Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does WP:USPLACE apply to parenthetical disambiguation?

Do US cities and towns need to take the "City, State" format when used as a parenthetical disambiguation? Two current WP:RMs focus directly on this question... See: Talk:Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain) and Talk:Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Forida). While we can start discussing the issue, I would suggest that we not make any changes to the guideline until after the RMs are closed (it is never helpful to have policy change in the middle of a debate... it is better to hold the debate and then, if needed, change policy to reflect the consensus at the debate). Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it should, at the very least the New Britain thing indicates that disambiguation in the most base form is wrought with ambiguity, which it should not be. (If a town called "Boston" in California had a temple called "Ram Temple" and Boston in Massachusetts did not, would Ram Temple (Boston) be acceptable? What if the town was called England? Ram Temple (England) or Russia? Ram Temple (Russia) ) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be three considerations here:

  • Clarity. Article titles need to be recognisable. There may be a need to clarify that this applies to disambiguators as to the other parts of the title.
  • Brevity. I feel that WP:precision is being misinterpretted, but whether it's that or the policy actually says what is claimed, in either case if it's producing misleading titles and/or arguments supporting these then it needs tweaking.
  • Consistency, both with practice (what do other articles have?) and with policy and guidelines.

This discussion is a good place to start. We may need to go to the broader policy too, but let's see what we come up with here. Andrewa (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I always thought that “Placename, State” in article titles was only mandatory if the article was about the place. For all other cases, I’d expect common sense to be applied: disambiguate with the state name if confusion can otherwise be reasonably expected as a result (see the IP user’s examples above). —Frungi (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, some users are arguing that (Placename, State) disambiguation is not even permitted in these misleading cases (let alone mandatory)... That the title Ram Temple (England) must be preferred over Ram Temple (England, Arkansas) for an article on a Ram Temple in England, Arkansas, unless there is an article about another Ram Temple in some other place called England. Example1 Example2 (scroll down to the last of the three edits in this diff)
I think that these users are misquoting the policies and guidelines concerned, but I assume that they're arguing in good faith, so it seems that the policies and guidelines need a tweak... commonsense notwithstanding. Andrewa (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that for parenthesis disambiguation (not necessarily comma disambiguation) by geographical location the qualifier should generally match the article title of said location. So a ram temple in England, Arkansas would be Ram Temple (England, Arkansas) whereas one in Hollywood would be Ram Temple (Hollywood). Seems easier to just let the geographical place call how the disambiguation qualifier is written.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Except this guideline, at least as I read it, requires the state name in city article titles except for ones explicitly excepted by the AP. I think the relevant page here is, rather, WP:PRECISION—examples like "Ram Temple (England)" don't seem precise enough when the place is very clearly not that placename's primary topic. At least that's my take on it, and I'd love to hear fellow editors agree or disagree. —Frungi (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with Frungi. Furthermore, this new discussion section seems pointless in light of the discussion already underway at Talk:Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain), where it seems clear that the state should be added when it's need for precision and recognizability; in other cases, like the Pensacola one, it's not needed, but I also think it would have been fine to leave it, and it was rather POINTY of Blueboar to propose that RM just to try to make tighter naming rules. Dicklyon (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    I note that in opening this discussion Blueboar suggested above that we not make any changes to the guideline until after the RMs are closed (his emphasis). I'm in two minds over the RM at Talk:Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Forida)#Requested move - re: disambiguation. My attempt to discuss the possible implications of it there has produced no response at all so far, and I'm concerned that we may not get a good decision without such discussion. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Looking again at the Pensacola case, I'd say I'd oppose it, since there are mutiple Pensacolas. The state does more good than harm in that case. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    IMO the harm in incorporating the state in the disambiguator is trivial at best, in all imaginable cases. The only claimed harms so far are that the name becomes a little longer, and that a legalistic and controversial reading of WP:precision is violated. Um, so? Are we perhaps missing the point of all this? Andrewa (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Exactly. Ram Temple (England) would not be a good name. But it's being argued that this name is exactly what current policy mandates. This suggests to me that we need a tweak to the policy. The other option, I suppose, is to tell those who argue for this interpretation of policy that they're just being stupid, and I don't think that's a good option at all. We should assume that they are reasonably intelligent and arguing in good faith unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary, and there isn't any such evidence that I can see, just the opposite in fact. I can't see a third option. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    This line of thinking that policy "mandates" a title decision outcome is a big part of the problem. The policy actually tells us what factors to consider, and leaves the decision up to editors. Yes, Born2cycle has managed to edit the precision and recognizability criteria down to the point where they provide almost no support for recognizability and precision, almost stating that precision is to be avoided, but most of us in title decisions do not follow his interpretation there, and the policy page does not say we should. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Agree, and important, but it's not just B2C. See #Prescriptive/Descriptive below. Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Agree that this would be a good standard, and dare I say it, commonsense. It would mean that we had Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut) but Temple Beth-El (Pensacola), which also seem the likely results of the respective RMs. It would mean that Ram Temple (England) would be the name of an article about a temple in England, but that one in England, Arkansas would be disambiguated (England, Arkansas] even if there were no similarly named temple in England, and therefore no prospect of ever having an article on it. But that does also mean that we give up on consistency, to some degree, and also brevity, to some degree. How would we incorporate such a standard into the naming conventions? Andrewa (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    My thoughts exactly. There is no reason to include why places in locations like New York City, San Fransisco or Cleveland should employ state qualifiers in the disambiguation if those articles have themselves already established that they are unnecessary.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Agree, in that there seems to be no imaginable scenario in which a reader could be impeded by the omission of the state in these cases. Again, the only reasons for including it yet suggested are consistency, and compliance to a particular reading of policy. Andrewa (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is the perfect standard to go with. It is a clear standard, and one which would be easy to write down and follow. "Places, buildings and locations in the United States which require city disambiguators, should also include the state name, unless the city is recognizable enough that dropping the state name is commonplace. The title of that city's wikipedia article should be used as the guidance to determine whether the state name should be included or omitted." Dworjan (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not. For almost any city, it is commonplace to drop the state name. How does that criterion help anything? And why are we thinking a standard is needed? Dicklyon (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Umm, almost every article on wikipedia about US cities includes the state in the title, so it is the opposite of commonplace to drop the state name. A standard is needed so we don't have chaos. So every single article about locations within US cities doesn't have to have its own individual debate about whether the state should be included in the disambiguator, and each of those debates doesn't come to a different consensus. If wikipedia is going to look professional and organized, similar subjects, in similar situations should be titled the same way, not left to individual discussions. Dworjan (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree totally. First, you didn't mean "commonplace", apparently, but rather something about wikipedia article titles; so your proposed wording was wrong. Second, there's no evidence that we've had chaos on account of this so far. Third, it is not appropriate to try to elevate one of the 5 titling criteria (consistency) to trump all the others. I think we've done pretty well so far deciding these things. If we want to change, we should have a big RFC on a proposed wording, supported by a long list of articles that are named according to the stated convention, and another long list of articles that we'd want to fix to conform to it, so we could work on understanding the implications of such a change. I'm not convinced anything like this is needed; see WP:CREEP. Dicklyon (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, fine, you caught me, I wasn't perfectly precise in my wording. Well, except for that second sentence that explains exactly what I meant by commonplace. So how about "Places, buildings and locations in the United States which require city disambiguators, should also include the state name, unless the AP Stylebook declares the state name unnecessary (unless they are not the primary or only topic for that name) [which is per WP:USPLACE]. The title of that city's wikipedia article should be used as the guidance to determine whether the state name should be included or omitted."
Having read WP:CREEP, I disagree. With several articles apparently under discussion to be moved, there is a (#1) actual problem to solve, and guidance on how to title these articles would prevent these may disparate discussions from continuing to come up in the future, thus providing a (#2) real, positive difference, and it (#3) would not prevent the dropping of the state name where it is considered acceptable in titles. Dworjan (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

COMMENT - A few things to think about before we reach a consensus on this... first, we need to remember that policy is supposed to be descriptive not proscriptive... in other words, policy/guidance is supposed to reflect what actual established practice is... so... we need to look at how many existing articles use the "(City, State)" format in disambiguation... and how many articles use the "(City)" format in disambiguation. I would recommend looking at the articles in Category:Buildings and structures in the United States as a start.
We also need to examine how disruptive any guidance we write will be. Whatever our decision here may be... let's make sure we know how many articles will be affected by our decision. I am sure that some article titles will need to be changed, no matter what guidance we come up with... but let's at least keep it to a minimum number of articles. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts, but should this impact be a major consideration? Yes, any change will involve some collateral work, but is this disruptive as Wikipedia uses the term? Isn't it rather an investment in a better encyclopedia? It does no harm to assess the scope of this work, but is there any reason this work is particularly urgent?
See below for descriptive vs proscriptive. Important IMO, obviously. Andrewa (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
It would be very disruptive if it means we end up with hundreds of disputed page move requests as a result of what we decide (and there is that potential). That's why I urge everyone to go cautiously and think about the consequences of whatever we come up with. It's one thing to examine the the issue in the abstract... but we also have to be practical. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
We need to come up with a policy that provides the guidance to title articles in such a way that the titles are concise, yet clear and unambiguous. And that's what we're doing with this discussion. If the results of this discussion to come up with the best titles is at odds with current usage, then yeah, that'll mean a bit of leg work, but past ambiguity is no reason to prevent us from coming to a good solution now. I don't see how we'd have disputed page moves as part of the implementation of any new guidelines. Move requests would be submitted for affected articles as, "per guidelines established after discussion on Naming conventions (geographic names)" Dworjan (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Based on Doncram's comment (below) it might be more than just a "bit of leg work"... we could have people wanting to change the titles of 5,000-15,000 articles! That absolutely would be disruptive. That's why I urge caution... think before we act. A course of action may seem logical and practical in the abstract... but it can have very disruptive consequences when actually applied. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think a good rule of thumb would be that if a placename is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it's probably okay to use it by itself in disambiguation. So Pensacola works for things in Florida, but New Britain doesn't for things in Connecticut (but would for things in Papua New Guinea). As always, there can be exceptions when context is clear: so, "Famous Connecticut thing" (New Britain) (where "Connecticut" itself is in the title) should be sufficient. If someone wants to use (City, State) or (City, Country) where it's not strictly necessary, I think we should allow that leeway. Dohn joe (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment There are somewhere in the range of 5,000-15,000 usages of (City, State) in names of NRHP-listed places, about half having articles and about half being set up as redlinks for articles to be created. I set up most of the >3,000 disambiguation pages for these. It is obvious to me that using "(City, State)" is usually best for these. If you use just "City" sometimes, or if you use just "State", then that raises bizarre questions for readers: is this the only one in the state, but there are others of the same name in other states? etc. Is it an island, or what? If you use just "City, State" it is clear you are simply referring to a U.S. place. I would totally oppose changing/renaming/moving 10,000 NRHP articles that are very stably named. Nothing needing to be fixed here. --doncram 22:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at Talk:Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Forida)#Requested move - re: disambiguation. Note two things in particular there. Firstly, two editors are arguing that the disambiguator should be reduced to simply {Pensacola), thusly: Per WP:NATURAL, use only as much additional detail as necessary; and The "Florida" is just unnecessary verbiage, which WP:PRECISION says to avoid. Secondly, another editor (me) is arguing against this: I've come to the view, see discussion below, that the default should be to use the longer disambiguator - in this case (City, State) of course. Comments? Andrewa (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment I agree with User:Doncram. The disambiguation phrase should be the same as the title of the article for that locality. This is the only way for an article creator to know how they are supposed to title their article. Thus Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Florida) and Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut) should be the names, based on the article title (which is based on USPLACE). This is straightforward and consistent and simple. It removes the need for any research or argument, such as to determine whether Pensacola, Florida is the primary topic for Pensacola or whether New Britain, Connecticut is the primary topic for New Britain. In fact, it was exactly to avoid this kind of uncertainty and endless argument that USPLACE was agreed upon in the first place. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a very useful rule of thumb to me. It's workable IMO and would have solved the problem at Talk:Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain) which started all of this! But if adopted two questions remain.
Firstly, how to add this to the rules so that the (now three) users who are citing these rules (rather than user experience) as the reason to keep the disambiguator there to simply (New Britain) are happy that we're complying with policy in going with the longer disambiguator (New Britain, Connecticut) instead?
Secondly, there seems a consensus to stick with the longer disambiguator at Talk:Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Forida), despite Pensacola seeming to have the the primary meaning of, and being the name of the article on, the locality. This would violate that rule of thumb.
I'm still inclined to go with the longer name by default. Andrewa (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you are replying to. If you were talking to me, I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. My "rule of thumb" is NOT "disambiguate by primary topic"; quite the opposite. My rule of thumb is "disambiguate by the name of the article." The article is called "Pensacola, Florida" so the disambiguated name would be Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Florida). Similarly Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut). No need to worry about whether "Pensacola, Florida" is the primary meaning of "Pensacola" or not. It's the name of the article so it's what we use. So for US places we will use the "longer name" (i.e. "city, state") except in the 30 or so named exceptions specified at USPLACE, because that is how the article is titled. For most of the rest of the world we will use the "shorter name" if that is the name of the article (Mainz; Genoa; Adelaide) and a longer version only if that is what the article is called (Stratford, Ontario; Hartford, Cheshire). --MelanieN (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm replying to you, and yes, I think I understand what you're saying, but you seem to have misinterpreted what I said. Primary meaning only arises because, if Pensacola, Florida were not the primary meaning of Pensacola, then that would be a very, very strong case for moving the article currently at Pensacola to a disambiguated name, and so it wouldn't be a good example.
I'm quite happy to go with the article name rule of thumb that you propose. I think it would be simpler and better to say that the longer name is the default and a case needs to be made before shortening it, but the important thing is to cover the cases similar to the New Britain case, where all roads seem to lead to the same conclusion except one... two experienced editors say that policy currently prohibits the longer name. That's what needs fixing. Andrewa (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the source of our confusion/miscommunication here is that in your earlier comment you seemed to think Pensacola was the name of the article about that city. It isn't. It's Pensacola, Florida. Thus my rule of thumb, as you call it, calls for Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Florida). --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Ooops, yes, my bad, Pensacola is a redirect to Pensacola, Florida. The logic of what I said isn't affected, but it makes the phrasing a lot trickier. And your rule does cover that case well, far better than one based on primary meaning would. Andrewa (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


Prescriptive/Descriptive

Several editors above [1] [2] raise the point that policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive (proscriptive), and I could not agree more. But is this itself supported in policy? Where?

And where should this be discussed? It is IMO the most important single issue currently facing Wikipedia, and very relevant to this particular discussion, but I fear I may already be getting off-topic for this particular talk page. Andrewa (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

A Guideline is by definition prescriptive, although less strictly than a rule. Chrisrus (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Disagree. A guideline may also give examples, and could in theory contain no prescriptive component at all. So it's certainly not by definition prescriptive. Our article guideline to which you link has several issues, and is unlikely to be the last word on the subject. Andrewa (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Look up guideline in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Chrisrus (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Am I to assume that you are suggesting that the Wiktionary definition, to which the article links too, is offered as evidence that a guideline must be prescriptive? That's not what it says at all. In particular, an explanation to guide one in ... determining a course of action is dare I say describing a descriptive, rather than prescriptive, approach. Andrewa (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it shows that a guideline is something people look to to help them decide what they should do. It's not a description of what people do do. It's like a rule, but it's vaguer, and more of a choice whether to follow it; less absolute than a rule. It's like advice, or, as wiktionary says, a "rule of thumb."
"Some people steal" is an objective statement of fact about the world; a descriptive, not proscriptive statement, and therefore not a guideline. "Do not steal" is a proscriptive statement more like a rule, and "Try not to steal unless the situation gives you no better option" is also a proscriptive statement, more like a guideline. Proscriptive statements are about what one should and shouldn't do, and a guideline is a particular type of proscriptive statement. Descriptive statements like "some people steal" can't be guidelines because they don't proscribe. Chrisrus (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The relevant definitions are in project space on Wikipedia. I recommend that anyone unclear on the meanings read through WP:Policies and guidelines, but in short: guidelines describe best practice as determined by community consensus. (Note that it uses the word “describe”.) Statements that describe best practice generally use imperative language. Hope that helps. —Frungi (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the point is missed here. This is not about the language of the guideline "People say you should not steal" vs "You should not steal" but the process in which the guideline develops. Somebody steals - a large majority of people object - we write down a codified summary so that next time someone steals we don't have to get the village together for a big bruhaha. Similarly here whatever has been decided out in the village (ie RM AFD ect) should be recorded. When general practise divulges from what is codified the code has to be adjusted. Sadly over the last few years a new breed of wikipedians has arisen. Those that by focusing on the pages that describe the rules they can control what others have to do. This is particularly evident when they try to make a change for which there is no consensus they try to remedy the situation by changing the rules and then force the larger community to accept it because "it is in the rules". Agathoclea (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Besides what Agathoclea says (with which I agree), I am in disagreement with this proposal because it's unrelated to this page. This is a naming conventions page for cities, countries, regions, etc. — it's not a naming conventions page for buildings! Imagine if participants at WT:CSD decided to issue naming convention on some topic as part of the speedy deletion policy. It would be absurd, because the names of articles in a certain realm aren't within the purview of the speedy deletion policy: technically those names would be policy because they're part of CSD, but that's an absurd way to go about it. In the same way, names of buildings and names of things on their scale aren't the geographic names for which this page is set up, and it's absurd to try to create rules for them — especially when creating those rules would be highly prescriptive and very very far from being descriptive. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree with much of this. One of the problems here is the two (now three) editors seem to be are arguing that the rules (as they interpret them) must be followed, regardless of the negative effect this may have on the reader. This is a danger, I'm not sure that it's a new danger, but it's certainly a current issue. There have been some attempts at discussing the behaviour of at least one of these three, who is themselves very active in editing policy, but the response has been negative so far.
Modifying this quideline is something of a bandaid solution to this, which I think arose when one of them cited Naming conventions (geographic names) as the rule that justified what the rest of of us see as unjustifiable in terms of reader experience. The other reply to this, of course, is consensus here that Naming conventions (geographic names) already fails to support what is claimed, and I think we've got that above.
Clarifying the more pertinent rule at WP:disambiguation so that it's clear that Naming conventions (geographic names) doesn't even apply in such cases is probably a better way to go, see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Precision of disambiguators and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposed addition to guideline to eliminate ambiguity. Andrewa (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's a very helpful reminder about WP:Policies and guidelines, so much so that I repeat the link here. Your point about imperative language is I think that its use in English does not necessarily indicate a prescriptive approach? If so, agree with that too. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed rule of thumb

Based on my discussion with Andrewa above, I am proposing the following as a simple, workable rule of thumb: The disambiguation phrase should be the same as the title of the article for that locality. The result in practice would be that most US places would be disambiguated by (City, State), while most places outside the US would be disambiguated by (City) if the city is the primary topic. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It needs to also exclude the use of ambiguous terms. The fact that a primary article exists does not make the proposed disambiguation effective. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, how about The disambiguation phrase should be the same as the title of the article for that locality, unless additional information is needed to prevent ambiguity. (I can't offhand think of an example where this would come up, but I can see it is possible. The "rule of thumb" would still apply to the vast majority of articles.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Yes, that is OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment: In many cases, this proposed approach is overkill because the name of the state (and not also the name of the locality) is ample for purposes of disambiguation. Consider the case of "Springfield High School", which is ambiguous primarily because many different communities named "Springfield" have eponymous high schools. Names in the form Springfield High School (Oregon) and Springfield High School (Tennessee) are sufficient for disambiguation; it is unnecessary (and looks rather silly) to expand them to Springfield High School (Springfield, Oregon) and Springfield High School (Springfield, Tennessee). If the name of the locality is part of the article title, the locality name should not also be included for disambiguation unless the state name alone does not suffice for disambiguation (as in the case of Ohio, where there are multiple Springfield High Schools). --Orlady (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I think the city name is already omitted (by convention rather than any rule) when it would be redundant; we don't say Downtown San Diego, San Diego. But when it isn't a case of redundancy, I think we do include the city even if there is only one of whatever it is in the state. Take the case of Lincoln High School; the city is listed even if there is only one such school in the state, for example Lincoln High School (McClellanville, South Carolina), Lincoln High School (Sioux Falls, South Dakota). --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
School names are disambiguated inconsistently. Sometimes it's done with state only, even when including the city wouldn't result in redundancy. I think there may be some disambiguated by city alone, though I could be wrong on that. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) +1 Disambiguators, like titles in general, should be concise. I'm afraid this rule of thumb would "fix" many titles that don't need it. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec)And if it does 'break' something, whatever is broken is offset by clarity and information for readers. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
A title can't, and shouldn't, convey everything about a topic. In almost all of these cases, a full place name is going to be present in the first sentence anyway. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree. But the title should not be misleading, and in the case that started all this, that's exactly what it was. And three editors are still defending this misleading name in the name of conciseness (see below). That's what needs fixing. The policy and guidelines should not support this, and trickier still, they shouldn't be easily misinterpreted to support this. Andrewa (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that too, just to be clear. Many of the pages at Liberty High School are named just as they should be, as several states have multiple schools by that name. My proposed rule of thumb is to disambiguate by state when practical, city and state otherwise (or city, county, and state as necessary in those freak cases). --BDD (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment. I don't know that a hard-and-fast rule works here. I think we should allow for all three potential disambiguators: 1) "Placename", when "Placename" is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; 2) "State" (or "Province" or "Region" if we want to make this guidance more universal); and 3) "Placename, State". Sometimes, 1) or 2) will be sufficient to disambiguate, and will be more concise. Sometimes, we'll need 3). The one caveat I'd make is that when a U.S. placename is used to disambiguate, 3) should probably at least be a redirect. That would cover the people who link to "City, State" automatically. Dohn joe (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
It would be good to have examples of cases where each of these three potential disambiguators is appropriate. The obvious cases of the longer (place, region) disambiguator are the two particularly relevant RMs, which should hopefully close in two or three days, but consensus already seems clear to me, in favour of the longer disambiguator in each case. Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut) is the more interesting for two reasons. Firstly. it seems the more obvious. Secondly, three editors vigorously argue there for the shorter disambiguator, each purely on the grounds of their minority reading of policy. That's what needs fixing. We don't want another yogurt/yoghurt debacle.
So, we seem to have two examples where the longer disambiguator is preferred. Would this rule of thumb reduce the controversy surrounding these, and do we have examples of the other two cases? Andrewa (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Depending on how the discussion over the Las Vegas (Amtrak station) goes that could be another example. However that is changing focus to a bigger issue with rail stations in general. In the end that might not be a big help. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree. And Springfield High School (a DAB) currently provides several examples of both long and short form disambiguators, as pointed out above, and also of alternative, natural disambiguations. Are any of these (long or short) currently sub-optimal, in terms of reader experience? Which ones if so?
But at the risk of flogging this to death, would it really matter if any of the shorter disambiguators at Springfield High School were lengthened? I'm not saying instantly change them all! I'm just saying, if the standard was the longer (place, district) form (with exceptions where that's especially silly, such as New York rather than New York, New York), it seems to me that's a lot simpler, with no downside other than it does assume a certain amount of common sense. And yes, eventually this would mean moving a lot of articles, but there's no hurry, and the guideline could explicitly say this - anathema as such a suggestion may be to the legalists among us. Andrewa (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, but would it really matter if the short ones stayed short - especially when the placename is in the title of the article already? My point is that a standard is not necessary here. All three options should be available as disambiguators, and this guideline should not be used as a reason to move any articles - except when a nonWP:PRIMARYTOPIC placename is used by itself. "Pensacola" really should be sufficient as a disambiguator. Again - as long as there's a redirect with the longer name as well. Dohn joe (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, agree with all of this. My support for the longer disambiguator for Pensacola is just an attempt to be consistent, so we can have a simple, workable rule. Either form is acceptable in this case IMO. So if we come up with an equally workable rule that allows the shorter disambiguator there, so much the better. Andrewa (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually the SHS dab page seems to follow a standard. Disambiguate by state only. If there more multiple schools in the state, disambiguate by city, state. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree. And this might be a useful rule too. It would have avoided both of the specific problems we have had. Andrewa (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

RMs have closed

The two RMs have closed, on schedule, and in both cases the result is the (city, state) format. There was one additional hiccup, and we can all blush I think... the closing admin noted that Florida was misspelled, and corrected it. [3] [4] Andrewa (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, the silence is deafening. Three experienced editors have confidently stated that policy demands that we use the shorter name. We've decided not to.

Does that mean that these editors got it wrong? Or, does it mean that we need to update the guidelines (at the very least)? Or both? there doesn't seem to be another option. Andrewa (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Since we now have a clarification of consensus, we should at least review relevant policy/guidance to make sure that it appropriately reflects that consensus. I think a few minor tweaks may be in order. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Likewise.
As to the specific tweaks required, and the review generally, it seems to me that the key players are those who are confident that policy mandates the shorter name. That's almost a negative canvassing approach, but in the Uniting Church in Australia it's exactly the way we approach consensus... hear from those who oppose the majority view, as they are the ones with the most to teach us. (And in the hands of a skilled chairperson, this often leads to surprising and good results.) Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "(City, State)" format is often appropriate, but that to try to mandate that would just cause unnecessary problems about exceptions. As long as we don't buy B2C's assertion that "concise" means "as short as possible", we shouldn't have a problem deciding; typical cases will include the state unless it's very clearly not needed. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Virginia Beach, Virginia RM

There's currently an RM about the article Virginia Beach, Virginia, that implicates a change to the current guidance in USPLACE. Perhaps watchers of this page wish to chime in with their opinions. I'm pretty new all things considered and I tried to phrase this as neutrally as possible but I'm sorry if this somehow constitutes canvassing. AgnosticAphid talk 18:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)/Archives/2013/October&oldid=1137425772"