Talk:San Francisco, California/Archive 2

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 for move. Joelito (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move: San Francisco, California -> San Francisco

San Francisco, California → San Francisco – WP:NC(CN); World famous city. --Serge 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

List of reasons to move

1. San Francisco, like Paris, London, Montreal, and U.S. cities like Chicago, New York City, is well known... no need to specify the state.
2. World famous cities in the U.S. should be treated no differently from world famous cities outside of the U.S. (Paris, London, Montreal, etc.): use the city name for the article title, period.
3. All articles in Wikipedia should follow the Wikipedia naming conventions for common names, which dictate that San Francisco (alone) be the title of this article; there is no reason that cities, and San Francisco in particular, should be an exception to these rules.
4. Professional encyclopedias, both published and online, typically do not "pre-disambiguate"... neither should we.
5. Chance for confusion with anything else named San Francisco is minimal.
6. The name of San Francisco alone redirects directly to here, therefore there are no known significant disambiguation issues, and no reason to disambiguate.
7. Lesser known San Francisco articles are already handled on San Francisco (disambiguation).
8. Waiting to change the city, state convention does not make sense, since it is a chicken-egg situation. The only way to start to change the convention is one article at a time, like Chicago and this one. Edit: If you have a poll of "the editors", the gang members argue there is a convention (city, name) and it should be followed consistently. If you try to change city names one at a time, they argue you should have a poll to change the convention first (see Survey below for gang members trying to do this).
9. San Francisco, California is part of a mailing address, not the name of the city. The name of the city is San Francisco; that should be the name of the article.
10. The one piece of information that the title is supposed to clearly specify is the most common name used to refer to the subject of the article. The current title is unclear on this point... is the most common name San Francisco or San Francisco, California? Titles that use the city, state "comma naming convention" make it impossible for the reader to know. It is our job as editors to make this clear, not ambiguous.
11. Following a convention that pollutes the article title for readers (by making the common name unclear) in order to supposedly make life easier for editors, violates the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation (and/or reference numbers from the above reason list), then sign your opinion with --~~~~.

• Support per all reasons listed above. --Serge 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Too early for a poll. This same user has instigated a review of the U.S. city name convention at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). We should wait until that is complete before changing city names one-by-one. -Will Beback 18:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "This same user" has most certainly not instigated any such pointless and meaningless general survey among the "wonks". Also, see reason (8) above. --Serge 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support good reasoning to change the name. I also don't think that a naming convention that is not followed for any of the other countries is a good reason not to do so. And finally the too early to vote comment belongs in the discussion section not here. --Edgelord 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- Being a global city, San Francisco is well-known internationally. Plus San Francisco already redirects here so there is no confusion as to what is being talked about when mentioning "San Francisco". --Polaron | Talk 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support, per discussions at the guideline's talk page. Kafziel 18:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. No brainer.--DaveOinSF 19:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - uncluttering the title? Nice! --Yath 19:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• No city-by-city name changing. This should be determined by a single well-advertised survey of editor's opinions. ^BlankVerse 21:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reasons 8 and 11 in the list above already address the problem with waiting to change the convention. Polling those wonkish editors who are biased against reader interests to make editing tasks easier is not helpful to improving Wikipedia. --Serge 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Vehemently oppose This has already been discussed ad nauseum, and the naming convention explicitly states that this is the correct format. --physicq210 22:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reason 8 in itself does not make sense. Changing articles one by one is exactly the reason why the U.S. state highways got into such a mess; see this and this. --physicq210 22:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, changing the article about the city of San Francisco to San Francisco is creating a big mess. Give me a break. --Serge 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps actually reading the examples I give you will be more constructive instead of mocking my comments without giving a detailed rebuttal. --physicq210 22:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
        • The state route naming issue is actually similar to the city naming issue. One group is advocating premeptive disambiguation while the other is advocating using common names and disambiguating if needed. --Polaron | Talk 23:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
          • What I was referring to is reason 8, and reason 8 specifically. The rationale behind this poll is the exact same one that lead to the highways mess that we see today. --physicq210 04:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And frankly, there's nothing wrong with the current article title. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --physicq210 04:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: No city-by-city name changing Before rushing to embrace namespace anarchy, editors should read and consider some of the points at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). --Paul 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That unconventional naming "convention", which is inconsistent with basic Wikipedia naming conventions, is what got is into this mess in the first place. Ignoring the root cause of all city naming problems and following the more fundamental WP:NC(CN) is the whole point here. --Serge 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Violates US city naming standard. If you want this to change, then change the standard so that requests can be judged on some basis other then a few editors who happen to follow the article involved or this article. Vegaswikian 22:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no standard. There are convention and guidelines. This is the way you change the convention, bottom up, not top down. Besides, all guidelines allow for exceptions. This is one. --Serge 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ...other then a few editors who happen to follow the article - the editors who follow the article will be the best informed as to whether it deserves top billing. The current guideline is a poor substitute for good judgement. --Yath 23:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • So are you saying that everyone who follows the current guideline have "bad judgement"? --physicq210 23:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose 1) This proposed change violates existing conventions. The current naming convention in general is appropriate and does not need changing. 2) This proposed change will only make life more difficult for readers and editors. 3) What's the point? Why not work on improving the article, add sub-articles, etc. Won't that be more productive? 4) Like it or not, San Fran really is in California. WVhybrid 22:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 3) What's the point? Why not work on improving the article Absolutely. The article is in need of a lot of work (see Wikipedia:Peer review/San Francisco, California/archive1. Those of us that are working through the many open issues in the article would welcome even a fraction of the attention being expended on this naming rebellion.--Paul 23:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Usgnus 22:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. New York City and Chicago already violate the supposed conventions (and the former has violated it for years now). There is no need for disambiguation in this instance, as "San Francisco" in English pretty clearly refers to the US city. john k 23:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So just because two cities violate convention we should change everything? --physicq210 00:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I think the convention is unnecessary. In most cases, US cities should be at City, State, but there's a good number where this is unnecessary, and having them at City is perfectly fine. San Francisco is such an instance. john k 00:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support strongly. San Francisco is a well-known world city, and the state name is unneccesary. --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"
• Oppose Mike Dillon 01:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's a famous, well-known city and the naming convention is pants for cities like this. Robovski 01:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care - Get back to real work. Say, categorizing the 500 or so pages that we know need a category... JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Why do this? San Francisco is a major city. Would you suggest similarly changing Paris, Texas or London, CT or Rome, Ohio? Gimme a break. Griot 04:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a major city so it is already well-known without specifying the state it is in. Moving minor cities that have ambiguity issues with major cities is not what is being advocated here. Those other cities do need to be disambiguated. --Polaron | Talk 04:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What does Paris, Texas have to do with this move? You even stated yourself that San Francisco is a major city. Are you confusing this with a move from San Francisco to San Francisco, California? --Yath 05:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do not want to start another ripple affect , where other cities start wanting to compromise convention. THis is exactly how the whole issue with communities began, and, for the sake of peace, it should be determined in a larger straw poll, not in a case by case scenario like this. Ericsaindon2 05:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Totallypostal 05:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly support. The common name, worldwide, is San Francisco. --Battlehamster 07:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The [[city, state]] format is standard for all US cities. Slambo (Speak) 10:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't. Kafziel 11:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The [[city, state]] format is the standard for all U.S. Cities except for those that have been attacked by this change the standard city-by-city movement. --Paul 15:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • New York City has rather uncontroversially been at New York City for several years now. john k 17:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • It was the exception because it was one of the "big four world cities" or whatever they are called on the global city article: London, Paris, Tokyo, and, of course, New York City itself. --physicq210 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Um... dude? Check out the global city page and you will find that San Francisco is on the same list, in the same section as Paris. Kafziel 18:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Perhaps you can also check the 1999 version? Or rather, read the entire article? --physicq210 19:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Why would I go by the 1999 version when the 2004 version is available? That doesn't make any sense. Kafziel 14:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
              • All Alpha and Beta cities according to the 1999 version go by simply the city name, not city, area, with the exception of San Fran and LA. If anything, "Madrid, Spain" is more likely to be common usage than "San Francisco, California". There is no standard or method by fiat, only convention. Convention is to use the common name. All other major world cities go by their just the city name, there's no reason why major world cities in the US should be treated differently. --Battlehamster 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I suspect if you look into it, you will discover that the "four big world cities" business dates to after the period when New York, New York got moved to New York City. I recall the discussions of that proposed move, and there was certainly no mention of "four big world cities" or "global cities" or anything of the sort. The move was made because New York, New York is a ridiculous title, and because, in a post office sense, it actually only refers to Manhattan, and not to the outer boroughs. john k 14:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Anaheimat 14:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• OpposeVery recently, a similar (but more polite) discussion was held regarding Los Angeles. A review of that discussion is a good idea, since the arguments, not surprisingly are similar. --ishu 21:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  Too soon to vote Reason (8) above is reasonable in the abstract, but not in the concrete, mainly because it disregards the ongoing survey at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). That discussion --which should close within days--could well resolve this debate in favor of the proponents, and I encourage all editors from this discussion to participate in that discussion, since the same arguments will apply to numerous pages either way. --ishu 14:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - The city's name is San Francisco. Throughout the world, an unqualified 'San Francisco' is understood to mean this San Francisco. San Francisco already points to San Francisco, California, and any attempt to point it at San Francisco (disambiguation) would, I'm sure, be met with a storm of protest. Oh, and yes I have edited this article and many others on San Francisco over a period of at least two years; I stack for no-one. -- Chris j wood 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The convention is a good one and there's no reason to make an exception for San Francisco. The only reason to do so for New York is that New York, New York means something other than the whole city. —wwoods 08:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a lame excuse, not a reason, about why it is an exception, since it could be New York City, New York to comply with the convention. No, the reason to make New York City an exception is the same as the reason to make Chicago an exception: so the title accurately reflects the name of the subject. This same reason applies to San Francisco. --Serge 16:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not so lame. The reason New York City works is because New York City is the name of a particular city. "New York" isn't, and "San Francisco" isn't. --Paul 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • So would you support moving Oklahoma City, Oklahoma to Oklahoma City? --Polaron | Talk 01:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I would. —Wknight94 (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support: per nom. We don't have 1906 San Francisco, California earthquake or San Francisco, California Bay. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for consistency. FairHair
• Oppose: keep convention. Krugs 01:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bubba ditto 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. josh (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. San Francisco, as a global city, has name recognition that transcends its state, if you will. Kirjtc2 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Results

As of this date & time the results are 14 in favor and 15 opposed or wanting to wait. I say we close this up, move it to the Discussion Archive and get on with real work. None of this chatter has helped the San Franciso (, California) page one bit.--Paul 01:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote Stacking?

Is it just me, or is it that all but two editors that voted to "support" this name change (and none by those that oppose) have been notified by Serge to vote? I'm just remarking on an interesting observation. --physicq210 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your eyes do not deceive you. 8 out of 10 'support' votes have been solicited by Serge & none of them have made any edits to the San Francisco, California page. I wonder if we can hire Seven Samuri to save us? --Paul 02:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the following entry:

Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion and informing them of an upcoming vote, such as via a userbox or other user categorization. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly unacceptable to send mass talk messages to editors that expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters. Emphasis added.

Quoted from Wikipedia:Spam#Votestacking. Dispute freely, but votestacking is what I am seeing in this so-called "survey." --physicq210 02:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback already brought this policy to my attention. But thanks... --Serge 03:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps this poll has been tainted to such a point where it is rendered null and void? --physicq210 03:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Relax. The survey is barely a few hours old and I stopped notifying anyone (as soon as Will told me about the policy). Anyway, what exactly is a "mass talk message"? I made multiple single messages on a few individual users' talk pages... but I did not use a "mass talk message", so far as I know. But, again, I'm not even sure what that is. --Serge 04:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Mass talk messages" means sending the same message to multiple people. --physicq210 04:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a "mass talk message", it was a "friendly notice", per Wikipedia:Spam#Friendly_notice:

If there are a small handful of editors who share your taste and/or philosophy, it is sometimes acceptable to contact them with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, and absolutely unacceptable if they have asked you to stop.

Also, Wikipedia:Spam#If_you_canvass:

...

If you canvass
The following guidelines for cross-posting have wide acceptance among Wikipedians:

• Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete.
• Be open. Don't make cross-posts that initially appear to be individual messages.
• Be polite. Wikiquette issues are extra-important when a message is likely to be read by many people.
• Avoid redundancy. Rather than copying the same five page essay to twenty talk pages, write it once, in the place where it is most relevant, and then link to it.
• Don't use a bot. If you're not willing to spend the time personally sending the messages, don't force us to spend the time reading it (or throwing it away).
• Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view.

For each point...

• I don't think I've created a mess, but am willing to "clean up".
• I think my short FYI messages were pretty open.
• Certainly polite. I even said thank you.
• My "essay" was on this page, and all I cross-posted was a short message and a link.
• Didn't use a bot. Was willing to spend the time to personally leave messages on each person's Talk page.
• Well, I didn't attempt to "sway consensus" as much as I simply wanted to inform those that voted on Chicago about the vote on San Francisco.

Anyway, the point is regardless of whether "canvassing" is acceptable or not, I've stopped, and there is nothing that says poll results "tainted" by canvassing are null and void. --Serge 04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We do thank you for realizing the potential consequences of such behavior. We do thank you for stopping. Above all, we thank you for being polite. However, these are not considered "friendly notices" because they were selective notices. All of the editors who received such notices voted in support, and all of them have not made even one edit on this article. Especially sticky is that you seemed top have notified everyone who supported the move in the Chicago article, and did not notify anyone who opposed the move. Apparently, these actions do not qualify as not attempting to sway consensus. The integrity of this vote has already been compromised in its early stages, and therefore cannot be viewed as "consensus." --physicq210 04:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So, yes, it is a "mass talk message." --physicq210 04:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're sure that none of the people notified would have voted for the entire duration that this poll would be open if they hadn't been notified? And you're probably right that reverting vandalism every now and then and fixing statistics doesn't count as editing. It's very early in the poll and it's not like it was stacked to overturn an emerging choice. --Polaron | Talk 04:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Phyiscq210, there were 17 votes in support of moving to Chicago, and 3 opposed. I notified 8 or 9 of the supporters and one of the opposed (User:Will Beback) before I stopped. I only had two more of those opposed to reach, and both of them (User:Vegaswikian and User:Blankverse) voted here without getting notification from me. --Serge 05:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I stand corrected. I apologize for my mistake. --physicq210 05:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Anyway, I learned an important lesson today. Also, one very cool thing about Wikipedia is the relatively high ratio of reasonable to unreasonable people (thanks to folks like you and Will and Yours Truly, if I may), this naming convention issue notwithstanding! --Serge 05:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable and unreasonable...hm. Which side am I on? Your statement is ambiguous. --physicq210 05:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not ambiguous. I said thanks to folks like you the reasonable to unreasonable ratio is high, which implies you're in the numerator... (otherwise, it would be no thanks to you the ratio is high...). --Serge 05:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, chill. No need for such hostility. But now I get what you mean. --physicq210 05:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Chill? Hostility? I just explained why the previous statement was not ambiguous. I'm sorry if hostility was conveyed, but I assure you none was intended or felt. --Serge 17:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This vote might as well be nullified! I would consider this straw poll void in the case of "vote stacking". I strongly support disregarding this poll, for stacking the votes, by only informing people in favor of your view of its occurence, might as well qualify as it not reflecting the views of the community, but the views of select people who sypathise with one party. Ericsaindon2 05:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read this entire section and edit your comment accordingly. At this point 100% (3 out of 3) of those who were opposed to moving Chicago, Illinois to Chicago are aware of this poll and have voted here, while only about half (9 out of 17) of those who supported the move have been notified. --Serge 05:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Serge here, despite my differences with him. I was merely pointing out my observations, not jumping to conclusions. --physicq210 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, canvassing was involved in the Chicago poll as well. -Will Beback 05:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not care how many people were involved, whether it be 3 or 300, that is still vote stacking or canvassing. I have been involved in a lot of controversies in my day, and not once have I ever vote stacked in my favor, which I probably could have to gain consensus. Does that mean I may go out, and find 10 people or so that would agree to oppose with this move? If I did that, I am sure you would consider it a void poll right then and there, so I would not do it.

It is kind of like if I did this. Say myself and another opponent were running for president. But only the people that were in favor of me knew when the election was taking place, and everyone else was blindsided. However, the other opponent was a more liked candidate, and probably would have won in a fair election. Would that fly in any modern day society? No, so why should it be accepted here? Ericsaindon2 05:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not once have you ever vote stacked in your favor, Eric? Oh please. Do the words, "I would appreciate it if you would vote to oppose the merge" sound familiar to you? They should, as these vote canvassing words are yours from my talk page!

Hi:Merge Vote
Hello, I noticed that you are active once again in the Anaheim Hills debate. Well, now they are venting their anger out on me by trying to get two community articles to be merged to this one. Both articles are far larger than most community articles are, and it appears to be an effort of venting their anger out on me (for I vastly created the two articles). I would appreciate it if you would vote to oppose the merge, for both articles are 5 paragraphs, and are by no means "stubs". I am sick of these admins picking on all of us for disagreeing with us on the naming convention. Once they loose one case, they find something else wrong. It is getting tiresome and needs to stop. So please show a vote for opposition. Thanks. Ericsaindon2 01:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So give me a break already. I didn't do anything so out of the ordinary. I obviously had no idea that what I was doing was even frowned upon... and now you're all High and Mighty, after you did the exact same thing? Too much! --Serge 06:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your example is not adequate. You were actively involved in the Anaheim Hills debate long before that encounter. But what you did is you told people who were not even interested or involved in the debate to vote in your favor. It is different when someone has been involved all along and has stated their particular beliefs on the current issue already before you approach them. It is another to just contact people who have never been involved in the debate, and ask them to vote, which is what you did. Again, I do not want to get into an argument with you, I just want you to realize that these actions can result in a void straw poll, and have many times. I do like your ideas, and think the convention is not as good as it can be, but it would be much more effective to do it on a larger scale rather than city-by-city. I see you have only accomplished naming 2 cities out of 42,000+. Your effort would be better spent comprising a large discussion and straw poll to change the overall convention. Ericsaindon2 10:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very confusing and highly unfortunate that the Wikipedia has no single place to 'advertise' various surveys, strawpolls, and discussions. To see where you might want to post messages, look at the "What links here" for Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll. I've already placed a notice for this survey at the California WikiProject. ^BlankVerse 08:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Individual polls vs. collective polls

If we're going to change the titles of a bunch of cities (Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, etc.), why don't we just change them with one poll instead of having numerous surveys scattered amongst the articles? They all aim for the same thing, using the same exact reasons. --physicq210 04:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Because the circumstances are different in each case. Some cities are better known than others. Some names are more ambiguous than others. -- Chris j wood 10:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

How are the circumstances different for Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle? --physicq210 17:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people recognize that the purpose of the title of any enyclopedia article is to specify the most common name used to refer to the subject of the article. Those that agree believe that the name of all those cities should not include any information other than the name of the city, including location information, like the name of the state, unless it is required to disambiguate.

Others disagree. Those that disagree have no common principle to follow when naming articles. It's really hit or miss based on who happens to be paying attention at the time of the survey, and what subjective reasons they may or may not find compelling to believe whether this or that convention should be followed to name each city article in question.

Of those that disagree, some believe that the name only (with the state location information) shouldn't be used for any U.S. cities. Others believe that there should be exceptions. Of those that believe there should be exceptions, some think there should be only one: New York City. Other think there could be a few more, like Chicago and San Francisco. Still others believe all well-known cities should be exceptions. So, we have to decide one city at time, and roll the dice. The outcome depends on who happens to be paying attention and what their whims happen to be. That's what makes the circumstances different for Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle and every other U.S. city.

Luckily, for most other countries, there is a consensus about using the name of the city for the title unless there is a known ambiguity with other notable uses of that name, or this would be a problem that extended beyond the scope of U.S. cities. Let me know if this does not answer your question. --Serge 17:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer physicq210 specific question as to how circumstances differ for Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle. Firstly on the point of how well know places are. Boston, Chicago and San Francisco are cities with a long history of global trade and cultural influence, and are hence well known globally, in some case perhaps more so than their current contribution deserves. Seattle doesn't have that kind of history. It now has a strong economic influence (thanks to Boeing and Microsoft), but it takes a long time for that to bring global recognition. I would not say Seattle is that well known globally.

Secondly on ambiguity. San Francisco is the Spanish name for St Francis, one of the most famous saints; as a result there are many, many other places called San Francisco, some of them quite substantial places. Boston is named after a significant English regional center with a great deal of historical significance. So both have reasonable grounds for ambiguity. On the other hand neither Chicago nor Seattle are particularly ambiguous, at least as far as other places are concerned. Hope this answers your question. -- Chris j wood 23:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should been more clear. What circumstances are different to warrant different polls? Won't one poll suffice? --physicq210 23:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps Serge answered the question already. Either way I'll respect the outcome of this poll. --physicq210 23:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more clear too. I am not advocating changing the name of every, or even many, US city article(s). I happen personally to think that allowing US cities to have their own special article naming rules was a mistake, but that is a done deal and I think it would be a waste of bandwidth to try to reverse it. However we do need to deal with the circumstances where it is causing real problems (ie. well known cities with ambiguous names). Clearly most of the thousands of US cities are not well known, even in their own state let alone globally. I cannot see any way of changing just some city names without discussing which cities to change. I'm open to suggestions, but having a separate vote on a each proposed city name change seems the simplest way to do this. -- Chris j wood 12:15, 27 August 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.