Talk:Kelowna

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

The result of the proposal was Kelowna, British Columbia → Kelowna

The Canadian geographic naming conventions permit an article to be moved to the undisambiguated title if the city has a unique name or is the most significant use of its name internationally. The title Kelowna exists as a redirect to this article, and as the name derives from a BC First Nations word (for the record, it would be better to link to the specific First Nation from which the name actually derives, rather than just saying "native"...but I digress), it's not likely to be repeated elsewhere in the world. Accordingly, this article is a candidate for a page move to the plain title Kelowna. Any discussion? Bearcat 20:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, for reasons given. Kelowna already redirects here. For the same reason that Lethbridge, Gatineau, Saskatoon, etc. got moved to undisambiguated titles, so should this one. Skeezix1000 21:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We should continue to move Canadian cities to the new convention, so Support. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose no real advantage in moving it. Imagine looking for canadian settlements in categories such as Category:Settlements established in 1818 or Category:Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (Spanish), etc. It's actually much harder to find an article if the province is not in the title. --Qyd 12:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That argument made no sense whatsoever. And this fits with our convention which has been established with precedents (Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Edmonton, ect) that happened within the last year. And nobody actually comes to Wikipedia to looks up articles by categories. The category system has become really overused, and more of a statistical thing than anything else. And the Canadian ones will stick out because the Americans are too stubborn to change their convention, so their's will always be city, state. -Royalguard11(T·R!)

Could you please point me to the naming convention discussion (can't find it right now)? As I remember, even in the lukewarm support that it got (the second time around), the naming convention mentioned as exceptions to the "Settlement, Province" name only important cities that don't have ambiguous names. Furthermore, I fail to see any advantage in moving the pages (double standards are certainly not an advantage), and the proposal only says that a move may be permitted, without giving a reason. And thanks for allowing me to have an opinion in this regard. PS there's more to the world than US and Canada. --Qyd 22:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That discussion was to change the existing Canadian naming convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements), which includes conventions for most countries and regions in the world. Skeezix1000 12:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The convention was implemented de facto because we moved several articles (from Edmonton to Flin Flon) last summer. So it became the convention because of implementation as opposed to huge discussion (which is probably the best way to implement policy, otherwise you just argue for months on end). Because the cities exist at Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary, Flin Flon ect, they have become the standard. You could ask for a move back, but if they stay then the new convention is just upheld (which is probable). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The convention pre-existed those moves last year (and flowed from a desire to disassociate articles like Toronto and Montreal, which were already undisambiguated, from the quagmire that was/is the debate over the U.S. naming convention). But you're right -- the convention was first truly implemented last year when articles such as Calgary and Gatineau were moved. Skeezix1000 17:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't even get us started about the US city convention (or rather Religious Decree). Tell them everything doesn't have to follow the convention to the letter and you see heads explode (just look at Boston). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That the categorization system can't display more details than article names is a software issue, which can hopefully be changed in the future. This article makes more intuitive sense as Kelowna. –Pomte 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The move was proposed nine months ago, and there remains only one opposing comment. Since the proposal is unlikely to generate much additional discussion at this point, I am being bold and proceeding with the move. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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