Talk:Philadelphia

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

The result of the debate was move to Philadelphia. —Mets501 (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania → Philadelphia — The latter currently redirects to the former, and there's a dab page. This is a common name (cf. Rome, Paris, Chicago, etc.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For the current Wikipedia conventions regarding U.S. place names, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). For a discussion of changing this convention generally (i.e., rather than making exceptions to the convention for particular U.S. cities, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006). Spikebrennan 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support This makes perfect sense. Anywhere one goes in the world, the name Philadelphia is understood to be the City of Brotherly Love. While there are smaller cities named Philadelphia (like Philadelphia, Mississippi), a disambiguation could be made for that reason. Other smaller cities in the US have single-named pages (Tampa, Miami, Denver, etc.) for the same reason; they all are world-renowned as the best (and sometimes only) example of a city with that name. Therefore, I support this decision. EaglesFanInTampa 17:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per placement of other major world city articles. Kirjtc2 17:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Unqualified name obviously refers to this city. --Polaron | Talk 18:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support --evrik 19:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Kafziel ^Talk 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. One reason an extreme convention adherent might cite to oppose this move is that the U.S. city convention is city, state. But there are exceptions to all conventions (e.g., Chicago, New York City). So that's not a valid reason. The issue here is about whether Philadelphia should be an exception to that convention. I, for one, don't see why not. --Serge 21:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. AP style http://www.apstylebook.com/ lists some 30 US cities that can stand alone without state disambig. Philadelphia is one of them. They are listed here: http://www.dwu.edu/info/ap_style.htm ccwaters 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Serge and ccwaters. Olessi 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. By far the most famous Philadelphia. john k 00:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a valid naming convention for U.S. cities, and no one has given a reason why this city should be an exception. -Will Beback 00:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• (Comment moved to Discussion section below) --Serge 03:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support I think this should be moved to Philadelphia with a separate disambiguation page (probably at Philadelphia (disambiguation). In regards to Will Beback's prudent request for a reasoned justification, Philadelphia is a major megalopis, and a historic city that is the founding city of a major nation in the world. When someone says "Philadelphia," they usually refer to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Thus, I find this request to be reasonable.-- danntm ^T _C 18:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - per all of the above--Looper5920 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The state disambiguation is superfluous. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support – Regardless of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) (which does allow exceptions) there is no need to disambiguate Philadelphia with the state name, as it is by far the primary topic. However, there are already thousands of incoming links to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It's funny that I participated in a debate about some users redirecting Philadelphia to its disambig page instead of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (see Talk:Philadelphia) in the name of countering nationalistic bias toward the United States. But I support per the reasons above, as this Philadelphia is the most recognized reference within the U.S. and in the world. Tinlinkin 09:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: there is a longstanding convention for U.S. cities, and moving individual ones will make it harder to predict where the article is. Jonathunder 17:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus dictates convention, not the other way around. The convention itself won't change until the need for change is shown in practice on individual pages. Conventions are guidelines, and guidelines have exceptions. Kafziel ^Talk 17:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Much like Chicago, Philadelphia is a world-known city and does not need the state name. --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project".
• Oppose. Seems to be a lost cause but I dread the creep of exceptions to naming conventions that will one day lead to thousands of move requests of the likes of Tappahannock, Virginia → Tappahannock for all of the same reasons give above. A little US-centrism in this one as well. -  AjaxSmack  05:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Adhering to the most common name by convention, and resorting to a contrived naming conventions as per the city, state format only when required for disambiguation (such as, in this case, for the lesser known Philadelphias), is not an exception to naming conventions. The day you dread is the day to which I look forward. As far as your US-centrism accusation - to the contrary, most other countries do not use the disambiguation form for their cities except when required for disambiguation. What is "US-centrism" is giving US cities "special" treatment in the form of using the disambiguated format even when there is no disambiguation issue to resolve. --Serge 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The rule for U.S. cities is what it is. The only two U.S. exceptions are New York City and Chicago-- not even Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix, Atlanta, etc. make the list. The issue should not be local pride, but adherence to conventions that make sense. Besides: 'Philadelphia' already (sensibly) redirects to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and not to Philadelphia (disambiguation). For the arguments stated on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006), I believe that the 'city, state' general rule is appropriate, and I am not convinced that it is appropriate to depart from this general rule in the specific case of this article. Spikebrennan 17:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is circular logic. When changes are proposed at the guideline level, they are opposed for lack of sufficient precedent at the article level. But when changes are proposed at the article level, they are opposed for lack of support at the guideline level. Here, at the article level, is where these changes need to start; exceptions are always permitted, and if enough exceptions are made then the rule itself can be changed. Kafziel ^Talk 17:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Let me rephrase. I read the arguments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006) and, after doing so, I was convinced that the general 'city, state' naming convention is sensible and appropriate. Since I am not convinced that there is a good reason for the Philadelphia article name to depart from the normal U.S. city naming convention, I oppose the move. I urge other participants in this discussion to read the general policy discussion and come to their own conclusions. Spikebrennan 18:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • So what would be a good reason to depart from the convention? Keep in mind that the uniqueness of the name itself doesn't matter, because "Philadelphia" redirects here anyway. It would be different if it redirected to the disambiguation page, but locating this at the current redirect won't marginalize the other Philadelphias any more than they already are. If it's sensible to skip the disambiguation page to get here (as you say it is, and I certainly agree) then it's equally sensible to skip the redirect. Kafziel ^Talk 19:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • You haven't convinced me that there's anything wrong with the status quo. Spikebrennan 19:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Huh? If you look at the old survey you keep linking to, you'll see me there. Note the part where I was the first one to vote in support of the status quo. Because, by definition, the guideline already allows for unlimited exceptions where appropriate. This is one of those cases. Kafziel ^Talk 20:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Again, I guess I was unclear. I meant to say that I am not convinced that there's anything wrong with the status quo of this article (i.e., having the article be named "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" rather than "Philadelphia". Let me paraphrase from what I wrote at User talk:Serge Issakov -- (1) I happen to agree with the views expressed by those contributors to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006) that 'city, state' is the best convention for names of U.S. city name articles, notwithstanding the well-articulated arguments presented by you and other opponents of that view. If I had participated in the Chicago discussion, I would have opposed the move. I note that the end result of the aforementioned lively discussion was no change in the 'city, state' rule-- to my mind, this is evidence of the virtue of the general rule. (2) I really do happen to think that 'Philadelphia, Pennsylvania' is the best name for the article. There's a non-trivial number of other Philadelphias out there (including other geographic locations, the Biblical Philadelphia, the Tom Hanks film, and so on).Spikebrennan 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Right, but as I said, they still need to be accessed from the disambiguation page, not from the redirect. An editor who links to "Philadelphia" for the film is still going to go to the wrong page, because it will redirect to the city anyway. Those other Philadelphias will always be a page away whether this is located here or at the current redirect. Believe me, I feel for all those places - I live in Florida, New York. But we don't kid ourselves about what the real Florida is. As I told you, and as you can see from the old (and, actually, meaningless) straw poll, I'm not an "opponent" of that view. I voted to keep the guideline as it is. Making an exception here in no way changes the standard convention, or I wouldn't be voting to support this proposal, either. Because the redirect skips the disambiguation page for this name, the only issue left is whether you would most commonly say, "I work in Philadelphia" or "I work in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." There are no other technical considerations left. Kafziel ^Talk 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
            • In retrospect, the very idea of having a vote to decide whether to change a Wikipedia convention is preposterous. The votes and discussions there should be on how best to describe the existing conventions in English, or to ascertain what the conventions are, not determine what they should be. Where conventions are actually formed and evolved is decided here, on the individual article pages, one at a time. Wikipedia is a consensus-based organization that forms and develops conventions and guidelines bottom-up, not an authoritarian system like the military or even our legal system that makes decisions and changes top-down. That's a crucial distinction that opponents of this move do not seem to comprehend. --Serge 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
              • (with respect to Kavziel's comment about "I work in Philadelphia" vs. "I work in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania": I guess it depends upon whether I'm talking to someone in the United States, or in a foreign country. By way of further response to Serge, I understand what you're saying about the process of the evolution of Wikipedia conventions; it's just that I happen to agree with the city, state U.S. cities naming principle both in general and in the specific case of Philadelphia. My point about referencing the August 2006 discussion on the policy page is that if you're going to commence renaming discussions about various U.S. cities (like Los Angeles, California or Atlanta, Georgia, for instance), then I would urge you to reference the present convention and the August 2006 policy page discussion when doing so, so that the people on the particular city article's talk page are aware that there has been a discussion at a general level (which some people may find helpful in coming to their own conclusions). Spikebrennan 20:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
                • With all due respect, the understanding that you now say you have is inconsistent with the reasoning you gave next to your vote: "The rule for U.S. cities is what it is." In fact, referring to a guideline based on convention in a bottom-up decision system as a rule which implies a top-down authoritarian decision system is in and of itself contradictory to this understanding. --Serge 21:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • I've changed the stated rationale for my vote accordingly. (I agree with you that the convention is not the master simply because it exists, but I happen to agree with the application of the convention in this particular case.) Spikebrennan 21:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • Cool. Thanks for being willing to talk it out. Kafziel ^Talk 01:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

[edit] Links to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Hroðulf points out above that there are "already thousands of incoming links to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania". When Chicago, Illinois was moved to Chicago, Chicago, Illinois was made into a redirect to Chicago. The same should happen here, therefore any link to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania will be redirected to Philadelphia. Then, with time, the [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania|Philadelphia]] references can be fixed to point to Philadelphia, and the [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania]] references can be changed to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania or just Philadelphia, as appropriate. But there is no hurry, since the existing references will not be broken. --Serge 14:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• can't a bot fix all of that? --evrik 16:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to "fix" redirects if they get you to the right place [2]. We do need to fix the 29 double redirects that will be created if this page is moved. --Polaron | Talk 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons Philadelphia SHOULD be an exception

Will Beback claims in the Survey above that "no one has given a reason why this city should be an exception" (to the city, state convention). Yet all of the following reasons have been specified:

• The proposed name Philadelphia currently redirects to the current name, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (nom).
• This is the most common name used (nom).
• There is already a dab page for all other less common uses (nom).
• Consistency with other major world city names, including New York City and Chicago (nom + survey).
• Unqualified reference is an obvious reference to subject of this article (survey).
• Disambiguation by state is superfluous (survey)
• Standard treatment per widely used AP Style book [3]

Just because one may believe these reasons do not justify Philadelphia being an exception, that's just a matter of opinion, and why there is a survey to resolve it. But to claim "no one has given a reason" is simply false. --Serge 18:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons Philadelphia should NOT be an exception

The only reason cited so far to not make this article be an exception to the convention is from Jonathunder who points out that doing so "will make it harder to predict where the article is". First, that's simply an argument that there should be no exceptions to the convention. Second, and more importantly, what he doesn't say is that it will make it harder for editors to predict where the article is, and, thus, this reason is irrelevant to article naming considerations since it violates the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions as stated at WP:NC:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

Avoiding this move because it would "make it harder [for editors] to predict where the article is" would be optimizing for editors over readers, and a violation of this overall principle. Exceptions to conventions is one thing, and are normal and expected, but violations of principles is something else again. --Serge 18:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status

Currently it is 14-4 in favor of the move. That seems like a fair degree of consensus. Should we go ahead and move it? john k 15:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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