Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/August

Naming convention for Burmese geographical names

A discussion has started about the lack of a clear guideline on Burmese geographical names here. Any input is welcome. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention for Italian cities

Hi all guys. I am here to ask for a revisal of the existing naming convention policy for Italian city places. There is no doubt using a title like Erba (CO) is comprehendable only to some Italians, whereas all other people could find it really hard to figure out what "(CO)" is about. In cases like these, more reasonable titles like "Erba, Italy" should be favoured and suggested instead, as it already happens with all other geographical locations. Just using the current notation "Cityname (Province-Abbreviation)" only because it is followed by the Italian language Wikipedia is not a good point, because this is the English language Wikipedia, and title names should be focused on how English speakers expect them to be. So, Naples instead of Napoli, Munich instead of München, and "Some_city, Italy" instead of "Some_city (Some_italian_province)". Thoughts? --Angelo (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem will still occur when there are two municipalities in Italy with the same name. Any guideline or policy needs to take this into account also. I accept the point being made that "CO" means very little to people outside Italy. If that is the general view, then the second level of dismbiguation where there are two or more settlements with the same name could probably be "settlement, province" (Erba, Como), and if a third level is necessary "settlement, municipality" (Incino, Erba) where there are two or more settlements in a province with the same name. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea - but, what will we do if there are 2 Erbas?? or what when there are even more?? If you have a solution for this, then I support your suggested changes. --noclador (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We have that same problem with all other cities, for instance we have a huge number of cities all named Springfield and, in that case, we use subnational entities to disambiguate. So, for two Italian municipalities with the same name, we might use regions ("Erba, Lombardy") or provinces ("Erba, Province of Como" - also because in my opinion "Erba, Como" suggests Erba is part of Como's local territory). --Angelo (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is a crucial point: as the number of articles on the so-called frazioni, increases, we will often have to disambiguate by municipality. (Already in the Italian Wikipedia there are two places in the province of Brescia called Pescarzo, distinguished by commune as it:Pescarzo (Breno) and it:Pescarzo (Capo di Ponte)). So when disambiguating by province we need to make it clear that it is the province we are referring to.

We should use a standard method for disambiguation of geographic places, regardless of county. I agree that if disambiguation is necessary at only the national level, use country names after the comma, e.g., Noor, Iran. If disambiguation is necessary at the provincial (1st administrative level), use provincial names after the comma, e.g., Baladeh, Kandahar. The question then arises whether that title should actually be Baladeh, Kandahar, Afghanistan which is more quickly grasped as to location, but is longer. There are at least seven settlements known at one time or other as Ojo Caliente in New Mexico, and many more (hopefully non-notable) hot springs with that name. The only three notable settlements are one in Taos County, one by Zuni in Cibola County, and the headquarters for the defunct Warm Springs Apache Reservation in Socorro County, none of them necessarily more notable than the others. Hence their articles should depart from the standard US "town-name, state" format and either be in the unwieldly form: "Ojo Caliente, Taos County, New Mexico", "Ojo Caliente, Cibola County, New Mexico", etc.; or the shorter, but less self-evident, form: "Ojo Caliente, Taos County", "Ojo Caliente, Cibola County", etc. But maybe the United States is a poor example if hard cases make bad law. Nonetheless, if disambiguation is necessary at the 2nd administrative level, for example see Galoogah, Babol, Mazandaran and Galoogah, Behshahr, Mazandaran, certainly the country name can be disposed of. Regardless, I agree that, in accordance with the Manual of Style, place abbreviations such as "CO" for "Como Province" should not be used. Always consider whether an abbreviation may be better simply written out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with it - we do not have the same space constraints as paper. --Bejnar (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a world-wide standard would be a good thing to achieve, but I suspect that that might take a very long time, and that in the interim we should agree a (possibly interim) convention for Italy. Ian Spackman (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Angelo that a change is needed. Until recently I have been a supporter of the current convention because it was simple, predictable and gave a consistent look to category listings. As to the obscurity, well dab pages seemed entirely adequate in handling that. I have changed my mind for two reasons. Firstly the standard was in practice un-enforceable—people were always moving articles away from it. Secondly it is now the case that people often come to articles via the Search box with its drop-down list, thus being able to by-pass those dab pages. I am concerned, though, that we establish a convention where category lists have a consistent look: with some places disambiguated by Italy, others as Piedmont, others as Province of Alessandria, and still others as Alessandria those categories could esily become confusing. My suggestion would be to define three classes of settlement: provincial capitals, other communes (i.e. municipalities/comuni), and other places. Thus Syracuse (Italy), Bra (Province of Cuneo), Isola (Madesimo). Ian Spackman (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The general convention is not to use brackets for places. So, it should be Syracuse, Italy, Bra, Province of Cuneo and Isola, Madesimo in the previous example. However, Syracuse, Italy is a redirect to Syracuse, Sicily and I can't really see why Italy is a better disambiguation than Sicily. Perhaps the first level of disambiguation should be region rather than the country. This would not be unusual for larger countries (in the United Kingdom, places in Scotland are initially disambiguated by country, whilst places in England are disambiguated by ceremonial county and in Wales by unitary authority). I would also suggest that Cuneo Province would be better than Province of Cuneo. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don’t have strong feelings about brackets versus commas. In some ways I would think that dsambiguating by commas for provncial capitals and other communes, but brackets for sub-communal entities would make sense. I left the regions out of the equation deliberately: with the exceptions, certainly, of Sicily, Sardinia and Tuscany, I don’t think they are much more widely known than the province. (Province of Rome will mean more to most readers than Lazio and Province of Naples than Campania.) I am afraid that ‘Cuneo province’ comes across to my ears as a bit barbaric, though I couldn’t explain quite why! Ian Spackman (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In Syracuse's case, I don't see the point of having Syracuse, Sicily instead of Syracuse, Italy. There is only one Syracuse in Italy, and using this approach just makes no sense at my eyes. Disambiguating cities by region should be something to make only when there are at least two cities with the same name in a particular country. --Angelo (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be Syracuse. The major competitor will be, while the United States section remains unchanged, be at Syracuse, New York. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be Syracuse, Sicily, because Syracuse i<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>s an ancient city, and Sicily was not considered to be part of Italy until quite recently (certainly not before the Norman conquest, perhaps not until 1860). I wouldn't object to just Syracuse, either. john k (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support abolishing the two-letter abbreviations. Wikipedia did this for US locations years ago. There's no risk of confusion between e.g. the province of Trento with the immediate locality (and the first line of any article should resolve this in any case). Those that know the difference between the two won't be confused, and those that don't by definition won't be able to make the necessary assumption. As for how to separate two parts, it seems our existing standard is to use commas, so commas it should be. The general standard is that brackets are for identifying types or meanings, e.g. lead (engineering). 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. I think there is a clear consensus for removing these two-letter abbreviations from our naming convention. Can we move ahead? --Angelo (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The two letter abbreviations are awful. Something else should be used. john k (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. As a start, I would propose to get rid of the first part of the guideline subsection under "Specific topics > Country-specific guidance > Italy" (the part that says "If necessary, places in Italy are disambiguated by province (abbreviated name in parentheses) as is the universal custom in Italy. Thus: Manciano (AR), Manciano (GR)."), that is the part of the guideline itself that opens the floods to two-letter usage for Italian cities and towns. --Angelo (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but I think, as it has been in use for some time, that it needs replacing with new specific guidance, otherwise there is likely to be confusion. This could be done by changing the examples to Manciano, Arezzo and Manciano, Grosseto.Skinsmoke (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I live in the Netherlands and the local administrative system (village -> city -> province -> country) is easily comparable to Italy, but I don't see any naming convention for the country itself. I don't really think we should provide a naming convention to be used exclusively for Italian cities, it's not that different than the rest of Europe and the World in terms of how administrative entities are organized. Using Manciano, Arezzo is very ambiguous, because it does not say if it is referring to the city of Arezzo or the province of Arezzo. I would say Manciano (frazione of Arezzo) and Manciano, Province of Grosseto instead. --Angelo (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter! The first option would be Manciano, Italy. If there are two Mancianos in Italy, then you go down to the next level, which people seem to agree should be Province rather than Region. It is not a statement of administrative responsibility, it's a disambiguator. We don't say Belmont, London Borough of Harrow, we say Belmont, Harrow. It doesn't matter whether Manciano is in the city or province of Arezzo; all that matters is that you can tell it apart from the one in Grosseto. Only if there were two Mancianos in Arezzo would it be a problem. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

First, I would say the next level after country should be region instead. For instance, all Italians know where Sardinia is, but only a very few are actually aware of the existance of the recently-created Sardinian province of Olbia-Tempio. Keep in mind Italy has over one hundred provinces! Secondly, I am still of the opinion that article names for geographical places should be always unambiguous: distinction between frazioni (villages, often with no administration of their own) and comuni (officially recognized cities) must be made clear: we can also assume that Manciano, Grosseto refers to the Province of Grosseto, but in that case we should keep using Manciano (frazione of Arezzo). --Angelo (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Article titles should be ambiguous, but don't go creating ambiguity where none exists. Describing whether a place is a comune or frazione is a job for the lead, not the title. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I very much don't like Name, Italy. How many Italian cities have like named cities in other countries? Syracuse is the only one I can think of where it's not obvious that the Italian city is the primary topic (Rome, Naples, Venice, etc., are clearly primary topics). Given that, I think the first level of disambiguation should probably be in the form Name, Region. Region is also useful because the regions of Italy are at least somewhat familiar to educated people who are not from Italy, which is not particularly the case with provinces. If there are multiple cities of the same name in a single region, then you can go to provinces. I'd suggest Name (Province of X). I'm not sure what to do for frazione. john k (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Name, Region is fine by me. Don't like Province of as a disambiguator as it's totally unnecessary. The purpose of a dismbiguator is to tell two places with the same name apart; not to give detailed information on the administrative structure; that's what the article is there for. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to any particular form. I am pretty strongly against anything involving ", Italy". Perhaps we should figure out what the possible options are, and do a straw poll to gauge support? john k (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just doing a very quick look at the list of comuni in one province I came across Ausonia, Italy, which should really be the primary use; Pico, Italy, disambiguated from Pico, Vila Verde in Portugal; and Sora (FR), which is the only Sora in Italy, and is disambiguated from Sora, Barcelona in Spain, and Sora, Boyacá in Colombia. This isn't an argument for or against country or region being used, just for information. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The US articles tend to tag by state, which would be equivalent to tagging by region. UK articles tend to tag by county, which would be equivalent to tagging by province. I think that a common sense choice between the two is the right way to go. For instance, places on Sardinia and Sicily should probably be tagged as such, unless there are two places of the same name on the same island, in which case we could then use provinces, and if this is still ambiguous then falling to comuni. Whether we want to start at regions or provinces for other locations is not necessarily a decision we need to make. I'm not convinced that the risk of confusion when provinces have the same name as towns within them is real, or that a title must resolve all issues of identity (hence our article doesn't have the main title of President Barack Hussein Obama of the United States of America, formerly United States Senator for the State of Illinois). That said, I am persuaded that the order of precedence should be no tag -> region -> province -> comune (note: no "Italy"), where we take the first of those options that doesn't cause a conflict. For instance, if we have places in three provinces, two of which are in the same region, we might have a structure along the lines of "Dovunque, Como" and "Dovunque, Bergamo" in Lombardy, but "Dovunque, Sardinia" (as opposed to "Donvunque, Cagliari". 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems very reasonable to me. john k (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree this is the sensible approach. Disambiguate primarily by Region; if further dismabiguation needed then by Province; if disambiguation still required by Comune. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Since it seems the community agreed for a common approach to use as a replacement, I would suggest to make it official. --Angelo (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is there also agreement to avoid using abbreviations for regions/provinces as the disambiguating term? older ≠ wiser 12:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

About Italian regions, they have no sort of official abbreviations. About two-letter province abbreviations, well, that's the main issue we've been discussing right here, and I'd say there is definitely an agreement on that. --Angelo (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Draft: "If necessary, places in Italy are disambiguated by the highest of region, province or comune needed to identify it uniquely. Thus: Manciano, Arezzo, Manciano, Grosseto (both in Tuscany)." Needs two further examples, though - that of two places of the same name in different regions, and something along the lines of the fictional example of Dovunque above. As for implementing it, I suggest that (once agreed) a mass move is proposed for articles containing the abbreviations, and any other cases strictly being discussed individually. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of real examples:

1. Places of the same name in different regions: San Teodoro, Sicily (currently San Teodoro (ME)) and San Teodoro, Sardinia (currently San Teodoro (OT)).
2. Places of the same name in the same region, but different provinces: Manciano, Arezzo and Manciano, Grosseto (as being both part of Tuscany); but also Manciano, Umbria. --Angelo (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No: those examples should surely be Manciano, Province of Arezzo, Manciano, Province of Grosseto. Ian Spackman (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That really is unnecessary, and is not what is done in other countries. In Switzerland we don't disambiguate by Canton of Bern; we disambiguate by Bern. In Spain we don't disambiguate by Province of Barcelona; we disambiguate by Barcelona. Why do you think Italy should be treated differently? Skinsmoke (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? It's not as if there's any risk of confusion. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly confuse me. Building ambiguity into a disambiguation rule is a bad thing. If we are to rewrite the convention (as I think we should) then it needs to provide a simple way to distinguish Ronchi, Bra (Province of Cuneo) from Ronchi, Cuneo (Province of Cuneo). Both, by the way, are identified in the 2001 census. My own view is that so-called frazioni should always be disambiguated by commune—or communes where they span municipal boundaries, which is not uncommon. There are so many generic names in use—Borgo Nuovo, Castello, Borghetto, Isola, Rocca, Sant’Anna, etc., etc.Ian Spackman (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

One is Ronchi, Bra, the other is Ronchi, Cuneo, where the latter has a hatnote. That wasy easy. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two cities named Brione, for instance: one in Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, one in Lombardy. A list is available here, in any case: [1]. --Angelo (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Angelo will know this, but others may not. That is purely a list of comuni (communes or municipalities). There are around 8,100 of those (one fewer than there was this time last year) and I believe we already have articles on all of them. Smaller, but notable, distinct populated places are said to number around 60,000 and there will very often more than one place with the same name not only in the same region but in the same province. (The latter never happens with comuni.)Ian Spackman (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ian's point is quite sensible and relevant. Italian frazioni are always associated with the city they are part of, and hardly associated with something else, and please note the number of frazioni within Italy is much larger than the number of cities themselves. I would therefore suggest to always force disambiguation by city when the article is about a frazione. --Angelo (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest treading carefully on locations in Trentino, since most functions are devolved to the two provinces, and we've already got a long addendum on naming in one of them. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Trentino/Südtirol is officially recognized as one of the twenty Italian regions, and one of the five autonomous regions of Italy (the other ones being Aosta Valley, Sardinia, Sicily and Friuli-Venezia Giulia), so I can't get your point. In case of necessity to disambiguate places in such region, just use the full and official denomination of the region. --Angelo (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We've got a large-ish section on how to name places in Bolzano/Bozen. "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol" seems a bit of a clumsy tag for me. The existing rule suggests to me that "Nirgedwo, Bozen" is a rather better idea than "Nirgendwo, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol". Unless we want to suggest that German-speaking communities are labelled as being in Südtirol with Italian-speaking communities as in Trentino-Alto Adige. Using provinces in that specific region seems like a valid exception to make due to the complex linguistic issues involved. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

On a related point we might need to decide what to call Aosta Valley if it is ever needed as a disambiguator. Somebody recently moved it to Valle d'Aosta/Vallée d'Aoste—sensibly in my view—but left ‘Aosta Valley’ as the bolded defining term in the lead. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Got your point. No problem for me to allow disambiguation by province instead than region for geographical locations of Trentino/Südtirol. --Angelo (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved for now. It's back at Aosta Valley as no consensus to move and violated the Use English rule. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Valle d'Aosta is the most common English name for the administrative unit. john k (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is why such a move probably needs more discussion - the multiple viable targets. Feel free to start a WP:RM. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems we have widespread support for the principle behind this new draft: "If necessary, places in Italy are disambiguated by the highest of region, province or comune needed to identify it uniquely. Examples: Brione, Lombardy and Brione, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol; Manciano, Arezzo and Manciano, Grosseto (both in the Region of Tuscany) but Manciano, Umbria; Ronchi, Bra and Ronchi, Cuneo (both in the Province of Cuneo)." 81.110.104.91 (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Boldly implementing the core as above, as objections are minimal. Bulk moves to start soon. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don’t think we do have consensus on this, though I believe consensus could be achieved. Both Angelo and I have argued, for instance, that in the case of frazioni disambiguation should normally done by commune, rather than by province or region. Accordingly I have reverted what I see as an over-bold change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Ian Spackman (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that there is no consensus for retaining the two-letter abbreviations. Guidelines are not set in stone - they are prone to evolution. If you don't like it, change it. Don't force us to take a backwards step because you disagree with some minor details. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Query about heading in the article

An heading in the article is "Alternate names". Is that what the section is about? Or should it be "Alternative names"? As the article is meant to give editors guidance, and is referred to elsewhere in WP with that aim, clarity should obtain.--SilasW (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate/alternative is a classic Anglo-American difference. Per WP:ENGVAR, we should not fiddle around with it. If anybody can think of how to go elsewhere, let's hear it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Query about heading in the article

An heading in the article is "Alternate names". Is that what the section is about? Or should it be "Alternative names"? As the article is meant to give editors guidance, and is referred to elsewhere in WP with that aim, clarity should obtain.--SilasW (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate/alternative is a classic Anglo-American difference. Per WP:ENGVAR, we should not fiddle around with it. If anybody can think of how to go elsewhere, let's hear it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Las Vegas not "primary"

I deleted the following:

*The city of Las Vegas is not considered to be the primary topic for "Las Vegas", as there is also Las Vegas metropolitan area, and the Las Vegas Strip.

I searched the talk page and found no mention of Las Vegas, so this was apparently added without discussion. More imporantly, the Strip and Metro Area are both sub-topics about Las Vegas - without the city, there would be no strip or metro area. Every large city has a metro area, so based on this statement, no US city would be the primary topic for its name. And most large cities have smaller places that share their name, even when not inside the city (I believe the strip isn't technically part of Las Vegas). Is London England not the primary London because there's one in Canada? Of course the city in Nevada is the primary Las Vegas.

Also, a city-specific topic like this doesn't belong here anyway, but in the Las Vegas talk pages.

97.113.108.36 (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not true. The discussion of this, and all related matters, is in the archives at WT:NC (settlements). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A pointer to the actual discussion would be more helpful than simply referring us back to the page we are already on. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a question of fact = and of convenience. Any argument that there is a primary usage here belongs at Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada, and I have reworded accordingly. Let us know what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, and I agree that any discussion over the primary use of the name and whether or not the article on the city should be undisambiguated should occur over at Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada, but I am no sure that there was ever any clear consensus to add an unequivocal statement here that the city isn't the primary topic. Please provide a direct link to the discussion where the consensus was said to have been reached, and let's all make sure we agree that there was a clear consensus on that point, before we go adding that sentence back into this guideline. I'm not trying to be difficult - however, this guideline has been the subject of sio much heated debate in the past, and any additions to the text need to be the result of clear consensus. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am almost certain no such consensus was ever reached, and it is the burden of those inserting and defending the statement to show otherwise. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The purely negative statement, that it is not considered primary, is asserted by the present arrangement of articles. Considered not primary that would be a much stronger claim. In any case, take this to Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada. If it's moved, NCGN should and will reflect that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I should not have rolled back; I hit the wrong button. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the current state of the article. However, there is no consensus to make special mention of it here on this guideline or to potentially curtail a discussion of it at Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada by making any determination or comment here. I'm not particularly fussed with the substance of the language in dispute - I just believe that there needs to be clear consensus to include it in this guideline. Either find the consensus discussion that you referred to earlier, so that we can all take a look at it and satisfy ourselves that consensus to include the statement was achieved, or achive consensus now to include the statement. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The text with which you two are now quarrelling says:

At present, Wikipedia has not decided to treat the city of Las Vegas as the primary topic for "Las Vegas"; there are also Las Vegas metropolitan area, and the Las Vegas Strip. This is a question of fact and convenience, which should be discussed - if necessary - at Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada.

Let us for once discuss substance. What claim in this does either of you actually dispute? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not whether this statement is accurate or factual, but whether it is appropriate to have it in this guideline. I don't think it is. Not because it's not true, but because it's an odd thing to point out here. Others may disagree, fine, but to add a statement to the guideline you need to establish consensus for it. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Then we should say we have not decided. In any case, please don't edit war, uselessly, here; go discuss at Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point completely. The issue is that there does not appear to be any consensus to add your commentary to this guideline. Nobody is obliged to initiate a page move or discussion over at Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada in order to question your unilateral decision to revise this guideline. You stated above that there was consensus to revise this guideline, so please provide the direct link to that discussion. If, despite what you said above, there was no consensus, then please achieve consensus prior to reinserting your commentary. Nobody is edit warring with you - you are simply being asked to abide by WP:CON. Consensus first, then edit. -Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not my commentary; it's my edit, responding to your complaints of error, of somebody else's commentary. Both of you now admit that it is factual; it is the case that we have not decided that the city of Las Vegas is primary usage. Do either of you object to making that decision, if we ever do, at Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada?

That's the only point of this footnote. I think anything which breaks the eternal the guideline says X so we can't change the articles/the articles haven't been changed so we can't take X out of the guideline circuit is a good thing, and why doesn't Serge agree with me? He's been around that cycle more often than I have.

Neither of you show any signs that I have seen of arguing that Las Vegas has a primary meaning. So why, procedural BS aside, does this matter? The only effect of that footnote is to decide where the discussion on moving Las Vegas, Nevada happens, if it ever does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And as for procedural BS, where's the consensus to remove? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. PManderson, I am not going to get in a lengthy debate with you, esp. since your last comment about consensus to remove suggests that you either don't understand the principle of WP:CON or you are being purposely obtuse. On the substantive front, the clause (all variations you have proposed) strikes me as utterly unnecessary, it's not something we do for any other city, it makes assumptions about other uses of the name over which there may be dispute, and the last part about fact and convenience doesn't make much sense. I can't figure even figure out why you think the clause is either necessary or helpful. On the procedural side, several editors have now made clear to you that there is no consensus to add your proposed reference to Las Vegas, so either drop the issue, or first try to get consensus for the text on this talk page.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, you added another clause of recent vintage ("(Primary topic should be judged against all encyclopedic usages of a name; thus, for example, discussions of Phoenix should consider the mythological Phoenix, and discussions of St. Louis should consider Louis IX of France.)") for which I can't find any consensus. You're entitled to be WP:BOLD (and at least the relevance and purpose of this clause is obvious to me, in a way that it was not for the Las Vegas clause), but as per WP:CYCLE, and given the history of this guideline, you need consensus to make these types of changes. This clause might be an easier sell (maybe, maybe not), but you do need to get that sign-off. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you, this time, going to answer the basic questions: Do you disagree with the text quoted? Does anybody disagree with it? If either is the case, what fixes would make it agreeable?

Or are you going to continue procedural runarounds, based on an essay? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This phrase seems like a straightforward application of normal policy with regard to determining primary topic, and it makes sense to point it out specifically because otherwise it might be overlooked. john k (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

To quote actual policy: Consensus does not require either that you get prior "permission" to make changes or that the acceptance of your changes afterwards be formally documented. Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them. Consequently, you should not remove a change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a policy-based or common-sense reason for challenging it.

Please stop now. If you have a reason for changing that section, stating it might convince people; this is most unlikely to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

To set a good example, I will explain why that sentence is included - to explain why we do not simply adopt the usage of the AP. As a dateline, Phoenix is unambiguous - at least until a story is datelined from mythology; but our articles have a wider scope. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pmanderson that, simply, "you don't have consensus to add that" is not reason in and of itself to remove a statement that is added. I have no comment at this time on the Phoenix issue. On the Las Vegas issue, again, I don't think it's appropriate to single it out in the general guideline. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that, and concede that Pmanderson's clause had been in the guideline long enough that WP:CYCLE would not apply. Pm identified the correct policy above, and I'll abide with that. I was overzealous - I'm always happy to apologize when I get something wrong. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

On Las Vegas: That's an actual reason (and one of Ohm's edit commentaries agrees with it), so I will leave that until whoever felt it needed to be explained shows up. An actual reason doesn't have to be any firmer than that; but it does have to give something to discuss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasons have been provided since the very beginning of this discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If arguing about process could cease, I think I agree with Born2cycle that there's no especial reason to single out Las Vegas in the general guideline. Among other things, it can create circular situations, where people at Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada, point to the guideline as justifying not considering the city to be the primary topic, and people at this page argue that the mention in this page is only a description of the actual state of things, rather than a prescription. It's best to allow the question to be hashed out at Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada, without this page saying anything about it. (The whole argument that the city of Las Vegas is not the primary topic for "Las Vegas," but is the primary topic for "Las Vegas, Nevada," has always struck me as strange and unconvincing. Yes, many of the places people associate most closely with Las Vegas or not in the city proper, but in incorporated areas nearby. But if this is true of "Las Vegas," it's also true of "Las Vegas, Nevada"...but anyway, I'll stop now). john k (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. The distinction between incorporated and unincorporated areas of a city arguably is irrelevant to much of what makes that city notable. For example, in Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard it states that the abductors lived in Antioch, California, but it was actually an unincorporated area of Antioch (much like the Vegas Strip is not in the incorporated city). In that context, and in many other contexts, it really doesn't matter. Yeah, for gambling license issues or whatever the Vegas distinction is relevant, but for people going there on vacation or for a convention, it really doesn't.

An article titled Las Vegas should be about the topic that most people think of when they say, write, read or hear "Las Vegas". It's the city, including the unincorporated areas. But this argument belongs elsewhere. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Summary style

Folks, this is a general "geographic names" guideline. It's certainly appropriate that there should be more specific guidelines for specific regions of the world, but those should be taken care of in separate documents. What is included here shoudl be a general summary, with the details listed in the more specific guideline.
— V = I * R (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please stop. The specifics here come in two varieties;
  • Examples on which there has actually been discussion and consensus, sometimes after much struggle. These are the documentation that this page actually reflects consensus.
  • The examples, often arbitrary, used to make WP:NC (settlements) clear. That was merged in here not so long ago, because the pages tended to diverge in isolation. Please leave well enough alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What needs to stop is edit warring over the handling of specific articles here. Start a movereq on Talk:Las Vegas, for example, if you have a specific issue with that article title (heck, I may even support the proposal there myself). Changing the guideline in order to "win" isn't helping either the article, this guideline, or the community, and it should stop. Guidelines are here to provide all of us with guidance, not to help win arguments.

This page should document summaries of what is required for specific special locations. Obviously, a generic guideline is just not going to work for the entire globe, so there's nothing wrong with spelling out how exceptions are made to the generic rules that should be here. If extensive rules are requires, as is evident in some instances, then they should live within their own document.
— V = I * R (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in Las Vegas, but it is clear somebody else did. I didn't insert the footnote, although it is (as of its last appearance) a correct statement of th present position. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please stop. PMAnderson reverted to the last consensus version from yesterday, please leave it so, at least for now. Make a proposal, see if you can establish consensus for it, then actually edit this page. Personally, I think there are too many specifics, and we should be relying more on general/universal guidelines, not encouraging more and more special cases. Like PMA said, see WP:CREEP. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

One thing we could do is move several of these links, which are to abortive discussions of a convention, or to conventions which essentially repeat some of what we say here, down to See also. But I don't think it's urgent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This: "Personally, I think there are too many specifics, and we should be relying more on general/universal guidelines" is exactly what I was attempting to address, actually. I wasn't going to change the format and the content all at the same time, is all. Anyway, nevermind, no big deal.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

List?

What's the point of this mass of redlinks? For most countries, we don't have subguidelines and never will. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

See below for the table itself.

To specifically address the redlinks question though, "we don't have subguidelines and never will" why in the world wouldn't we? Why shouldn't we?
— V = I * R (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Because we don't need a guideline on everything in the world. See WP:CREEP. Many of the pages linked to say nothing that isn't here already, but the link is harmless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That's easy to solve then. For the specific countries that don't need a guide, just remove them from the list. All I've done was move what already existed into a table format, and linked to one location that a more specific guide can be located at. If there's no need for specific items on the list, just remove them. For most of them I would question why they were listed on the page to begin with, if there result in the table is a redlink. For, to bring up three "problems", the US, UK , and Italy, all of that should be in its own document.
— V = I * R (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is much easier to solve. You have made no case that this table does anything useful, it has taken out the headers which made it possible to link to specific countries, and it has filled this guideline with redlinks and Please summarize the convention here. It could be useful when finished, but projects like that should be done in user-space; to which I am moving it; please submit it for discussion when it is complete, uses the {{anchor}} tag to permit linking to individual lines, and either links to subguidelines, or to nothing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And, a year ago, the US, UK, and almost all of Italy - indeed the whole sheaf - were their own document: WP:Naming conventions (settlements), now a redirect here. On reflection, the merger has proven to be convenient; nobody has to keep checking to see if the guidelines diverged yet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know about the settlements thing... but, I see the point, and that fits in nicely with the ultimate goals we're pursuing at WP:PROJPOL. The problem is that there's a bunch of coat racking occurring here, where everyone keeps wanting to say "but this is OK for our articles!" The problem is, questions about individual articles, or even sub-sets of articles (those within a WikiProject, for example) shouldn't really be able to say "we're different"... at least not without a legitimate reason, and I don't think that an article being about some slice of arbitrarily "important" politically claimed geography is a good reason to be making exceptions for anything, really. WP:UCN should always be paramount, no matter what, and that's more about the references in the article (thereby, outside third party usage).

Anyway, part of the reason for the table/list was actually in order to intentionally make it harder to link to the sections, based on a half thought out idea which I just outlined above. Now, I'm actually thinking that we should completely excise the complete list of individual countries, except that we should capture a couple of the more important points and leave a short summary of how exceptions can generally be created (using discussion, movereqs, and generally creating consensus that pages should be excepted from the "normal" practices).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The justification for having this list is that the usual naming patterns do differ for, say, the United States and Germany, especially for the long forms required for disambiguation. Consider the difference in style between Springfield, Illinois and Rothenburg ob der Tauber; and Mexico takes a different approach again. We could probably melt most of these down into a few underlying patterns, but nobody's done it yet.

I should warn you that the issue of which of these are exceptions is likely to be controversial - I really should say likely to blow up in your face. Somewhere around here are the archive pages of WT:NC (settlements); see the interminable lame debate about whether to use Matawan or Matawan, New Jersey for small settlements in the United States. (The answer decided, with one incorrigible dissentient, was that since most American placenames are, like Springfield, ambiguous, we should disambiguate all of them, with the possibility of the handful of exceptions for large cities mentioned in the guideline.

We do need the list of links, or most of it, someplace; this is where you come to find out if there has been a discussion of placenaming in Israel - for example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)