Talk:Penticton

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 Penticton, British Columbia → Penticton

For the same reasons as all the other Canadian cities we've moved from City, Province to just City. Penticton already redirects here, so why not move the page? Any discussion? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Support move. I temporarily deleted the redirect to see what would come up in the search list if the title Penticton was empty, and got exclusively references to this Penticton. So while I'm not 100% sure that the name is unique, it's definitely primary. Bearcat 02:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I also support the move, as it conforms to the Canadian naming conventions for cities. Skeezix1000 11:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose there's a well established naming convention, with a solid rationale behind it. No advantage whatsoever from moving the page, as Penticton already redirects here. The reason for moving other Canadian city pages to names that don't include the province is ultimately vanity. --Qyd 12:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Kindly reread WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. Your comments impugning the motives and reasonings of other editors, with whom you disagree, are inappropriate.

And, yes, there is a naming convention for Canadian cities, and I recommend that you read it. This move is entirely consistent with the convention. Skeezix1000 12:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. On reflection, I shouldn't be giving you a hard time, then be catty myself in the second paragraph. Skeezix1000 17:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The well established naming convention is that titles that have redirects at somesity to somecity, someprovince should just be moved to somecity. And we're talking Canada here, we have our own naming convention, we definitely don't follow the American one. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The "well established convention" is a rather biased re-iteration of the discussion, see the original proposal at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#City naming convention poll, which clearly states that:

I don't know who or how added the text at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Canada, but it is not what the discussion agreed on. --Qyd 16:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another poll, achieved Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion/Archive 8#City naming convention poll 2. --Qyd 16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, the new convention came about because of actions and not because of discussion. We moved pages last year and before that to new names and they have stuck, therefore they are the new convention. If you don't like it, make a proposal to move them back. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea of adding a population cutoff to the naming convention was explicitly rejected; the convention most certainly did decide that cities with unique and primary names are eligible to be moved to "City" regardless of their population. Check the populations of Iqaluit, Flin Flon, Lloydminster, Moncton, Fredericton, Charlottetown and Lethbridge, and then look at their titles. The discussion you're alluding to here was a draft policy that failed to achieve the consensus necessary to be adopted as the actual convention. Bearcat 05:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm late to this chat, but have nothing else to add except to say that Qyd is relying on never approved policies to make his point. Skeezix1000 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support --Kmsiever 22:02, 10 October 2007 (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.