Talk:Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

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 don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested page move

See the above conversation area; it took over two weeks for anyone to move it back after I moved it to Oklahoma City, and even then, it was moved only based on the feeling that there might not be a consensus. Rather than a lengthy debate, I hope we can get this taken care of swiftly and effectively. It is unambiguous and has a precedent with New York City. Unlike Kansas City, there is no name conflict, and "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" sounds just as awkward as "New York City, New York". This is not about breaking standards, but rather keeping things uniform. If we allow New York to remain where it is, we should be doing the same here, otherwise it looks bad.

Also, on the argument of "What links here": That argument does not hold up to scrutiny because people link to the page that exists and often create piped links for the purpose, so please don't try to use that as an argument. It's just a case of common sense Jibbajabba 22:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

[edit] Support

1. Jibbajabba 22:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Not sure why American wikipedians are so wedded to the city/state format. "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" is ridiculous. Skeezix1000 18:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Umm, yeah, what Skeezix said. Even Canada gets it, why can't we? --Espantajo 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support show me another "oklahoma city" and I'll change my mind.--Tosei 04:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. The standard for thousands of articles is city, state. So leave it here. Nothing is broken and nothing is fixed by moving the article. Vegaswikian 00:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Strongly oppose. There is a standard; let's continue to follow it. Jonathunder 02:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Unnecessary to not follow the same pattern as 99.99% of other U.S. cities. NYC is an exceptional case for many reasons. older ≠ wiser 03:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose for the reasons older and wiser gave. Thumbelina 18:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• If someone has a problem with New York City take it up there. It is not a precedent for every other city. Not following conventions and policies to avoid redirects from sloppy editors is not justification for changes. Vegaswikian 00:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not about a problem with an existing page, it is about common sense. This is not about redirects, it's about consistency. If you would stop thinking politically for a second and not assume this is an attempt to bypass naming conventions, you'd see that New York City, New York and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma are remarkably similar and thus there is a precedent for this article to be moved, but not every other city. Jibbajabba 07:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, so the logic is if the state and city are the same name ith a city added we don't need to follow the standard. So we should also change California City, California? I still think this is a very weak reason to not follow a clear and well adopted standard. That standard is very logcal and easy for anyone to follow. There is a difference between a precedent and a justified exception. Vegaswikian 07:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • We probably should if there's no name conflict or ambiguity with that city's name. As usual, though, America is backwards where even Canada (Toronto, Ottawa...) can accept that there are exceptions to the rule. Jibbajabba 21:25, 15 January 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.

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 NO CONSENSUS TO MOVE at this time. There is discussion to change the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements); once the issue is settled there, we can move pages around as necessary. Until then, the individual cities can stay put. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma → Oklahoma City — It is unnecessary for a city whose name contains the name of the state that it is located in to be followed by the name of said state (e.g., New York City, New York) Roygene 01:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

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

[edit] Support

• Support Everyone who's obsessed with "city/state" don't get your panties in a wad. This is redundant and frankly it looks bad. I strongly support this move. Roygene 02:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• support i think it should be moved. it looks kinda redunndant Thatoklahomaguy 02:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Should the votes of users with just one edit (this vote) count? --Kralizec! (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The title Oklahoma City, Oklahoma is in blatant violation of WP:NC(CN), the most consistently followed naming convention in Wikipedia. See also Talk:Houston, Texas and Talk:Los Angeles, California. --Serge 02:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - state isn't necessary in any case. --Yath 02:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's unnecessary to add the name of the state. Oklahoma City is unmistakable.--Húsönd 22:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. Georgia guy 23:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly support. What other Oklahoma City is there? --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"
• Strong Support -- Unique name. --Polaron | Talk 05:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Dralwik. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 08:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. john k 03:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support My God how idiotic are some people. There's only one city of this name so stop people so fucking stupid and someone move the page. Xania 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  Civility, please. There's no need for such language and insults in this discussion. -- nae'blis 17:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, unambiguous title and the common name. -- nae'blis 17:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

• Oppose. cf. Virginia City. —  AjaxSmack  06:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per AjaxSmack. Plus, to change the title because it seems repetitive sounds like a pretty weak argument to defy convention, IMO. And would Kansas City, Kansas be qualified for moving should this precedent be adopted? I hope not, as Kansas City, Missouri has about 3 times the population as Kansas City, Kansas. Tinlinkin 10:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I would, and I did, support a move as discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). Tinlinkin 05:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the point. "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" seems the proper way to identify the city. Why make up convoluted rules about cities with state names in them? We have a perfectly good and simple rule for identifying cities and we should apply it uniformly. Phiwum 14:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a clear name that fully defines the place. It is consistent with the usage in thousands of other cities and places in the U.S. -Will Beback 01:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tinlinkin. And to keep it simple. Gene Nygaard 01:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose to follow convention and keep it simple. Bubba ditto 22:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above comments. --musicpvm 14:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - stay consistent. Krugs 16:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - While many of the pro sentiments both above and below speak of the precedent set by recent moves such as Chicago, Philadelphia, and Toronto, all three of those cities are clearly World Cities, and as such, their primacy makes them good exceptions to the City name, State name standard. Although Oklahoma City has many outstanding qualities, it is not a World City. Likewise, I do not feel that the relative uniqueness of its name merits an exemption from the existing naming standard. YMMV --Kralizec! (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Change the convention at WP:NC (settlements), then come back here. --Bobblehead 01:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per convention. AJD 02:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose See my arguement at Talk:Seattle, Washington. Also, technically New York City is "New York, New York" and not "New York City, New York". TJ Spyke 05:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Technically, New York City is the "City of New York." Technically, "New York, New York" is what you write if you want to mail a letter to the Borough of Manhattan. If you want to mail a letter to one of the other four boroughs, you address it to "Brooklyn, New York," "Bronx, New York," "Staten Island, New York," "Jamaica, New York," "Flushing, New York," "Long Island City, New York," "Far Rockaway, New York," or "Floral Park, New York." john k 22:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Will B. Jonathunder 13:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. ^BlankVerse 13:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Another round of this foolishness? I propose instead getting rid of the unnecessary exceptions by moving Chicago and Philadephia back. —wwoods 23:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

How often will we be revisiting this issue? The vote in January failed to move the page. Will we have a vote every ten months until the move is accepted?

Nothing has changed since last January. I don't see the point of this vote.Phiwum 14:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not true that nothing has changed since last January. First, some history: the U.S. guideline to use the comma disambiguation naming format (city, state) even when there is no ambiguity issue has always been, and will continue to be until it is abandoned, controversial, because it is inconsistent with the use the most common name convention followed by the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, including city articles for most other countries. Also, because of how this guideline was enforced - via a bot - a true natural consensus was never established for it. Instead, thousands of U.S. city articles were created and renamed using the comma format automatically by software. The behavior of human editors on one individual article at a time establishes convention, not a bot following instructions by rote on thousands of articles at a time.

So, what has changed since January? First, the Canadian editors, who once shared the guideline with the U.S., abandoned enforcement of the guideline and have experienced unprecedented peace and tranquility on their city talk pages ever since. When someone proposes a move from Canadian-city, province to Canadian-city, there is only opposition if there is an ambiguity issue. On U.S. city talk pages, however, we remain in the Wikipedia dark ages, where a similar move request, like this one, still causes much protest "in the name of following guidelines" (never mind the broader conventions that the guidelines themselves violate).

Also since January, both Chicago and Philadelphia have been moved by Wikipedia editors who recognize that being consistent with the broader Wikipedia naming conventions is more important than being consistent with the exceptions that need to be disambiguated in a particular category.

As to your other question - how often will we be revisiting this issue? - that's hard to say. It's not like each revisit is planned. Note that neither the requestor this time, nor any of the supporting votes so far, were involved with the last vote. It's important to understand and appreciate the implications of this fact: because the name of this article is in blatant violation of the most visible and widely followed convention in Wikipedia - if there is no ambiguity issue, use the most common name used to refer to the subject of the article as the article title - it is inevitable for someone, sooner or later, to propose a move consistent with that convention, and for there to be considerable support for it. How often such a proposal will be made is impossible to predict, but that it will be proposed, over and over, until the article is moved to Oklahoma City is quite obvious, at least to some of us.

So you can vote to support the move now and get it over with, or vote to oppose and therefore commit ourselves to another vote, and yet another vote, ad infinitum, until, some day, the move succeeds. Your choice. --Serge 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Support the move or else? Very persuasive! Phiwum 17:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You make it sound like someone is making a threat. Consequences are consequences. I'm not threatening or planning to cause the consequences (I certainly did not make this move request, or the last one), just pointing out what they are likely to be, and that it's your choice. Just don't be surprised if you see similar requests in the future until this move succeeds. --Serge 18:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of your problem is a misinterpretation of "broader Wikipedia naming conventions". Gene Nygaard 01:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify. Do you disagree that "use the most common name" is followed in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, and that no other naming convention has a broader following? How do you explain why Wikipedia editors continue to come out of the woodwork requesting and supporting page moves like this? --Serge 02:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a question for those who oppose this move. If this article was already one that didn't follow the US cities naming conventions, would you request it be moved to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma? Why or why not? -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 04:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there was an established naming convention, the one that didn't follow it would stand out from the rest. So without a compelling reason for an exception, I would support that move from Oklahoma City to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Tinlinkin 05:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" for consistency's sake. Every few months, this campaign will cause further inconsistency. Some other city will lose the state, so that we will have Tulsa and Oklahoma City but also Enid, Oklahoma. Or is Enid so famous that we should drop the "Oklahoma"? Perhaps it is the most populous Enid in the world, but who the heck knows where it is? What about Guthrie, Oklahoma? Bugtussle, Oklahoma? (Okay, so Bugtussle doesn't appear to have an article. Poor Carl Albert.) Why try to carve out useless exceptions like this? Consistency is a hell of a lot preferable in my book. Phiwum 20:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably because there are no guidelines at all as to what can be exempted so many people are just going by naming uniqueness or primary topic usage to determine what might be reasonable exemptions. --Polaron | Talk 20:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

But I see no reason for exemptions at all. It starts with New York City. Okay, that's clearly a world city and everyone knows which one we mean. Then comes a few others and eventually relatively minor cities like Oklahoma City. And then, what the hell, Tulsa too baby! But what is the point? How is consistency oppressive? Why not a single exceptionless rule which worked for so long? What drives these strange reformists that prefer ad hoc shortenings to simple rules? I simply don't get it. Phiwum 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not Tulsa too? Consistency isn't oppressive. One problem is that it's inconsistent with the way we do things for cities in other countries. Another problem is that it's pretty strongly inconsistent with our more general naming conventions. Somebody famous said something famous about a "folish consistency"...I can't quite recall what it was, though. Something about Hobgoblins. At any rate, I've proposed a change to the general convention at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), if anyone here is interested and hasn't seen it yet. john k 22:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to your proposal. At least you gave a real rule there. But the rule was more or less this: Every city will be treated like so, except for these 27 cities. I don't see any advantage to that rule. I also don't see how you can keep your promise: 27 cities and no more. As soon as it passes, more ad hoc city names will be suggested and on and on it goes, for no evident purpose. Phiwum 00:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, everybody, lets calm down. THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE WORTH GOING AT EACH OTHER'S THROATS OVER!!! The main reason I suggested moving the page is because the majority of people when looking up info on Oklahoma City, will not type "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" into the search engine, but rather type only "Oklahoma City", or "OKC". Also, someone made a valid point about the definition of world cities, which Oklahoma City is not. However, if the city itself is well-known enough that people refer to it simply by its name only and not the state that it is located in (e.g., Miami, Florida; Cheyenne, Wyoming; etc.), then IT IS UNECESSARY TO INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE STATE IN THE TITLE. I feel that we have made our case strongly, and the biggest rebuttal I have seen is simply to maintain the "city, state" format. This might actually be confusing to people who are not intimately familiar with the signifance of states in the U.S. Kabul, Afghanistan and Baghdad, Iraq are both cities located in political subdivisions within countries; however, the names of those political subdivisions are not included in the titles of their pages. If the consistency advocates really want consistency, maybe we should follow the precedent set by those cities. Roygene 02:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Roygene, dear sir: Have you noticed? If you type "Oklahoma City" into Wikipedia search, you already get the right page! Heck, try OKC. Same thing. So why do you care whether the title identifies the state or not? No one will fail to find the page. And no one will be confused by the title. And no one will have to wonder why the state name appears in some city titles, but not others. Simple and consistent. Phiwum 02:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I feel that this has gone far enough. First of all, you just significantly weakened your argument by making such vague and "all-inconclusive" generalities as, "No one does . . ." and "No one will be . . ." It is impossible to tell the number of people who will or will not be confused by anything. Second of all, I agree we do have a weak argument, howevee consider this: these proposals are going to occur. Not just on this page, but on every other city that is well-known. Surely you must have realized by now that whoever first started this policy of changing the titles of cities that are well-known by dropping the state opened a major can of worms.

Now, with that established, we have two options open to us. One, we allow this move to take place and if another such proposal is to pop up on another city, examine the arguments there and decide it on those arugments only, not on precedent. Two, we can block this move and enforce this "consistency" policy on every U.S. city, regardless or size, popularity, or world-city status. Those are our only two options. If we choose the latter, then I propose this encyclopedia adopt this policy on city articles:

• All cities located in the U.S. or any other country where the state or province where the city is located is significant, regardless of size, etc., be titled in the style(s) (1)"city, state", or (2) "city, province".

Personally, I feel that what the Canadians or Mexicans or Germans do is up to them, but if we intend to put debates like this behind us, we will need to decide on one of these courses or action. I rest my case. Roygene 02:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that whoever first passed a US city change introduced inconsistency which just seems to beg for even more ad-hoc inconsistencies. Like you, I don't care about what other country policies are. The US is a big place in which states matter and city names are repeated willy-nilly. A nice simple rule seems appropriate for this country and we've had thar rule for some time. Phiwum 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth are those "our only two options"?? The second option appears to be a straw man, in that there is absolutely no chance that it will ever get passed. the first option I'm not sure I fully understand. I particularly don't understand how you can (hypothetically?) advocate moving this page on the basis of a vote which appears, at the moment, to be against a move. Personally, I think we should allow for a flexible rule with exceptions, whereby the standard format for american cities is "City, State," but we explicitly allow reasonable exceptions for major cities when there is no serious danger of ambiguity and the use of "City" alone is clearly a primary usage. See above, about a foolish consistency - there's no reason to enforce consistency within US cities for consistency's sake, especially when it conflicts with naming standards for non-US cities. And the chances that you are actually going to achieve Milan, Lombardy and Prague, Bohemia, and so forth, are incredibly tiny. john k 04:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're exactly right john, we can't advocate moving this page with so few votes in support. What I'm saying is that this is never going to end unless we either completely tear down the wall or rebuild it. In my opinion, this city does not need the name of the state to follow it because it is well-known enough as to not be ambiguous. I don't know about any of the naming conventions or whatever, but that's just what I think.

However, there is some pretty strong opposition to it and I doubt very much that this vote or a future one will pass. My point is, like what Serge pointed out (see top of discussion), is that these votes are going to happen because someone decided that important cities do not need states following them. In theory, that person was correct; however, in practice, that rule can never be fully enforced. Why? Because people who for whatever reason will believe that some city, not just OKC, will be worthy of dropping the state from the title. Surely you can see why a rule such as, "All U.S. cities, except the important ones, will be titled 'city, state'", can never work.

First, let's start by giving the definition of important. What makes a city important? Well, OKC is important for several reasons: (1) it lies on a three-way crossroads of the U.S. Interstate Highway System, (2) it is the capital city of Oklahoma, (3) it is the 31st (I think) largest city in the U.S., etc. Tulsa is the farthest inland port in the U.S.; that's fairly important. Heck, Minneapolis is classified as a world-city for Heaven's sake and it still has the "city, state" style.

Do you see what I mean? You're always going to have someone who wants it moved. That's why we have only two options open. We either have to rebuild the wall where other people have started to tear it down, or just take it down completely. Roygene 14:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Roygene, I would advise reading of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic. Basically, my position is that when a particular city is the "primary topic" referred to by its name, it should just be at Cityname. For some reason I still don't really understand, a lot of people seem to disagree with this, but this is the basic way we name articles on wikipedia. There's some discussion of the issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), if you want to join in. john k 02:10, 24 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.