Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/June

Why the "comma convention"?

It seems to me that having the city, state convention violates WP:NCCN, as most cities are referred to by their name. Why not use the state only when disambiguating? --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 23:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That does it. I am going to put the explanation, long-established, frequently discussed, and consensus, into the guideline. Anybody who objects can rotate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The US naming convention isn't really my fight to get involved in but I see a few problems with your addition. Firstly, "a majority of American municipalities are ambiguous" - this would require some sort of evidence, no? Pointing out there are 21 Springfields is not evidence of your claim. Secondly, "The result of disambiguating only when absolutely necessary would be an inconsistent patchwork" - I am not sure I see the big problem with this. Articles that need disambiguating, will be. Those that don't, won't - much like the rest of the encyclopedia. "Editors and readers would require an encyclopedia to find whether Matawan, New Jersey is ambiguous or not" - This is an encyclopedia and if an article is written even halfway decently readers will know in the first paragraph (the first sentence?) what "Matawan" you mean. I am at a loss to see how compulsory disambiguation is of any benefit to readers. As for editors, there may have been some merit in this argument in the early days of the project but now that it is at a mature state an editor can find out pretty easily if a place name is unique - by searching for it on Wikipedia! If the editor hits another article or disambiguation page he or she can be pretty confident that his place name is not unique. "This need not apply to those great cities which the AP considers primary usage" I think "AP" should be defined (is the Associated Press?, if so perhaps a link to their list of "great cities" would be useful) Otherwise, the subjective labelling of places as "great cities" seems arbitrary and the idea of exempting the "great cities" seems odd if consistency is the aim.

Take all of the above with a grain of salt (especially given my contributions to the Australian debate on the same topic below). I know little about the geography of the US and I certainly don't want to dictate to Americans how they name their articles. But, your addition to the guideline—at least for me—raises more questions than it answers. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. It was an inappropriate, self-referential explanation of a single editor's views; views, I might add, that suffer from not only the issues you raised, but also others raised in the past. I've removed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You, however, are asserting not only that you are one of the handful who disagree with the long-standing consensus, but that Torritorri's question should not be answered. If you can form a new consensus, with new reasons, that would be one thing; but removing the reasons for the present consensus when they have been asked for is mere disruptive obfuscation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as has been explained, the material you have inserted contradicts policy. It's also inappropriately self-referential, inaccurate, and confusing to the reader, as explained above. Also, there is no consensus for adding the material; if you can form a new consensus, with new reasons, that would be one thing; but adding your personal POV without any consensus is, as you put it, "mere disruptive obfuscation". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• No, this violated Jayjg's understanding of policy, which is not shared by anyone else, including those of us who wrote it; it is also contrary to the plain wording of the policy, which may be why Jayjg did not quote it correctly.
• It is unnecessary and redundant to quote policy within one section of a guideline. Hopefully someone will remove this pointlessness.
• Furthermore, {{self-reference}} has no place in Wikipedia space; as the related guideline says, it is supposed to mark self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project. This is not an article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines shouldn't tell people "what we're talking about can be found somewhere on the Talk: pages", or refer to ancient discussions. Rather, they should give clear guidance to best practice, no more. A guideline is about articles, not about discussions on guideline pages. Regarding the rest, we again must emphasize to the reader that, despite the material in this section directly contradicting policy, as was the clear consensus in previous discussions on the topic, nevertheless policy takes precedence. And finally, Comment on content, not on the contributor; do not refer to me again on this Talk page, either directly or indirectly. Discuss the guideline, nothing else. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this post contains nothing but personal opinion, unfounded in policy and unbased in evidence, there is no possible response to it under that condition. There is no contradiction with policy, fully and accurately quoted; this guideline helped inspire the present wording of policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As was shown quite clearly in earlier discussions (which rejected this kind of insertion), the insertions and claim violate the "Precise" and "Concise" provisions of the Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding an article title policy. There has been no adequate, rational, or meaningful response to this, other than insults and "I know you are but what am I" sorts of statements. Albuquerque, New Mexico, as the example used, is both longer than it should be for both concision and precision. There is only one city named Albuquerque in the world, a large city that gets over 26 million ghits. There is no reason why Albuquerque needs to be distinguished while San Antonio needs not be - there actually are other San Antonios (e.g. San Antonio, Chile, San Antonio, Saipan, San Antonio, Northern Samar, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, San Antonio, Quezon, San Antonio, Zambales). Also, consistency with U.S. cities means inconsistency with other cities in the world. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we reopen this whole discussion to see if a new consensus can be reached? If so, perhaps you could make a specific proposal and advertise it appropriately (like the Australian one below; in fact if there were two parallel proposals for Aus and US, we could advertise the two of them together).--Kotniski (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly be one option, of course, though the immediate issue is the recent and non-consenusal addition of a paragraph that (among other flaws) doesn't accurately represent the history of these discussions, or the arguments presented in them. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the inaccuracy?--Kotniski (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It nowhere mentions the fact, raised in discussions, that another flaw in this "consensus" is that it makes the guideline violate the "Precise" and "Concise" provisions of the Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding an article title policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added that point as well; let's see if the editors of this guideline are honest enough to present all the arguments pro and con, or insist instead on misrepresenting the arguments of those with whom they disagree. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, I see you've removed the "Precise" qualifier from the footnote. I will quote here what the WP:AT policy says: "Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." Is it now more clear to you how, say, insisting on Albuquerque, New Mexico is making the article title more precise than is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously, thus contradicting this clause? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose so, but this "clause" isn't intended to prohibit everything that increases precision unnecessarily (otherwise we wouldn't include forenames in people articles and so on); I understand it to mean that while precision is a positive, it's only a positive up to the point that it's necessary to identify..., that doesn't necessarily mean it's a negative (as opposed to just neutral) beyond that point. In any case, offending against the precise wording of a policy page at any given time is not in itself a disadvantage; it might be the policy page that imperfectly describes our practices. I don't see any substantial disadvantage in a title's being "too precise" other than in the loss of conciseness, which we already mention.--Kotniski (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer Mattinbgn's question:

• Many readers felt and said that thorough disambiguation was helpful - and these are their reasons. They need not apply to Australia, which has a different set of facts.
• As for how we know that most American muncipalities need disambiguation; we took a sample during the discussion and 77% did. Almost any county in the United States has a category and a template; you are free to repeat the exercise until convinced.
• As for Associated Press, thanks; you're right.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone take samples for other countries to compare with the 77%? But the point is that there were two views on the matter and a compromise was reached. Any "explanation" we feel the need to give in the guideline needs to reflect the arguments on both sides, not imply that one side was "right".--Kotniski (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And any controversial addition to the guideline such as this, particularly one with so many flaws (as outlined above), will need a strong consensus before it can be added. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not controversial, any more than the policy it represents; it is why the guideline says what it does. One disruptive editor who does not understand or agree with policy does not make something controversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Since several people have disagreed with including the "explanation", and more than one has removed it, then it's obviously controversial. And this is the last time I will state it: Comment on content, not on the contributor. If you make even one more disparaging comment on this page about other editors, I will take significantly more serious action. I would also review this if I were you. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the five principles of WP:AT are not laws, which can be violated; they are ideals, which the perfect article title would achieve. But the perfect article title is not always attainable; it is consensus here, Jayjg standing out - and, more importantly, consensus in practice - that consistency on the longer idiomatic form is worth the occasional additional length. Consistency on the shorter form, without state, is unattainable; Springfield is multiply ambiguous. This edit summary is therefore false. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The five principles are not laws, but they do represent policy, which should be adhered to with a stricter fidelity than, for example, this Naming conventions (geographic names) guideline, which seems to be used as a very strict law. As for consistency on the shorter form, of course it's not attainable; no-one has ever suggested that Springfield could stand on its own, that's just a straw man. However, what has yet to be answered in any particularly meaningful way, is why Wikipedia needs to rely on the AP style guide for its decisions regarding American cities, when Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines serve perfectly well for all other cities in the world. And regarding specific examples, as has been pointed out before, Albuquerque is a large, well-known, and uniquely named American city. Why must it be "disambiguated" with its state? On the other hand, as has also been pointed out, there are many San Antonios, including San Antonio, Chile, San Antonio, Saipan, San Antonio, Northern Samar, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, San Antonio, Quezon, San Antonio, Zambales; yet the AP style guide insists San Antonio need not be disambiguated. Why should one be disambiguated and not the other? Why let the AP style guide decide in these cases, rather than the standard Wikipedia processes, which seem to be good enough for everywhere else in the world (and every other situation on Wikipedia)? That is the still-outstanding issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And the policy is that they are not laws, any of the five; they can't be, since they are often incompatible.

The policy answer to our Albuquerque patriot is simple: the facts on the ground in the United States differ from other countries; so does usage. That's why we have separate guidelines for different countries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And certainly this guideline is not law, since it's incompatible with policy (at least the part concerning the United States). As for the unsourced assertion that "the facts on the ground in the United States differ from other countries", that's no answer at all. Please explain how the "facts on the ground" mandate use of the AP Stylebook; is this some sort of universal law or mathematical equation? Please explain why San Antonio, which refers to almost a dozen cities, need not be disambiguated, while Albuquerque, which uniquely refers to one large city, must be disambiguated - aside from the fact that "the AP style guide says so". And finally, and again, do not refer to me in any way in any of your comments. That means not referring to me with the phrase "Jayjg standing out", or snidely referring to me as "our Albuquerque patriot", or in any other way whatsoever, either directly or indirectly. Comment only on article content, without any reference whatsoever to specific editors. You know here I'm headed next if I see any such comment from you, even a single one. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Hereafter I shall not acknowledge that Jayjg disagrees with this guidance or with the policy it implements; that leaves me no way to refer to the figment that this guideline violates a policy which was written to include it (and always has been).

Whether San Antonio should be moved is a question of fact, not of guidance. The AP (a reliable source, and one experienced in communicating in American) attests that it is primary usage among the United States; is it primary usage when referring to the whole world? If so, it should be at San Antonio, if not, at San Antonio, Texas. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that fails to answer two primary, outstanding questions:

1. What is unique about United States cities that their article city names must be mandated by a non-Wikipedian style guide, unlike the article names of all other places in the world?

2. Why should Wikipedia mandate that the non-unique city name "San Antonio" not require disambiguation, while the unique (and primary usage) city name "Albuquerque" require disambiguation?

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Both these questions have already been answered repeatedly:

1. The Associated Press is a reliable source; Wikipedia is not. Therefore titles of articles on places in the United States, in which even partial consistency in the use of short names is impossible, follow the reliable source as far as they can (Phoenix is ambiguous for us; not for the AP).
2. Similarly, this guideline does not require either form for San Antonio. Whether it resembles Phoenix or resembles San Francisco (also ambiguous, but held to be primary usage) is a question of fact. If it bothers you, go ask it - at Talk:San Antonio.

• We use Albuquerque, New Mexico partly for reader service; it helps to distinguish the city from Alburquerque and its offshoots. (Computers have no trouble telling the difference; but we are not writing for computers.)
• Primarily, however, it is for consistency among such classes as the municipalities of Bernalillo County and Category:County seats in New Mexico. Many readers and editors value this; some do not. We have seen no reason to set riddles why some are disambiguated and others are not.

Some would, and some did, say that this should require San Antonio, Texas and New York, New York. There is a problem of accuracy with New York, New York: strictly it means New York County, which is Manhattan; but, more importantly, there was no consensus for it. This is the best compromise attainable; it sets as few riddles as consensus will permit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

1. The AP may indeed be a reliable source, but what on earth has that to do with Wikipedia mandating following it? The two are unrelated concepts; we can use the AP as a source in an article of course, but that has no relevance to what our guidelines and policies are. Indeed, there are other, equally reliable style guides, which mandate different conventions for American place names, and for other place names, but we don't follow those style guides, or mandate their use. The question remains unanswered: "What is unique about United States cities that their article city names must be mandated by a non-Wikipedian style guide, unlike the article names of all other places in the world?"
2. How does this serve the reader? Please be more explicit. Also, why must we distinguish it from small towns spelled similarly, but not identically? Even if they were all spelled identically (and they're not), why on earth would one need to disambiguate this large city from those small towns?
3. In what way is this "the best compromise attainable"? A compromise between what and what? Why is this compromise best for Albuquerque, but a different compromise best for San Antonio?

I'm sorry to have to keep questioning, but the answers so far have really been more assertions than explanations of the unique and very odd guidance mandated in this one specific section of one MOS guideline. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• This convention has nothing to do with the Manual of Style - which, considering the nature of most of MOS, is just as well.
• All the questions here have been answered, repeatedly. It is not up to me whether the questioner will agree with, or even listen to, the answers.
  1. What is there different about American place names? The fact that most of them, in the short form, are ambiguous. It will not be obvious to the casual reader that many of them are, because small towns are often ambiguous with small towns in other states and countries. The AP was chosen because its purpose is substantially ours: to give a recognizable and unique title to every municipality in the United States. If you don't like their choices, write them; if you have a different external source to propose, make a suggestion.
  2. Why is Albuquerque, New Mexico a service to the reader? Because Albuquerque and Alburquerque look very much alike, and it will be easy to confuse them. (Calling the famous and ancient city of Alburquerque, Badajoz, the seat of a dukedom, a "small town" is presentism.)
  3. This is the best compromise attainable because it satisfies the most interests; it is a compromise between the mindless and confusing patchwork that would arise from giving every town that happened to be unique this year the short form and the consistent but perhaps unnecessary practice of requiring every city to have the long form.
• When a new question occurs to you, let us know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've provided responses, but, as of yet, few actual answers. Don't worry, though, it's not really a condemnation, as the current guideline isn't particularly defensible in any rational sense, so it basically does have to be defended by assertion and fiat instead. I'm curious, though, who is this "we" you refer to? Are multiple people using your account? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• • This probably doesn't qualify as a new question either (pardon me for not keeping up if that's the case), but which discussion exactly did the "the mindless and confusing patchwork" characterization came from? What's so "mindless" about expecting our readers to type in as little information as they can get away with into the search field? How does redirecting a reader from a (n unambiguous) title like "Foo" to "Foo, Some Bigger Division" complies with WP:ASTONISH? I'm familiar with the background of the issue, so no need to be overly specific in explanations, but I short blurb would be appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 3, 2010; 16:48 (UTC)

    You haven't asked any of these before, which is enough to deserve an answer, at least on those points not in the guideline.

    • The archives of WT:NC (settlements) have been somewhat disordered since that guideline was merged here. Searching on patchwork and Serge Issakov suggests that Archive 9 is one place the metaphor comes from.
    • If a name is indeed literally unique, typing in Albuque yields Albuquerque, New Mexico as the first search option; that's minimal typing and an assurance that you're going the right place. If it isn't, we need disambiguation anyway.
    • It's not astonishing to click on Albuquerque and arrive at Albuquerque, New Mexico; they're the same city. If anything is astonishing, it's typing Springfield, and winding up at Springfield (disambiguation), but that's unavoidable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

      I'm still searching through those archives, but thanks for the pointer. As far as astonishment goes, a redirect from "Springfield" to "Springfield (disambiguation)" is indeed unavoidable, but that is perfectly understandable. I have no problem with that. What is neither unavoidable nor understandable is a redirect from "Albuquerque" to "Albuquerque, New Mexico". You state that this is not astonishing because those are the same cities; I disagree. Upon landing in an article titled "Albuquerque, New Mexico", I immediately start to wonder whether I am at the right destination. What if I landed in a wrong article, and the place I need is in fact ""Albuquerque, SomewhereElse"? Having a disambiguator added after the place name is a signal to me that the place name is not unique. Only after having dug through the naming conventions can I be reasonably sure that the disambiguator is there simply because it's there for 99.99% of the US populated places, and not because of any ambiguities. That, perhaps, does not qualify as "astonishment", but it certainly does qualify as an inconvenience. Most readers aren't going to do that; most aren't even aware of the guidelines. What most are, however, aware of is that the majority of other Wikipedia articles are not pre-disambiguated, so their expectations are set accordingly. So, how exactly are we serving our readers by pre-disambiguating US place names? Yes, I'm aware of the argument that the "Place, State" convention is widespread in the media, but on what basis was it decided that our readers would be using the same convention when plugging a query into the search box?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 3, 2010; 19:21 (UTC)

That's another argument for a uniform and predictable form of names, so we have only one article for one place; then we make sure that we only have redirects when they are unquestionably correct. But in fact, anybody looking for Albuquerque, so spelled, is indeed looking for Albuquerque, New Mexico; there is no other. (The spelling of the widespread Spanish name Alburquerque was garbled by the conquering gringoes.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We make sure that we only have redirects when they are unquestionably correct—maintenance- and overhead-wise, how is it different from "we make sure we only have articles at undisambiguated titles when they are unquestionably correct"? The difference simply boils down to more confusion with the former approach. "Just why exactly was I redirected to a disambiguated title" is the question that immediately pops up in the head when someone ends up in "Albuquerque, New Mexico" after typing in "Albuquerque". As for Albuquerque itself, I realize it's not the best example to illustrate readers' doubts about whether the article they landed in is the one they are looking for, but there are mighty plenty of lesser known places with unique names, which are nevertheless disambiguated. "Am I in the right place" is a valid question to ask in such cases.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 3, 2010; 20:56 (UTC)

Readers must include the state (in some form) when looking for the capital of Illinois - it's ambiguous; Springfield, Illinois is the idiomatic way to do that. So for the others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not questioning how disambiguation needs to be done when it is necessary (I am perfectly fine with the comma convention); I am questioning why disambiguation is done (in whatever form) when it is unnecessary.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 3, 2010; 20:56 (UTC)

For consistency, per WP:AT. This is the same reason this page encourages treating all townships or oblasts or provinces in the same country in the same way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

But WP:AT has a number of goals, and the naming policy in general gives greater weight to uniqueness, primary use, and concision, than to consistency. Primary use and concision in particular are important because they are for the benefit of the reader, versus consistency, which is for the benefit of the article writer. What we do here is ultimately supposed to focus on readers, not us. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, naming policy in general gives greater weight to uniqueness, primary use, and concision, than to consistency is not quoted out of context. It is not quoted at all; and it is not true. It is true that consistency aids article writers (which aids readers); so do the others - but all five of the principles aid readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"...and it is not true". "It is true that consistency aids article writers (which aids readers)...". Seems to me your arguments aren't much better than the arguments you are trying to counter?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 4, 2010; 15:58 (UTC)

• WP:AT does not say the words quoted; search for them. Does WP:AT imply them? No, and the burden of proof rests on the editors who make the assertion.
• Does Ezhiki really mean to deny that if articles are easier to write, readers will have better articles? If so, he has much stronger grievances with the wiki editing program than with any guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That consistent article titles within a class of articles is less beneficial to a reader is a dubious presumption. Do you have some objective evidence to support such a claim or is it merely a selectively quoted snippet of policy taken out of context because it conveniently happens to support your opinion? older ≠ wiser 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If "[t]hat consistent article titles within a class of articles is less beneficial to a reader" is a "dubious presumption", I assume you have something to support the opposite statement? In other words, do you have some "objective evidence" to support a claim to the contrary? A "snippet of policy taken out of context..." would at least be a start, no? Did I really quote a snippet of policy out of context somewhere???—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 4, 2010; 17:35 (UTC)

I, for one, can support my opinion (which closely matches Jayjg's) with my own experience as a reader—every time I land in an article titled "Foo, Division", I immediately start to wonder whether what I need is in fact "Foo, SomeOtherDivision". From my interactions with other Wikipedia users, it is often their thought as well. But, of course, my personal experiences as a reader are petty and not at all helpful when trying to challenge a practice created for the benefit of the readers. Right?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 4, 2010; 15:58 (UTC)

If you want to go by subjective opinions, I as a reader am constantly baffled as to why some articles are titled the way they are. Articles on royalty and nobility is one example of a constant source of puzzlement. Articles on various biota are also seemingly inconsistently and often confusingly named. Without context, places in the U.S. are customarily referred to by City, State. This convention was not invented by Wikipedia and arguably reflects common usage. There are exceptions, and the AP list was adopted as guidance for identifying places that are commonly known as "city" only. older ≠ wiser 16:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not very interested in how the articles about royalty, nobility, and biota are titled; I'm no expert in those subjects, nor are the practices of titling the articles on those subjects being questioned here. Regarding the "common usage", how often do you think our readers type in "city, state" into the search box when looking for an article about a place they need? We are not AP, we have a different purpose, and the needs of our readers do not match the needs of the AP users 100%.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 4, 2010; 17:35 (UTC)

I'd expect it to be more the norm than the exception. older ≠ wiser 18:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)