Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments and views.

Please review the recent comments below, or in the archives. New views and ideas on the subject are welcome; however, if your beliefs reflect already existing contributions, please consider withholding them.
Shortcut:
WT:NC:CITY
Archive
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
/U.S. convention change (August 2006)
/One international convention (August 2006)
/Is comma convention in conflict with other guidelines? (November 2006)
/comma for all cities (November 2006)
/Summary of Discussion (Jan-Feb 2007)


Contents


[edit] Memphis, Tennessee redirect question

Hi there, I have read the naming conventions for U.S. cities and I still need expert assistance in their interpretation. I have tried to check out the AP Stylebook that is referred to, but it is subscription based. So I thought I'd ask my question here for free.

The page Memphis formerly contained the disambiguation information, I moved the disambiguation content to Memphis (disambiguation), and disambiguated all existent links to Memphis, except some userpages and archives. The article about the City of Memphis is on the page Memphis, Tennessee, where it belongs according to the [[City, State]] convention. So far I am sure that is according to the naming conventions.

What I am not sure about is, if the redirect Memphis --> Memphis, Tennessee is desired or if Memphis --> Memphis (disambiguation) is the proper way to point for the redirect. The Memphis, Tennessee article starts with a link to Memphis, Egypt (the ancient capital of Egypt) and to Memphis (disambiguation), so no information is lost for the reader, either way.

The disambiguated links as mentioned above were about 250 or so, with 90% for Memphis, Tennessee, about 9% for Memphis, Egypt and about 1% others. These percentages are links, of course, and they might not perfectly predict what most readers expect to find when they type in Memphis but they give a hint. If you look at the sum of clicks, formerly 100% of readers had to click twice to read what they wanted. Now 90% have to click once, 9% twice and 1% three times.

So far I got with common sense. If the redirect is not according to conventions and can not be subject to an exception it can easily be changed, of course.

Thanks for your time, doxTxob \ talk 01:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would like to see the dab page at Memphis. There was no real reason to move it. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there was a real and good reason. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic suggests just that in case of a topic more commonly searched for than other ambiguous topics of the same name, like Memphis in this case. Only if there is doubt about the primary topic (or extended discussion about which is the primary topic), the dab page should stand alone as [[Topic]], not as [[Topic (disambiguation)]]. doxTxob \ talk 05:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Memphis, Egypt is a commonly searched for topic, and outside of the U.S. might be the more commonly searched for of the two. Making Memphis a redirect to Memphis, Tennessee could be seen as too U.S.-centric. -- Donald Albury 10:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Just as a rough idea, if you look at the readership stats Memphis, Tennessee saw 54k hits in January, Memphis 12k and Memphis, Egypt 10k. Not the whole story of course, and as a Brit I'm personally pretty hot on WP:CSB but in this case I'm happy to let US cultural imperialism win this one. Put it this way, the typical English speaker looking for the Egypt one wouldn't be surprised to find the modern city at the primary location. FlagSteward (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Funny, I am German, living in the U.S. and see myself more as a cosmopolitan, usually tring to avoid U.S. centric bias and other cultural centricism as well. My actions point rather to a high level of user-friedlyness and making topics as easy to find as possible. doxTxob \ talk 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur with the positions expressed above by Donald Albury and Vegaswikian. Memphis, Egypt is better known outside of the U.S. Country music isn't really that popular or well-known outside of the U.S. We need to balance the interests of U.S. readers against those of the rest of the world. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You have noticed that the two supporters of the redirect Memphis-->Memphis, Tennessee both are not even Americans, haven't you? As a German, I can tell you that when "Memphis" is mentioned there, there is no question even, which Memphis is meant, just "Memphis" means Memphis, Tennessee, even those who do not favour the U.S. too much would agree on that. Whatever consensus is reached, I will respect of course. I usually just prefer user-friendlyness.
By the way, to my knowledge Memphis is not very well known for country music, which indeed is not very popular outside the United States. To most, Memphis is known as the birthplace of Blues, the birthplace of Rock'n'Roll and as the home of Elvis Presley, King of Rock'n'Roll. And for these profane reasons Memphis is known all over the globe. ;-) doxTxob \ talk 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the historical significance of the Egyption city I would rather the link went to the dab page. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 05:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Historical significance is one side and current day significance is another. Isn't significance in part determined on what is to say about the topic? Apart from the above, there are far more articles about current day Memphis, TN than there are about ancient Memphis, Egypt. doxTxob \ talk 05:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
However can we show that one of these is the primary use? I have long advocated that if there is any question about the primary use, that it be resolved by having the dab page in the main name space. Since in this case that was were it started, it should remain. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The user stats as mentioned above show that Memphis, Tennessee gets more than 5 times the hits on the English wikipedia compared to Memphis, Egypt. For me that is convincing enough to see a primary use here.

A second thing I want to mantion is that I do not consider it a very fair move of Vegaswikian to move the dab page while this discussion is still ongoing and consensus in neither direction has reached. doxTxob \ talk 19:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually all I did was restore the status before a user did the move shortly before this discussion began. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The change of the redirect was discussed prior to the move on the discussion page and the change was made according to the outcome of that discussion in favour of redirecting to Memphis, Tennessee. doxTxob \ talk 22:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this was handled properly at Talk:Memphis. A suggestion was made back in August 2007 to which no one objected. About 6 months later all the links were fixed and the change was made, back in January. Others made changes. I see no record of objections, then, suddenly, during discussions above and without establishing consensus, apparently Vegaswikian unilaterally moved it back on Feb 26 to the way it was? What I don't see here is consensus to change it back like this, yet apparently it was. On what basis? Aren't Wikipedia changes like this made by consensus? It seems to me that the dab page should be at Memphis (disambiguation) and the redirect to the city at Memphis, unless consensus can be established to change it. No? --Unflappable (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was a discussion. However it had minimal participation which is not surprising since I suspect that most editors do not watch dab pages or redirect pages. If you believe that what I did is really incorrect, then you can change it back. Or if you would like to get a proper discussion it can be nominated at WP:RM. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Los Angeles

I requested that the article Los Angeles, California be moved to Los Angeles. You're welcome to voice your opinion at Talk:Los Angeles, California#Requested move #5. Charles Stewart (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

I have created three userboxes for users to express a position in the endless debate over U.S. city article titles:

Enjoy! szyslak 07:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British cities

I'm not sure if this is where to direct this, but I've increasingly noticed, and perhaps it is from my cultural bias, that searching for common names like Sheffield, Northampton, Worcester, or Wakefield automatically yields the British city, bypassing perhaps a 20 item disambiguation page of names that could also be derived from that search term. Perhaps your reasoning is that there is no other way to disambiguate British cities, so therefore it should be in the number one spot, but I assure you, I would certainly put Gary Sheffield before the city in England any day.

I would really like to know some cogent reason as to why this is the way it is, because this has always bothered me, and today, it's making me especially irked. Just the idea that Birmingham yields not one of the most important cities in United States history, but some random British city, certainly seems to be an issue. Jared (t)  14:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Google doesn't agree with you on Sheffield - Gary is some way down. There have been discussions about Birmingham in cfd - the category is Category:Birmingham, England. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The simple answer is that the British naming convention puts them there by default. Then in discussions to move them, the editors of those articles dominate the move discussions and as a result the dab page has no chance to be moved to the proper place. No primary usage seems to get lost along the way. Yes, that is my view, but if you look at several talk pages for move discussions you can read for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Talk:Worcester#Requested move would make excellent reading as a discussion that is still open. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It is indeed excellent reading - thank you. I'm sure ones for Birmingham or Manchester would be equally illuminating, particularly if one were changed and the other not (supporters of the 2 vie for the Second city of the United Kingdom crown). (I am in the UK. I'd go for 'Worcester, England' if pressed. 'Worcester, Worcestershire' does look and sound silly.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to find out about Gary Sheffield then you would search for Gary Sheffield - expecting a disambig page for any settlement that is also used as a surname is unlikely, unless there is a clear disparity in the notability (a baseball player is not notable worldwide - just as almost all domestic sportspeople aren't). Your argument on Gary Sheffield is leftfield - it is the equivalent of expecting Houston to be a disambig so people can find Whitney - when in fact the (sensible) reality is a redirect to the city.
Also it is probably worthy of a point that your comments suggest a pretty strong cultural bias - dismissing Birmingham, England as a "random British city" is a pretty narrow-minded way of looking at things. You give your view that Birmingham, U.S.A is one of the "most important cities in United States history", fair enough, that may very well be the case - but an equal argument can be made that Birmingham, England, as the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, is highly notable (certainly on a national, if not even on an international scale). SFC9394 (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
But notability is not the same as being the primary use. Cities with the same name all have some level of notability. The real question is which one, if any, is clearly the primary use for decisions about applying the naming conventions. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea of moving Sheffield or Birmingham is absurd. The hit counts are the best measure of primary use we have. Birmingham had almost twice the number of hits as its alabama counterpart. Unless theres another significant usage I'm overlooking it means the majority of people looking for a Birmingham are looking for the Birmingham. The case for Sheffield is even more clear cut. While Sheffield gets 37,000 hits no other article gets over 1,000. The only exception is Gary Sheffield who gets 12,000. Ignoring the fact that most people would expect him to be at Gary Sheffield this is still a third of the Sheffield hit count during the Baseball season. josh (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hit counts do not determine primary usage. They can be raised during a discussion but are not the ultimate determining factor. In the case you cite for Birmingham that data makes it clear that there is no primary use. In fact if you could exclude the hits for Alabama from the Birmingham count it would further the case that there is no primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To sort of respond to everything that has been said thus far, I was certainly exaggerating my claim to prove that UK cities are all too often found in the primary spot. By no means would I advocate "Sheffield" to redirect to "Gary Sheffield" because that would be absurd. And also, I'm not sure how the whole "hit count" thing works, but if it works the way I'm thinking, obviously the page in the primary spot (e.g. Birmingham) would be the first page hit in a search before the reader realizes that they must disambig to Birmingham, Alabama, thus inflating the first count by nearly two times. Regardless of count, though, there really shouldn't be just one of a bunch of things in the number one spot, unless by sheer importance that one thing trumps all the others. That said, I would probably advocate having a disambiguation page over linking directly to the British city, which, I'm sure is often not the final destination of the searching user. Jared (t)  00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Applicability to article titles vs contents

Hello! Does this policy apply only to article titles or also to city names when mentioned in article bodies, such as birthplaces? My question relates specifically to use of "City Name, State" versus "City Name, United States." I'm kind of new and thought naming convention policies, as a whole, applied to entire articles. I'm sure this issue has been hotly discussed, so any guidance would be appreciated. :) hamu♥hamu (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The guideline is intended for article titles, but it's probably good practice to more or less follow them for use in articles. A good guideline to use is, when in an article, refer to the city by "City Name, State" first, and then simply "City" for subsequent entries. For example:
George Bush was born in Milton, Massachusetts ... while living in Milton, the Bush family ...
Hope that makes sense! Shereth 23:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Makes good sense. I know this has come up many, many times before, but has a consensus been reached on how to handle situations where an editor feels strongly that references to "Milton, Massachusetts" should be changed to "Milton, United States" within an article? Some editors make this change in every article they encounter, in total good faith. As a US resident, I can confidently say that the state name is imperative for clarity and non-ambiguity (especially if the city has no article to Wikilink to), but many editors feel that the practice is US-biased. Short of having ongoing discussions, sometimes involving high emotions, on every single article for which this becomes a point of contention, is there a precedent, policy, or comprehensive discussion that can be referenced to help all editors understand the hows and whys of using City, State format for US cities? Thanks so much. --hamu♥hamu (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is nothing (at least that I can find) in the Manual of Style regarding how to handle geographical locations within articles. It may be the sort of thing worth bringing up for discussion, as far as whether or not we should include a section for place names. Shereth 15:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Can't say I'm surprised, as this is not an issue that's easy to build consensus on! :) In the meantime, I'll just handle each situation as it comes along. Thanks for your guidance! --hamu♥hamu (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Many editors prefer to add "U.S." to city, state designations, at least in the first mention. We can't expect every kid in India to know that "Arkansas" is a U.S. state. But we should never write "Omaha, U.S.A." I thought that was covered in some guideline. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If you could find that guideline that'd be great - I searched high and low for it and came up empty. Shereth 21:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This guideline, which only deals with article titles, says:
  • A United States city's article should never be titled "city, country" (e.g. "Detroit, United States") or "city, state, country" (e.g. "Boston, Massachusetts, USA").
Perhaps similar language should be added to the MOS. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to extend the title guideline as such, and wouldn't mind seeing it integrated directly into the MoS. Shereth 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)