Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →

Contents

Vote Here

Votes will remain open for at least a few days. Also note that the "Paris" problem is not yet addressed in this vote. For now, it seems best to me to save that problem for after this vote. Jeronimo 07:26 Aug 13, 2002 (PDT)

I propose to close the vote at August 16, 0:00 (server time) (that is 9:00 AM local time (CET) for me), since I think most people involved in the debate until now have voted by now. If there are serious objections to this closing time, please react here. Jeronimo 02:12 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

I don't object to the closing time, but I do think that only votes on the original issues should be counted now. The others have many fewer votes in total, and probably some people came here at the beginning and never even saw these. (Also, I object to the whole matter of voting, preferring to discuss things to death instead. Perhaps we could vote on this ^_^.) — Toby 02:23 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

Yes, I will only close the first two votes (I started those), the rest is for later, but they may become clearer once the main vote (the first question) has been answered. The choice there in fact influences the voting below quite a lot, since the pre-emptive solution makes these votes obsolete, while the normal disamb solution already seems to have admitted that natural disambiguation for USA and CAN uses a comma. But we'll see that tomorrow.
The idea of voting is maybe not ideal, but discussing it to "death" would mean no decision is ever made, and we're stuck without a naming convention. I think everybody will agree that we at least need a convention, regardless of its contents. BTW, I've tried to keep the voting fair by informing all those who participated in the debate on their talk pages.
Yeah, I noticed that. If we must have a vote, you're certainly running the best possible one. — Toby 02:40 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

The Default City Name

To decide upon a naming convention for city names, you can now express your support for the one other proposal.

The problem of disambiguation is especially tricky with city names, as there are more duplicate city names than for other subjects, especially with respect to cities in the USA. Two main solutions to deal with this problem have been proposed:

  1. Pre-emptive disambiguation - Because the number of duplicate city names is so large, disambiguate pre-emptively. This is done by naming the city articles as [City, Country] or [City, State] in the case disambiguation is necessary within a country (such as the USA or Canada).
  2. Normal disambiguation - Follow the disambiguation rules as currently described at wikipedia:disambiguation. That is a disambiguation page if a naming conflict occurs. The duplicate articles should then be given names using a natural disambiguator if possible, or else include the difference between two instances in parentheses.

Examples for both proposals:

  1. The city of Paramaribo would be placed at Paramaribo, Suriname. Since there are no other Paramaribos, the article Paramaribo can be a redirect to Paramaribo, Suriname. The city of Sydney in Australia would be placed at Sydney, Australia. Sydney would be a disambiguation page, with links to Sydney, Australia and to other Sydneys.
  2. The city of Paramaribo would be placed at Paramaribo. The city of Sydney in Australia would be placed at Sydney (Australia) (or using a natural disambiguator) while Sydney would be a disambiguation page with links to Sydney (Australia) and other Sydneys.

Which proposal has your preference:

  1. Pre-emptive disambiguation (7 votes): Rmhermen; mav; Eclecticology; KJ; Jan Hidders; Guy; Danny
  2. Normal disambiguation (13 votes): Jeronimo; branko; Montréalais; Tarquin; LDC; Enchanter; Kpjas; Ed Poor; Valhalla; Brion; Andre Engels; Mintguy; Toby
  • mav's note: why add additional steps?
  • Guy's note: same reason as mentioned before
  • Danny's note: agree with mav's reasoning, see below though
  • Tarquin's note: the same reason we don't write "pants (clothing)", mav
  • Karen's note: agrees with Mav - if you don't do it now it'll just have to be done later, and how do people tell which to link to without wasting time searching?
  • Jan's note: exactly, deciding this per case is going to make linking more difficult
  • Brion's note: when one city is overwhelmingly the largest or most well known, it should have the direct name -- eg Paris is in France, Sydney is in Australia. Cf many other such diambiguations: California, Mexico, etc.
  • Danny's further note: We should take care to double redirect, so that if the "city, state" naming convention is used, the state is also linked: San Francisco, California.

Commas or Parentheses

In the case of the "normal disambiguation" proposal, the natural disambiguators may differ per country, but the most obvious examples use the [City, State] format. It could be decided to use that format for al disambiguation involving cities, using the smallest entity necessary, so Sydney, Australia in stead of Sydney (Australia). IF and WHEN the second proposal would be elected, would you support using the "comma-notation" as a natural disambiguator for all cities?

  1. Yes (10 votes): Jeronimo;Rmhermen; Montréalais;Kpjas; Eclecticology; mav; KJ; Andre Engels; Jan Hidders; Guy
  2. No (4 votes): LDC; Ed Poor; Tarquin; Toby
  • mav's note: although I will make [City (country)] redirects for my own convenience -- Sorry Lee, the pipe trick is cool but non-obvious and I hate the way parens look. Paris (France) is nearly as hideous as France/Paris and should be hidden and used by those who know the pipe trick.
  • LDC's note: Commas are a US thing; parentheses make it easier to link to other cities in the same country
  • Ed Poor's note: see comment below
  • Toby's note: When common usage by English speakers within a country provides a natural disambiguator, then we should use whatever that common usage is. According to comments that have been made by native USians, Canadians, and Brits, these are [City, State], [City, Province], and [City (County)], respectively. In other parts of Europe, these seem to be things like [Bouillabasse-sur-Seine] and [Frankfurt-am-Main], although of course we should follow what the English speakers there do, not what the French and German speakers there do. We should use parentheses, like usual, to disambiguate between different countries in the absence of a natural disambiguator. To foist the US comma convention on the rest of the English speaking world is the sort of chauvinism that this encylopaedia often guilty of but should avoid. We have already forced our date conventions on the rest of the world; let's not do it with our city conventions as well.
  • Jeroen's note: Although Toby is largely right, we still have the problem of disambiguating in the case where the country concerned doesn't have an (English language) disambiguation system. In that case, we have to come up something else. Voting yes here doesn't mean we're not using [City (County)] for the UK, since that would be the natural disambiguator, but were using [City, Country] for Tajikistan, since there is no regular English language disambiguation rule for that country.
  • Toby's reply to Jeroen: But there is a regular Wikipedia disambiguation mechanism for that country: [City (Tajikistan)]. Why use an American (and Canadian) convention that (apparently) isn't recognised by the rest of the English speaking world when we have our own in house convention for this sort of thing? — Toby 01:05 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

City, Nation format

Subject to the above determination, cities are to be disambiguated as [City, Nation] unless there is there is a more specific rule such as [City, State] applicable to its country.

  1. Yes (6 votes): mav; Eclecticology; KJ; Andre Engels; Jan Hidders; Guy
  2. No (2 votes): Toby; Enchanter
  • Toby's note: "Subject to the above determination"? How does this vote differ from the first one?

United States

All cities in the United States are to be designated in the [City, State] format.

  1. Yes (4 votes): mav; Eclecticology; Toby; Guy
  2. No (2 votes): Andre Engels; Enchanter
  • mav's note: there are only a few truely unique city names in the US
  • Andre Engels' note: I'm in favor of the format, but only when some kind of further identification is needed for disambiguation. The page title New York, New York is to my eyes both ugly and illogical.

Canada

All cities in Canada are to be designated in the [City, Province or Territory] format.

  1. Yes (4 votes): mav; Eclecticology; Toby; Guy
  2. No (2 vote): Andre Engels; Enchanter
  • mav's note: there are more unique city names in Canada, but still enough duplicates to warrent pre-emptive disambiguation
  • Andre Engels' note: see United States

United Kingdom

Where required cities in the United Kingdom are to be designated in the [City, component nation] format, e.g., Cardiff, Wales or Laxey, Isle of Mann.

  1. Yes (3 votes): mav; Eclecticology; Guy
  2. No (5 votes): Derek Ross; Mintguy; Toby; Enchanter; Andre Engels
  • mav's note: we may even want to do pre-emptive disambiguation here too since so many US cities are named for English ones
  • Guy's note: Exactly, I'm for doing it with all cities, not "where required"
  • Derek Ross' note: There are several Newports, Newcastles, etc in England. This will not allow us to disambiguate them.
  • Mintguy's note: Similarly there are dozens of Kingstons.
  • Andre's note: I don't think this would solve a lot. Rarely will the conflict be between (say) an English and a Scottish city. When the conflict is with some city outside the UK, ", United Kingdom" will do quite well; when the conflict is between two English city, this proposal does not help

Where required cities in the United Kingdom are to be designated in the [City, County] format, e.g., Newburgh, Aberdeenshire or Newburgh, Fife.

  1. Yes (2 votes): Derek Ross; Andre Engels
  2. No (2 votes): Toby; Enchanter
  • Are we going to do this per country? Good luck! What about Australia? India? (I haven't checked, but there's bound to be double names in that country)
[City, Nation] is a default when a special rule has not been written for a country.
    • My proposed rule: if the conflict is between cities in different countries, use [City, Nation]. If it is within a country, use whatever subdivision is present in the country - states, provinces, whatever.
  • Andre's note: Only when necessary, that is, only when there is a conflict between cities within the UK. If there is only a conflict with cities outside the UK, depending on the outcome of the previous vote use "City, United Kingdom" or "City, England".

Paris

Paris, France should be described in Paris (France). Anyone who wishes to, may also make a REDIRECT from Paris, France to Paris (France).

  1. Yes (1 votes): mav (Ahem. It was already decided that we will not use the parenthetical format for disamgibuation. Why is this being snuck in here?)
  2. No (3 votes): Andre Engels; Toby; Enchanter
  • Andre Engels' note: Let's first sort out the other vote, and then decide on Paris. It would be downright bad to have 'Paris (France)', and other cities in 'City, Country' format
  • Toby's note: should be at Paris in this case

Further discussion

What is different about the Paris problem? Rmhermen 07:41 Aug 13, 2002 (PDT)
I left out the Paris problem since that decision depends very much on which proposal is chosen. Come to think of it, I could have left out the second vote as well...

I take it the idea of hidden disambiguation is not considered a worthwile one? No matter of course, I'll be voting on one of the two should this be confirmed. Scipius

This has gotten VERY involved! Let's go one step at a time. We'll get to Paris in due course. I hesitate to say any more. Eclecticology 10:28 Aug 13, 2002 (PDT)
The thing is, the idea could make the currently suggested methods a bit redundant, so I'm hesitant to vote for one of them. -Scipius

Regardless of how this comes out, let me just thank everyone who is discussing and voting on this issue. We all did a good job working out the country naming thing, and I'm confident we can come to a workable consensus on city names, too. --Ed Poor

Maybe Paris should just be Paris, afterall the name can claim some seniority. Later copycats deserve a comma. What to do about Amsterdam? There is a city by that name in South Africa and rather lonely island in the Indian Ocean by that name.

Boston is one example of a copycat - Boston, England doesn't even warrant a disambiguation, apparently.
The copycat Boston has far outstripped its namesake in size and renoun. There should be a brief disambiguation note at the top of Boston, though. --Brion
Similarly with Memphis. Uhuh Huh, thank you very much.
This talk about copycats and seniority seems to be missing the main point of why we have article name conventions and disambiguation - to make linking easy. The reason that Paris should redirect to Paris, France rather than Paris, Texas is not that Paris, France is older, bigger or more important than Paris, Texas. It is because there are several hundred articles that mention Paris, meaning France, and precisely one that mentions Paris, meaning Texas. Exactly the same logic applies for redirecting Boston to Boston, Mass.
Naming, disambiguation and redirection should be based on the practical goal finding the easiest way to make the encyclopedia work well - i.e. with links that work and sensible (not necessarily consistent) names. The most practical solution will vary from case to case, and we shouldn't overburden contributors with too many rules to tell them how to go about it. Enchanter
I agree with you 100% except for the part about "redirection" -- I'm firmly of the opinion that The Big Important One That Is Used 99% Of The Time should live directly at the title (ie Paris). (Side note: it's not the actual size that matters; it's the importance/relevance/usage {as indicated by the need to link to it}. This importance/relevance/usage tends to be driven by things such as size, population, wealth, power, historicity... but isn't necessarily synonymous with any one of these things.) --Brion
I would say, the judgement of being 'The Big Important One' should be that it is 'the one naturally assumed when the name comes up in a neutral context'. --Andre Engels
Those two comments sum it up. And it's also why we shouldn't be too prescriptive as regards City (Nation); City, Nation; City, State; or City, County. Any one of these may be the best choice in a particular disambiguation context. -- Derek Ross

I'm not really sure what to do with the new vote options. The first question seems to be about the same as the second question of the part of the vote I put here, so I don't see why that's needed (it is a tad more specific though). I do agree with USA and Canada since there's obviously the need for it, but I'm not sure about the UK. If there are many towns with the same name within the UK, I'll support this (no matter which proposal turns out to be chosen), but if it's not, then London, United Kingdom will do just fine. So for me those last three are not a vote, but simply rationale. The fact that we do it with a comma or parentheses, well I don't really care. Jeronimo

Forgive me if I misunderstood what we were doing, and I had to read it several times before I determined that we were voting on the "comma vs. parentheses" issue rather than on the "nation vs. state" issue. The presence of both the Sydney, Australia and Sydney (Australia) is what decided the matter. I appreciate that this aspect may not be material to, but there has been enough fuss about it to make the vote warranted. My vote on this was a vote for commas. From what you now say my interpretation of what I was voting on was wrong. You might have made your point more forcefully if the examples had been Sydney, Australia and Sydney, New South Wales. Perhaps it's just me, but I have this feeling that it's only by being precise and specific about our votes on this page that we will get anywhere.
Regarding United Kingdom cities, I clearly made it on an as required basis, and that would usually apply when a new world city had the same name as one in the UK. I suspect that the distinction in sucha rule may be less important to the English than to the nationalist Scots, Welsh and Manx. Eclecticology 00:44 Aug 14, 2002 (PDT)

Let's just disambiguate by longitude and latitude! -- Tarquin 03:04 Aug 14, 2002 (PDT)

Reactions of KJ and Jan Hidders:

  • "and how do people tell which to link to without wasting time searching?"
  • "exactly, deciding this per case is going to make linking more difficult"

That's true, but that's not something specific to city names. Somebody that wants to link the Planet Mars may not know about the god or the candy bar and may simply link to [[Mars]] instead. But when somebody finds he ends up on the disambiguation page, he'll either just follow the right link, or he will fix the link. Jeronimo

That is besides the point because that happens in both options. Remember that when 'Paramaribo, Surinam' (great example, btw, ;-)) is introduced, there will also be introduced a redirect from 'Paramaribo' that will possibly turn into a disambiguation page later on. The difference is that there will be a simple rule that will tell you to get your link always right the first time, whether there has been the need for disambiguation or not. That is simpeler than having to check every time whether the link goes to a disambiguation page or not. Why people think that deciding this ad hoc every time makes linking easier is really beyond my comprehension. -- Jan Hidders 08:43 Aug 14, 2002 (PDT)
An added simple rule will not be simpeler than having to check every time if there is a disambiguation page, because you will have to perform that check regardless. Instead, adding such a rule will provide more clutter, and will make Wikipedia a slightly less welcoming place for new contributors. I predict that a lot of people will simply not adhere to such a rule, so that others will have to 'clean up' after them, just to keep the myth about having a useful new rule alive.
The reason ad hoc disambiguation makes things easier, is because it happens less often than pre-emptive disambiguation, not only for general topics, but also for place names in countries where every rock stuck in the mud gets the same name as its neighbour.--branko
I disagree. In fact I have seen several newbies title new cities in the [City, Nation] format and provide disambiguation blocks without being asked to do so. One in fact said something to the effect of "providing link to other uses at the top of page just like Paris, France". Above all else newbies naturally follow the style and conventions they see. And if the famous examples are not in a form that we want the far more numberous less famous examples in, then the above does not occur and chaos is the result. --mav
The fact that you have witnessed people do X does not invalidate my statement that providing a rule that says one must do X might make the barrier of entry higher. For one thing, not everybody is alike, and for another, not everybody may notice forms such as 'place name, country name' being used.
I also do not see how chaos will be the result if we use ad hoc disambiguation. Human language is almost entirely based on ad hoc ambiguation, yet hardly anybody seems to have trouble speaking languages. This seems to suggest that we humans are well equiped to deal with the 'chaos' that results from ad hoc disambiguation. Seen in that light, pre-emptive disambiguation seems to be a solution for a problem that does not exist.--branko
 Branko wrote:
 > An added simple rule will not be simpeler than having to check every time
 > if there is a disambiguation page, because you will have to perform that
 > check regardless.
That's simply not true. If 'Amsterdam, the Netherlands' links well, I can be pretty sure that it links to where I want it to link.
 > Instead, adding such a rule will provide more clutter,
 > and will make Wikipedia a slightly less welcoming place for new
 > contributors.
There will still be the redirects that link the easy names.
 > I predict that a lot of people will simply not adhere to such
 > a rule, so that others will have to 'clean up' after them, just to keep the
 > myth about having a useful new rule alive.
And I predict the opposite. The most important behaviour-rule on Wikipedia is imitation. Contributors will notice it pretty quickly if all cities are placed at 'City, State' and then that's how they will place them.
 > The reason ad hoc disambiguation makes things easier, is because it happens
 > less often than pre-emptive disambiguation, not only for general topics, but
 > also for place names in countries where every rock stuck in the mud gets the
 > same name as its neighbour.--branko
We are not talking about ad hoc disambiguation in general here. The case is different for cities because there is a straighforward common rule here that is also used in practice. It's less obvious whether you should pick 'Paris (Greek mythology)' or 'Paris (Legendary figure)' or something else. Moreover, most administrations take care that within their domain the names are unambiguous or have an official unambiguous version. So the fact that ad hoc disambiguation is better in general does not mean that this is also true in this special case. -- [[User:Jan

Hidders|Jan Hidders]] 14:07 Aug 14, 2002 (PDT)

Maybe I missed it, but shouldn't there have been a vote on ending the voting period? I thought that was a basic rule of order, especially since some people were still discussing this. --mav

IMO, the only reason to have a vote is to stop the endless debating, which will never come to an end in any other way than by debaters giving up the talking. Since all people involved in the debate had voted, I proposed yesterday to close the vote at August 16, 0:00 (server time). No people have vote since I proposed to close it, which I did just this morning. Jeronimo
Fair enough. I missed that (and that is all that really can be expected anyway). --mav
If we had a vote on when to end the vote, we wouldn't be able to decide when to end the vote on when to the vote. ;) --Brion
Robert's Rules of Order run this like our redirects; it goes one level deep. You must vote on whether to vote, but you don't have to vote on whether to vote on whether to vote. However, we don't follow Robert's Rules of Order. — Toby 01:59 Aug 16, 2002 (PDT)


← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →