BA which has two links to the town (both via redirect) and none to the province at the moment. Note also that at the moment link to Ba river refers to a different waterbody (in Fiji) than the link to Ba River (in China). --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ba river is not "allowed" that's why I changed it. I did not knew there is some china link refering to Ba River. I change all lowercase rivers to upper case, this is the nice thing about a worldwide standard naming for landforms. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(landforms) is in developement, while the river project allready uses X River as the favored name for long time.
It was not easy to do anything on Ba in Fiji, because an admin abused his admin rights and deleted, reverted, protected etc. Changed my spell fixing ... really annoying. Ba (town) does not seem good at all. With a word like "Ba" one is likely to have other towns in say Asia or Africa with that name. I favor "Ba, Fiji" for the town.
X (Yian term) -> IMO avoid adjectiv for countries. But can't remember where this guideline is. Reasons: Democratic Republic of the Congo, adjectiv would be mess. German town -> would this mean a German town in Brazil? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Borough of X' versus 'X (borough)' (in the United Kingdom)

There is an attempt to create a consensus for a change in the present custom on names of Borough articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK subdivisions. Please contribute. --Concrete Cowboy 21:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use English but foreign and historical names can be acceptable in some cases

This principle is widely flouted in relation to Burma, Bombay, Calcutta, &c. Deipnosophista 18:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish and Welsh counties

The Counties of Britain section is as usual entirely English-focused: there are of course no contemporary counties in Scotland or Wales where only unitary authorities exist. These are often very wide in extent and it would be preferable to be more specific, saying for example that Newton Stewart is in Wigtownshire rather than Kirkcudbrightshire, not in Dumfries and Galloway. Deipnosophista 18:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Places in New Zealand

The section on New Zealand says, "In the rare instance where a place officially has both Maori and English names and both are used equally, both names are used in the article title, separated by an oblique (e.g., Whakaari/White Island)." What's up with that? Does WP:NC(CN) not apply to places in New Zealand for some reason?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of someone more qualified than me answering your question, I'll put forward my view.

There is a conflict in New Zealand between those who use the official names, and those who use the vernacular. The official names give due credit to Māori usage. The vernacular often truncates these names in an offensive fashion. I doubt that any reasonable person wants to see articles on "Paraparam" rather than Paraparaumu or "Otahu" rather than Otahuhu, yet the former names are in widespread popular usage.

There is also, I think, a feeling amongst New Zealand Wikipedians that an encyclopedia should follow some official rules. If the encyclopedias Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand and Encyclopedia of New Zealand (1966) use official naming, so should we. (Some of the official names have changed since 1966).

This is not any criticism of article naming for other countries. New Zealand Wikipedians have chosen their own naming standards. I have yet to see anyone who is a productive Wikipedian who has made any significant challenge to those standards. It would be easy to say that those who disagree do not feel welcome here, but in practice those who disagree tend to fall foul of a lot more than just New Zealand standards.-gadfium 09:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a fairly extensive discussion about Māori names a few weeks ago at Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Māori_names. This was not particularly about article names, but I think the issue would have come up if anyone felt strongly about it.-gadfium 09:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gadfium here. New Zealand is a unique society with two official spoken languages, as well as a multitude of cultures which feature prominently as stakeholders in the everyday life of the nation. As a result there is a lot of variation in what is acceptable as 'common' when it comes to place names. Part of finding a workable solution to the possibility of endless revert wars has been to invoke the sort of standards that Gadfium refers to. In practice, this has worked very well and I think it would be retrograde to change this. Kahuroa 09:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of different names for NZ places often brings up NZ racial politics. If the offical names are used then it is final. Otherwise endless agruments will be made between common vs correct which will be a proxy for "european" vs "Māori" politics - SimonLyall 10:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On an alternate level, at the top of WP:CN is the following quoteThis page in a nutshell: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" (my emphasis). There is a New Zealand naming convention, so that would take some precedence, and as noted above, it appears to work.

On a more fundamental level, there is no obvious data source on what is the most common useage, and the most common useage is probably changing for some places, and also varies between what is most common locally, nationally, and internationally. Thus, the current NZ naming convention seems a practical solution.--Limegreen 10:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - for every person who says "Everyone I know calls it X, I have never heard of Y", there is another person who says the opposite. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Kahuroa 10:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate everyone's responses here, and I am fundamentally sympathetic. I think giving attention to indigenous languages in the specific context of modern Anglosphere countries is a good thing (I'm afraid we do almost none of that in the U.S.). However, I can't help but think that all of the points made here could be made with regard to many other places in the world. The thing that's broke about the current policy is that contradicts the proviso to use common names. One exception to "common names" is nothing to worry about, but many exceptions basically kills that rule; and, in my opinion, "common names" is something worth holding the line on.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a sometimes sociolinguist, this isn't just an academic "attention to indigenous language" thing for at least some placenames. An excellent example would be Mount Taranaki/Egmont. Both names are very much in common useage. I don't think anybody could say for sure which name is more 'common'. Even if it were possible to conduct a survey, people can't accurately report which name they use more commonly, and to determine actual common useage (covertly recording a representative cross-section of the population) would be prohibitive. Actually, I guess you could probably approximate people's actual useage by a navigation task, where they would spontaneously label the mountain one way or the other. But still, that's not easily going to happen. --Limegreen 02:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Krause mentions 'attention to indigenous languages' - yet the usages we New Zealanders were talking about are usages within New Zealand English. I don't think anyone suggested that the convention difference was to do with giving attention to the indigenous language. That would be a different matter entirely. I think this illustrates how you really can't use the situation in other 'modern Anglophone countries' as a basis to understand the New Zealand situation. Kahuroa 07:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my point is not so much to compare the situation in New Zealand to the situation in other English-speaking countries, since it is, by the sound of things, distinctly different (not sure how it compares to the situation in South Africa, but different from the U.S., Canada, and England, at least). I'm not about to go unilaterally changing things, either, especially given that I don't really know much about the situations. Nevertheless, I still think there must be a lot of other places in the world, mostly not in the Anglosphere, where similar conditions attain, and I would be uncomfortable making exceptions to the naming conventions for all of them. There are certainly other situations where it is difficult to choose which is most common between several names, and the normal solution seems to be to just pick one; if they are all about equally common, then it won't really matter which one gets picked. On the other hand, we would also normally decide on a case-by-case (rather than country-by-country) basis whether there is a common name can, in fact, be determined. For instance, I first became aware of this issue on Talk:Stewart Island/Rakiura, and I don't think anybody there bothered to dispute Stewart Island is the much more common name of the place. Perhaps that one is disputable, I don' t know, but there must be some places in NZ where the common name is pretty clearly one thing or the other.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bernard_Manning#Alkrington_is_in_Greater_Manchester

Experienced editors are invited to pour oil on troubled waters at Talk:Bernard_Manning#Alkrington_is_in_Greater_Manchester, many thanks, sbandrews (t) 04:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English Counties

I propose we have articles about the English counties other than the non-metropolitan and metropolitan counties. I object to them being discussed in non-metropolitan and metropolitan county articles that cover part of the former area because the articles tend to only give discussion about adminsitrative and historical counties in the non-metropolitan and metropolitan counties that have the same name as it. Thus, the County Durham article (meaning the non-met county) contains the discussion about the adminsitrative and historical county, yet Tyne and Wear and Cleveland only mention the terms rather than giving the same discussion. This is biasing the adminsitrative county of Durham definition towards the non-metropolitan county. Whilst we could repeat the text in all subsquent non-metropolitan and metropolitan county areas that contain land covered by a previous adminsitrative county, it would be far easier to simply create seperate articles for them and link them, as I have attempted to do with the administrative, ceremonial, and historical counties of Durham. Let me make myself clear that I am not arguing that the current governing structure (namely the non-met county of Durham for County Durham) should not be given precedence when saying a county name like "County Durham", merely that the discussion of other county entites is best served by having seperate articles. Clearly this kind of discussion gets some people pretty irate (as I have just learned), so can we please keep it civil please. Logoistic (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to stem from an unnecessary debate (even edit war?) in which this user has failed to provide source material, and having been directed to this page as a quantifiable consensus and policy, is now edit warring and creating pages in breach of it "because they are wrong". I'm afraid these ideas of yours are a breach of various fundamental policies on Wikipedia. If you would at very leas provide some source material, we'd get somewhere, but, however, no such reliable source material to support your contention exists. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have not adressed the argument that I have just made. Source material is principally the 1972 LGA: the adminsitrative county was abolished to form new entities that were non-met and met counties. The non-metropolitan county of Durham was merely one of those. Logoistic (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Logoistic (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the relative importance of the various types of county (met, non-met, historic, ceremonial, administrative...) it is not sensible to have five separate articles on County Durham (see this for the articles I mean). It is far better to describe each of them in a single article, where comparisons can be drawn and the subtleties explained properly, rather than having five overlapping articles.

If an editor believes that an article has undue bias in a particular direction, then they should be bold and edit it! --RFBailey (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting them all in the article on the non-met county of Durham biases the non-met county of Durham with "County Durham" history. What about Cleveland and Tyne and Wear??? Be fair: have a seperate article with a link in non-met county of Durham, Cleveland, and Tyne and Wear. Logoistic (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not making sense to me sorry. You say there is some kind of bias? How? All the changes of the boundaries of Durham are explained in one article. It is natural that the current form is going to get precedence in an article as it is from this that contemporary statistics and facts are found. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say "all of the changes of boundaries of Durham" - as if "Durham" was a single, continuous entity. That is false and that is the crux of this matter. Logoistic (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I say this because reliable scholarly published source material does, hense the convention existing in the first place. If you would be so kind as to cite your sources to somehow discredit those that already exist in the published realm and are accepted by the community, we could move forwards with your contention. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The actual Act that created the non-metropolitan county of Durham: the LGA 1972. Where does it state that the non-metropolitan county of Durham is the direct continuation of "County Durham" and that Tyne and Wear and Cleveland are not? Logoistic (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, but the secondary research does. You can verify this by seeking the citation I have added. Thanks, -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide quotations from your secondary sources where it says this please? Even if you can find these, the primary document does not say anything like this: the Act that created the non-metropolitan county of Durham simply states that the adminsitrative county of Durham area is to be "abolished" and divided up into new non-metropolitan and metropolitan counties. Logoistic (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll trade you; you provide a reliable source that says the "Historic county of Durham" exists with the former boundaries including that "Historic county" was a term of art from that time. Also one that explicitly states that Tyne and Wear is continuation of County Durham. I think these would be great additions to the article if you give us the details and serve your conjecture well. There's no rush, I for one can wait. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The LGA 1972 split part of the administrative county of Durham into Tyne and Wear: it neither states any explicit continuation of "County Durham" to any entity, merely a continuation of administration into 3 seperate entities. As for the historic county quote, I am perfectly willing to accept that it has no clearly defined boundaries and may be better discussed in an article on the "administrative county of Durham". My beef isn't over whether the historic county still exists or anything, just that discussing it (as a defunct or existing thing, whatever!) in the non-metropolitan county of Durham article isn't right. Logoistic (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for dealing with non-metropolitan/metropolitan and adminsitrative counties in England

Per discussions above, here, and here, I make the following case.

On the one hand there are a lot of people and organisations who view the 1974 local government changes as administrative counties changing their boundaries. Thus, the Durham County Council that was created in 1974 views the non-metropolitan county of Durham as essentially the shrunken form of the administrative county - with several references to the boundaries of a continously existing entity being "changed". This is particularly apparant as several non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties had the same name extension as a former administrative county (e.g. "Durham"). In the case of Durham, both the administrative county of Durham and non-emtropolitan of Durham both became (unofficially) termed as "County Durham", and this has been used extensively for both entites, even by government (though not in the Acts that created either entity).

However, the LGA 1972 simply states that the administrative counties are "abolished" and new non-metropolitan and metropolitan counties created to take over administration functions. In the case of the administrative county of Durham, the area was subsequently goverend by 3 entities: the non-metropolitan county of Cleveland, the non-metropolitan county of Durham, and the metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear. The former two also contained large areas of the administrative county of Yorkshire (North Riding), and the latter contained a large area of the administrative county of Northumberland. In other words, an administrative county did not actually have its boundaries "changed", they were abolished'. So the non-metropolitan county of Durham is not the shrunken form of the administrative county.

This is the arguments placed by the opposing sides. The solution would be to say who claims what. It is accepted, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) policy that the common county name (such as "County Durham") should refer to current adminsitration areas: thus principally the metropolitan/non-metropolitan county. I agree to the resoning behind this since these are active administrative areas. Therefore, the article would say something on the lines of (using County Durham as an example):

County Durham, or officially Durham, is a non-metropolitan county located in north-east England. It was created in 1974 as a result of the Local Government Act 1972, which abolished the administrative county of Durham and adminsitrative county of Yorkshire (North Riding) and formed new non-metropolitan and metropolitan counties in their place, of which the non-metropolitan county of Durham was one. Although the legislation divided the adminsitrative county of Durham into 3 new non-metropolitan and metropolitan counties (Cleveland, Durham, and Tyne and Wear), some people and organisations view the non-metropolitan county as the changed form of the adminsitrative county of Durham. [provide references for this]

We can't agree so let's just state both views and let the reader decide! Simple!

I still think a seperate article for at least the administrative counties are needed since technically they are not the same as the non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties. Opponents of this have argued that:

1.The areas covered by counties with a similar name extension (e.g. the administrative county of Durham and the non-metropolitan county of Durham) cover a similar area (and the most similar out of all the non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties created in its place). However, I counter this because:

Conflating an adminstrative county with a particular non-metropolitan/metropolitan county not only confuses the reader about the differences between the two, but reinforces the view that that the particular non-metropolitan/metropolitan county is the 'shrunken' or sole extended form of the administrative county being discussed, particularly as they usually have the same name extension (e.g. "Durham"). This latter point is particularly important as the 1974 changes were viewed as controversial by many people who wholly dislike this "changed form" view that particular non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties often get by some organisations (take Durham County Council's view of the non-metropolitan county of Durham, for example).
The area is often not similar: Cleveland and Tyne and Wear contain large swathes of the administrative county of Durham, and the non-metropolitan county of Durham contains nearly 100,000 acres of the administrative county of Yorkshire (North Riding).

2. It is confusing for readers to get their head around the different entities. I counter:

We should not disguise the truth because it is more convenient to do so. Indeed, this leads to more confusion as it implies that certain non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties are the continued, modified form of a particular administrative county, with the other non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties that also covered part of the former adminsitrative county area being somehow "cut off" from the county.

3. The new articles might be stubs/contain less information. I counter:

We should not introduce innaccuracy because of the length of information an article contains, particularly given the negatives I have noted above.
The articles could be expanded. In particular, I would propose putting information about the particular historic county in the particular administrative county article since the adminsitrative counties are directly based upon the historic counties. I really don't mind what we do on this point (and PS I am not discussing whether a historical county still exists or not).

Based on all of this, I believe my wording in the non-metropolitan/metropolitan article and with seperate articles for at least the adminsitrative county is the best solution here. Logoistic (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have the time or the inclination to address every single point of this proposal, but I really don't understand how Logoistic's "best solution" would make for a better enyclopaedia. It emphasises minor technicalities of 1970s and 1990s local government legislation that is diametrically opposite to common understanding of the topic. Yes, the 1972 LGA technically abolished one Durham and replaced it with a different one, but to all intents and purposes this amounts to changing its boundaries. Also, to claim that modern-day County Durham (or whichever county) is not the natural successor to that which existed in the 19th century or earlier: well, that really is a fringe point of view. --RFBailey (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"To all extents and purposes" by your own opinion. Present the facts as they are. It is not a "fringe point of view" to say that the non-metropolitan view is not the natural successor: the LGA 1972 never stipulated that it was. If you want to include that point in the article then say who claims this. The LGA 1972 is not "fringe opinion": it created the non-metropolitan county of Durham and never stipualted anything about "nautral succession". Logoistic (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this idea either, we have been here before. MRSC • Talk 22:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but specifically what do you object to: the 1972 changes did not "reconsitute" anything but "abolished" and "created" new areas. Why do you wish to supress the facts of the matter? Logoistic (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too do not agree that this idea is good. Nor do I believe it will ever be agreed as a consensus to take the relivant articles forwards. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per subsequent discussions, I accept the consensus about not having seperate articles. However, articles should be worded to state that the interpretation of the 1974 changes as counties being "changed" or "reconstituted" should not be presented as a fact but as an interetation that the LGA 1972 does not support. Indeed, the details of the LGA 1972 should be given: that some areas were abolished and distributed among new entities. Any objections? Logoistic (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count three objections in this section, and a previous tally at original convention at 12 to 2. This is also coupled with this debate at 11 to 2. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you agreed that my edit that contained this was "fair" - see here. Plus, why do you wish to present an interpretation of the 1974 changes as fact when the LGA 1972 does not support it. Why are you against presenting it as such and implying that the LGA 1972 talks about "changing" counties? Logoistic (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I retract that agreement per the reasons since given at your talk page. I cannot agree to an article with false claims. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A correct and direct count should be made, backed up by rationale and reference. In this debate Jza seems to be using discussion on an "article for deletion" to establish a false consensus on this, an unrelated issue, on a different page. Essentially he is "counting votes" from people who were not aware of this. I'm going to put a disputed tag in the relevent section because of this. This seems to be an attempt to POV push his agenda in regards to the historic counties and their relevence. The count seems to be false and needs a new one established as since this issue with logoistic and County Durham, he has acted in a similar way in regards to Yorkshire articles. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clearly explain what your dispute is? MRSC • Talk 19:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly just explained above, if you care to read.

Jza claimed he had established a 12 against 2 consensus on a naming convention policy, but this is a false claim of consensus. It is a false claim for consensus because there was never a vote on here in regards to that. Deceptively he used people voting on an article for deletion, away from this article as this basis. Violating WP:CON by counting people who are entirely unaware of even voting on this here. Thus it is a lie to put in this guideline that there is a 12 against 2 consensus and thus cannot be included here. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have made some very serious claims about Jza84. The vote was tallied and added on 1 January 2004 by User:Morwen. [5] 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See link - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does/can that AFD dispute this naming convention? The AFD clearly happened much later. Jza84 was not even editing in 2004 when the vote took place and was concluded. [6] This is futher evidence of your poor conduct as raised at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian. I think you should respond to the concerns there before continuing in this vein. MRSC • Talk 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I wasn't part of the Wikipedia community until 2006. That's a bad call Yorkshirian, and yet more evidence towards Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian --Jza84 | Talk 23:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

which one should be the direct? new/old and common/uncommon

Earlier today I posted on the Wikipedia:Redirect talk page. Someone there suggested the discussion belonged here. I don't really care where it's discussed, as long as it is somewhere. (I should add that I'm choosing not to spend hours digging through this talk page's archives. If this has come up before, wonderful: post a link. As far as I see, nothing's made it into the guidelines yet.)

I wrote there:

According to WikiProject Redirect, one of the Project's tasks is to "[a]dd redirects about countries - eg. old names…" I don't see anything about this in Wikipedia:Redirect, and I think it should be added.
Currently, "the preferred title of an article is the most common name" would support keeping an old place name if it's better known than a new one. This gets touchy in cases where "old" is "colonial" and "new" is "back-to-native." The Project seems to support redirecting from old to new (it doesn't say 'redirects about countries - e.g. new names'), and indeed we have Godthåb redirecting to Nuuk, Søndre Strømfjord redirecting to Kangerlussuaq, Salisbury, Zimbabwe redirecting to Harare, etc. (They're just the ones that came to mind (I couldn't say why — they just did), and I'm sure there are many others.)
Can we make a decision about this and add it to the guidelines? There's some debate about Nuuk vs. Godthåb (it's currently Nuuk), it just came up in Kiriwina vs. Trobriand (it's currently Trobriand), and I suspect similar esoteric arguments will be had over and over until we do.

(Since writing that, I happened (completely by accident) on the Sulawesi vs. Celebes debate.)

The question is, again: If a place changes its name but is still better known by the other one, do we redirect from the new to the old, or do we move the old to the new and redirect from the old to the new? (I, personally, am in favor of the Sulawesi solution: the new name is the article, the old name redirects, and the lead says 'x, formerly [and?] more commonly known as y.') It'd be great to get a decision into the guidelines. — eitc h 18:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge

The idea of merging these two synonymously named pages has been raised at WT:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Why two pages?. Please comment.--Kotniski (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. Has this page, and its idiosyncratic view on official names, been put up for any wide discussion, anywhere? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the rest is redundant with WP:NC (settlements). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oblasts

Generally, use the official English name for the place and its type.

Example: the country has "oblasts" and its government officially translates them as "area", "region", or "zone", then they should never be renamed "province" to conform to another country or some master schema.

If there is not an official translation, then a general equivalent or obvious cognate should be used, until a better solution is found.

This is the right thing for oblasts, but the wrong reason. We should do what English does, which would be Moscow oblast, but Shandong province, (not sheng, which I had to go look up and which would be hopelessly obscure for most anglophones). A sentence on oblast could be usefully added to WP:NCGN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I agree with the tirade about raw Google at the end of the section; there are much better ways to decide what English uses, and both WP:NCGN and WP:Naming conflicts list several. That does not mean we should go over to official usage, whether or not anybody else does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Administrative_subdivisions states what we do do, and what we should do. If there is no disagreement, I propose to replace this entire second-order section with a section redirect. Comment? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Entire section removed. If you disagree, please notify my talk page as well as here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comma convention

I have removed this entire former section; it is obscure, and the best sense I can make out of it is bad advice. It seems to decide because Moscow, Russia, and Moscow (Russia), not on the basis on what English does, but for the sake of Wikipedia's internal links. This is most unwise; we should not produce unreadable text for the convenience of editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short form

Always search for the shortest form of the name. When the short form "ShortName" does not yet exist, while starting a new page, always check the What links here link on the creation page before saving it. If the name has already been used in articles for another purpose, use a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page instead.

This will give some inkling about how the name has already been used in existing articles, and whether a long form has already been established for that administrative division of a particular country.

This seems to me misguided. It is true that we want to use Rhode Island rather than State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; but that's not the shortest form of the name, which would be RI. Insofar as this is true, it is WP:COMMONNAME; insofar as it is false, it shouldn't be anywhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

double content here and in NC(settlements)

I propose to cut Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places)#Specific_issues and to replace it by a link to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements), which seems to have the more extensive list. No need to maintain to separate lists. Jasy jatere (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in general.

Please note that you have removed guidance on natural places in Australia and New Zealand, which does not fit in NC(settlements). It may be obvious, and so rightly removed, but do give a moment's thought whether some of it should be retained somewhere.. I am going to move the ancient quarrel on English counties to a page of its own; text so old and so much quarrelled over should be somewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now copied to WT:NCGN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Counties of Britain

this section is quite long and involved, and not very relevant to the general reader. I propose to make a special page NC_(Counties_of_Britain) and to move the content there, with a link remaining on this page. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe NC (United Kingdom places), then we could move all the UK stuff from NC (settlements) to it as well. Similarly NC (United States places).--Kotniski (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline has major significance in England and Wales. I would advise that any change to its location be raised at WP:UKGEO first. --Jza84 | Talk 19:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly intact at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)/Counties. I've notified the project, with a suggestion that a simpler expression of the same guidance be added to WP:NC (settlements) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Last call for any opposition to merging this page with the various other pages that have been mentioned....--Kotniski (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like we're done. There's nothing of substance left on this page except links to other ones, so time to merge what's left of it with WP:Naming conventions (geographic names).--Kotniski (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]