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

names may appear in alphabetic order

I apologise if this has been discussed before; I found a discussion way back in WT:NCGN/Archive 1 of whether "alphabetic order" meant the languages should be ordered (Finnish: B, Swedish: A) or the terms should (Swedish: A, Finnish: B), and I see the former was decided upon. But if there's been a discussion of this, I missed it:

WP:NCGN says "Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages — i.e., (Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken; Estonian: Soome laht)." Am I missing something, or is that example of "alphabetic order" not in alphabetic order? Wouldn't alphabetical order be "Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken" (by language name; or "Swedish: Finska viken; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti" by term)? Should the example be reordered? Or if it is corrct as-is, can it be clarified? -sche (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've alphabetised the languages. -sche (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Additional Guideline

I recently found a curiosity when scanning through the activity feed that wasn't covered by this guideline. Apparently, in Andika County, Khuzestan Province, Iran, there are two villages named Hoseynabad. One is titled Hoseynabad (32°10′ N 49°21′ E), Andika, the other Hoseynabad (32°14′ N 49°25′ E), Andika. I propose an addition to the guideline that states:

Let me know what you think. -- Veggies (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This is such an uncommon situation it shouldn't require a convention. The coordinates are a horrible way to distinguish them. I suggest we look at how sources distinguish the places. Finally, especially since there appears to be almost nothing to say about either of these tiny villages, I recommend we have one article at Hoseynabad, Andika which covers both. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, admittedly, I didn't realize this and moved the article by mistake to a more sensible title, but was warned off by an admin. -- Veggies (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with B2C; these are lame titles, not corresponding to any of the usual guidelines, and we ought to find a better way. A single article is one way. Or delete and list both in a list of villages, since neither appears to be notable. Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Must be getting mighty cold down in Hades.  ;-) --Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Or perhaps we could say "...Northern Andika" for one and Southern for the other? (Or whatever the appropriate cardinal directions are.) AgnosticAphid talk 00:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC) I think any of the possibilities mentioned by TheCatalyst below as existing examples would be good. It's true that my prior suggestion wrongly implied the direction was part of the actual name. I don't think combining them into one article just because they have the same name makes very much sense. AgnosticAphid talk 02:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If reliable sources did that it would be fine, but we shouldn't invent titles that wrongly imply those are the respective names. That said, north/south as parenthetic qualifiers might be okay, but I still think covering both in one article makes the most sense. If they ever grow in significance, coverage in sources will probably take care of the problem for us, and we'll just follow suit. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

One article might be a problem... The Infobox settlement template seems to not work for two boxes on one page. What a pain. There is not even enough information in source (actually, there is virtually none) to establish which is the older/original. Maybe have one combined infobox? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• A single article is a terrible way to group articles like this. I doubt anyone would suggest putting two distinct settlements in a single article if they had different names; there's no reason to do it just because whoever named these places wasn't especially creative. (As for the notability issues, they're both recognized by the Iranian census, and since Wikipedia serves as a gazetteer this is generally considered to make them notable.) As for the original issue, I've seen at least three different ways to disambiguate these: coordinates, nearby large cities/geographic features (e.g. Warren (near Fellows), California and Warren (near Mojave), California, and proximity (e.g. Midway (north), Henry County, Tennessee and Midway (south), Henry County, Tennessee). They all have their advantages and disadvantages; coordinates are precise but ugly-looking, and the other two have a certain degree of subjectivity. I prefer proximity when it makes sense, but it sometimes doesn't, and these are odd enough cases that we don't really need a hard-and-fast guideline. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. Putting issues with notability aside, putting two distinct articles into one article is a bad direction. Lacking reliable sources for a difference of names, the something like Hoseynabad, Andika (northern) and Hoseynabad, Andika (southern) would seem like reasonable choices. The current names are horrid and any change would be an improvement. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Since both places are small, obscure, and located in the vicinity of one another, and the articles are very short, why not write about both in one article titled Hoseynabad, Andika? I know of several similar cases in Russia (none, however, have articles yet), and I don't see why bundling them together into one page would be a problem. Sure beats including coordinates or relative positions into the titles! Duh, didn't notice the same proposal above...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 24, 2013; 19:51 (UTC)
• I oppose having one article for two places, however, I agree that a listing for villages under the local township or subdistrict (whatever the local construct may be) is sufficient for some instances, but even there they still need to be distinguished. I have run up against this problem about half-a-dozen times in places like rural Burma, Ivory Coast and the Congo (both). I suspect that Germany and Austria would present such problems, except that they have had placename authority control for over a hundred years. I suspect that worldwide there may be up to fifty of such instances of two distinct places in the same very local domain. However, many more can be resolved with the subdistrict disambiguation. In many of the cases, while the gazetteers don't distinguish the two locales, the local people do. Sometimes it is "west" this, or "river" this, or "urban" this, "bazaar" this, etc.; some even attach a local prominent person's name to make the distinction. Ferreting this out and providing verification from a reliable source is difficult (if not impossible) in places that don't have tourist traffic that results in guidebooks. However, I would be happier using an unsubstantiated distinction in the title rather than the lat/long. Article text should contain information that indicates the existence of possible confusion and other methods of distinguishing such duplicates (or triplicates). --Bejnar (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• In this case, I support merging the two into one. The two locations are more than 5 km ands less than 10 km apart, so surely the locals have some way of distinguishing them, unless of course there is an error in the translation process. I would merge the two until somebody who is more knowledgable about the area sorts it out. Martinvl (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Two places of the same name so close to each other and so little information about either is an indication that we are overdoing it with the articles. In this case there are 261 and 71 inhabitants, respectively. I can understand why a database such as WikiData would want to have different entries for them, but the most reasonable approach for an encyclopedia is to have an article on the bigger place that also gives information on the smaller. That's in part because we can expect all references to either place (if there are any, given they are so insignificant) to be a priori ambiguous but to refer to the bigger place more likely than to the smaller. If we really need two separate articles, the disambiguation should be done the way the locals do. They know nothing about geographical coordinates. They use nearby geographical features. If we can't find out which they use, pick something reasonable from a map and carefully avoid any appearance that that's the standard way of disambiguating the two. Hans Adler 13:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi everyone. I propose that the common naming convention for places across the world be changed. It has already been done for Canadian places at WP:CAN, but for other countries, the common naming consensus should be adjusted to remove the state, province, island name from the end if possible, because it is an unnecessary disambiguation, unless it is not a primary term. At WP:USPLACE, it states only specific non-notable communities in a Manual of Style guidebook show have no state names at the ending of the title, such as Seattle. However, other destinations, like Tacoma, Washington, should be allowed to be renamed to Tacoma in this case, as it is the primary topic. In any case, I do not understand why Canada would obtain an exception to this rule. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as U.S. cities are concerned, there was a very extensive RFC within the last couple of months, with more than 50 participants (see above). It was closed as "maintain the status quo" - that is, add the state to all U.S. cities (Tacoma, Washington) except for named exceptions like Seattle. So the situation with U.S. cities is pretty well settled and I doubt if anyone wants to see it reopened so soon. For most other countries I believe it already follows the convention you are suggesting, namely, to add the state/province/départment/whatever only if needed for disambiguation. Maybe you could restate your request for comment to make that clearer, with non-U.S. examples of what you think needs to be changed. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. Brilliant. While this would of course affect USPLACE as did the previous RFC, it's quite a different proposal in at least two important respects:
  1. The previous RFC offered multiple choices and was complicated. This is much simpler: disambiguate simple place names only when necessary, period. Then, for each country, all the country-specific guidelines could be simplified to indicate only how places that require disambiguation should be disambiguated.
  2. The scope here is all countries, not just the US. The proposal is to apply the basic naming principle already used in the vast majority of our titles, disambiguate names in titles only when necessary, consistently across all place names, bringing them all in line much better with each other, other articles, WP:TITLE and WP:D.

  Though the transition may take time, the experience with countries like Canada and Australia indicates it's not problematic. The key is to remove the requirement to add the higher-level geographic name in the titles. Then, with time, the titles will gradually migrate towards disambiguate only when necessary.

  Some might complain that this makes the titles unpredictable. Again, this has proven not to be problematic in any country that already follows this convention, and the lack of predictability is actually a good thing. In every case where the title must be known, it should be actually checked (which, let's face it, is no big deal). Having a naming convention that may or may not call for disambiguation in each individual case makes it much more likely that people will do the checking that they should, thus avoiding a variety of problems (See User:Born2cycle/FAQ#What problems are caused by naming conventions that apply even when disambiguation is not required? and User:Born2cycle/FAQ#Reader_benefit). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I also like this idea. I don't see any particular reason for pre-emptive disambiguation. john k (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, brother. Above I said "So the situation with U.S. cities is pretty well settled and I doubt if anyone wants to see it reopened so soon." What I should have said was, nobody EXCEPT BORN2CYCLE wants to see it reopened so soon. My reaction, and the reaction I suspect of most here is, we should accept the decision above regarding USPLACE, which was based on a very extensive discussion very recently, and spare us from another million words of repetitious debate on the subject. Accept the fact that "disambiguate only when necessary" is already the policy for most of the world, accept the consensus after multiple discussions that USPLACE is an exception, WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. PLEASE. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose – if the proposal seeks to overturn the recent consensus at the USPLACE RfC, it's a non-starter. And B2C should be slapped with a WP:TROUT for going against his previous statement that he would accept a clear consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, urge speedy close. The previous RFC is still on this page, and OMGTOOMANYOPTIONS is not a valid reason for overturning consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed at length quite recently on this very page, with clear consensus to keep the current convention. Let's move on. Jonathunder (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support there's an element of common sense that says all cities should be treated similarly. Hot Stop (Talk) 05:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. We just had this discussion, and there was a consensus against this option there. You can look at that discussion if you want to see my reasons for opposing this idea. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  You expressed some concerns in that discussion, but weren't they all thoroughly addressed to your satisfaction? Was something missed? Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose -- been here, done this (see above). I would suggest the RfC be closed. Omnedon (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I don't understand why the opposers see this RfC primarily as an attempt to overturn USPLACE. Surely having "disambiguate only if necessary" as a formal general guideline is a sound idea; one which does not preclude it from co-existing with consensus-based exceptions such as USPLACE?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 10, 2013; 15:49 (UTC)

The intent to disrupt the consensus at USPLACE is clear in the proposal and in B2C's reaction. There is already a general principle of disambiguating only when necessary, and it is already frequently given too much weight, for example where it is works counter to recognizability and precision. Dicklyon (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Disrupt consensus?" Surely you're familiar that consensus can change, aren't you? Hot Stop (Talk) 16:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Diclyon, my reaction is also that it's a suggestion brilliant in its simplicity, even though I don't necessarily agree that implementing it automatically precludes any and all exceptions. With that in mind, do you think I'm being disruptive as well, just because I disagree with your point of view?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 10, 2013; 17:49 (UTC)

@Ezhiki, isn't "disambiguate only if necessary" ALREADY the guideline for most countries? My understanding is that it is, with USPLACE being a conscious exception. In other words, this RfC proposal is merely restating what is already the situation for most countries, while not allowing for the USPLACE exception. (I think the original proposer was laboring under a misunderstanding; they seemed to think "add the state" was the current rule for "places across the world", with Canada being an exception.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is for all practical intents and purposes, but this is exactly why it's a good idea to formally document it as a general, top-level guideline (and if, as you think, the original proposer indeed though that "add the state" is the current rule for places across the world, then it's even more important to document the real state of the matters, lest someone else gets confused). Not everything has to be about USPLACE!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 10, 2013; 17:46 (UTC)

• Support the general principle, Oppose a complex and potentially disruptive way of going about it. As MelanieN says above, this is pretty much de facto policy for most of the world although it is clear that USPLACE is an exception, and by and large supported to remain as one. All that's really needed is to amend the Disambiguation section so that it begins something like: "Ordinarily unique place names are not disambiguated by adding a state, region or other qualifier to the title. However, it is often the case that....". Ben MacDui 19:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Since Born2cycle has made clear that he regards this proposal as specifically about overturning USPLACE, I strongly oppose it. The USPLACE issue was decided just a few weeks ago and should not be reopened. I have proposed another wording for an RfC below, if anyone wants to comment on it; otherwise let's just let it die. --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  I said no such thing. The proposal is most certainly not "specifically about overturning USPLACE". In fact, the wording is quite clear that it is about "places across the world", which, last I checked, includes the US, but is not "specifically about" the US. It would affect all places that currently have unnecessarily disambiguated titles, including but not limited to many places in Japan as well as the US. This proposal is about bringing worldwide universal consistency in place naming. To see it as "specifically about" the US is missing the entire point! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the record, this RfC is invalid, as its effect appears to be solely to overturn WP:USPLACE. I've asked the proposer to return to clarify. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I wasn't aware of the previous RfC so didn't take part in it. I can't see any good reason why US cities should be an exception to this otherwise universal, sensible guideline. WaggersTALK 14:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. It seems there is nothing new to see here, folks. I can't say anyone is making any new arguments that weren't raised in the last RfC. While WP:CCC, it is beyond merely not productive to have an identical discussion so soon after the last one was closed. Surely there are better things for us to do than to sit around six times per year arguing about the same issue. While there are a few new contributors, overall this discussion seems to be mainly driven by B2C, who I submit should know better than to be so tenditious over something so minor. Plus, as far as I can tell, the Canada and Australia convention isn't different anyway, which you can see if you click through to the articles underlying the first two lists I came up with, [1] or [2], which I mentioned no less than twice in the last discussion without any response. So really this proposal is both poor form (the nominator should have reviewed past discussion before proposing it, and at least attempted to add something new) and based on a false premise. Let's all move along, shall we? AgnosticAphid talk 01:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support: It's basic WP:COMMONSENSE, and as a matter of policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, Wikipedia at large does not collectively care if some wikiproject decided to make up their own rules or how hard it was for that handful of people to come to a conclusion no one else got to participate in, in the project's little fiefdom. This is a really good case in point of why WP:LOCALCONSENSUS exists and why projects need to stop doing this, and then whining and crying when their blinkered, inconsistent solution conflicts with everyone else's expectations. It is ten times more important for our readers to get a consistent, non-confusing presentation of the information we provide them, than for a project to have things done their special way on the basis of nothing but WP:ILIKEIT ("our project prefers it this way") and WP:MERCY ("it took a lot of argument for our project to agree on this"). PS: "disambiguate only if necessary" is already policy at WP:AT, and has been part of WP:DAB for years before AT (then WP:NC) was elevated to a policy anyway. The US placenames project knew better. PPS: MelanieN, you need to understand that to eveyrone on Wikipedia but you, you are the one beating the dead horse and being tendentious; you are the one demanding a magically special exception, just for being American, to WP standard operating procedure. And I say that as an American. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 03:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I find this comment obnoxious for several reasons. First of all, there is no justification for personal attacks on MelanieN. Even if other people wrongly attacked B2C, rather than his comments, which I don't think is the case, that doesn't justify the tone of your comment. As you'd see if you cared to peruse the above discussion, Melanie is far from the only one that disagrees with B2C. Second of all, did you read the rest of the (admittedly thousands of words of) discussion? I think not. COMMONNAME is also a policy, I think. There was much discussion of how US readers are likely going to expect the state to be included based on how places are commonly written. There are also a lot of smaller towns with the same name in several states. While consistency is in the eye of the beholder, I guess, at least this way we dont have half of US towns with a state and half wihtout. Third, as I've noted three times now, but I guess you missed, the Canadian and Australian places also include the province in their article names. How is the consistent with your harsh comment about how this is a kind of dictatorship of US editors? I find the majority of your comments to be well-considered and insightful but this one missed the boat by a mile. AgnosticAphid talk 04:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, "everyone on Wikipedia but you"? Really? Why are you singling out one editor from this whole situation, and then speaking for literally everyone else against her? You've just thrown out the entire previous RfC which resulted in retention of the current convention, which (by the way) is by no means unique. During that RfC, the majority of commenting editors supported the current convention; are you suggesting that every single one was a member of some "US placenames project" conspiracy? You speak of common sense, but this isn't common sense. It's an arrogant assumption of bad faith. How does this advance the discussion? Omnedon (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish, thanks for crediting me with influence far beyond reality. (Am I notable yet?) But your math seems a little off. In this current discussion, nine ten (I missed one oppose added way at the bottom) people have formally voiced opposition to the proposal to eliminate USPLACE, seven in favor. I promise you those nine ten people were not all me under different names! In the previous (just archived) discussion, 58 people took part, which is a good big sample by Wikipedia standards; only 18 of them favored a "no unnecessary disambiguation" approach to the names of US cities, while 40 favored at least some exceptions; out of those, a plurality of 20 supported the current convention. Furthermore, none of these discussions took part in "some wikiproject" or were determined by a "handful" of "locals" in a "little fiefdom"; the discussions have been here, where titles are discussed, and with lengthy (the previous discussion ran to 200,000 bytes), policy-based arguments pro and con, by both Americans and non-Americans. As for your claim that I am the one "demanding some magical special exception": the current convention has been in place for many years, and it was worked out long before I became involved in the discussion. I defend it; so do many others. If you want to participate in this discussion, that's fine, but please don't do it by dismissing all previous discussion out of hand - or pretending that there's only a single person who disagrees with your perspective. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I stand as firmly against American exceptionalism as the next citizen of the world, but I think the provisions for US place names are pretty good. Projects for various countries should not locally determine different levels of precision in titles for their own patch of ground: just details reflecting different administrative divisions. For me as an Australian, it seems ridiculous to have an article called Oodnadatta, when most of the world has no idea that it is a town, let alone a town in the state of South Australia. Why not Oodnadatta, South Australia? A little long, but so the hell what? What benefit is that loss of precision to anyone? How, in a worldwide encyclopedia, can such sheer Oodnadattic or South Australian chauvinism gain such traction? It bespeaks a certain insecurity, perhaps. "Oodnadatta is so notable, and so famous, that everyone knows it's in South Australia. And if they don't, they should!" I would be in favour of extending the present US guidelines universally (mutatis mutandis). Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, perhaps even Wollongong. But Kandanga, or Bung Bong? Nah. Let them stay as redirects. No use to abbreviate them. No point. Not helpful. Serve the readers, not your pet algorithms and tight-fisted insistence on brevity über alles. (As for agreeing with Born2cycle, these things can occasionally happen. Not for me this time, though. ☺)
  Noetica^Tea? 10:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I would agree with you except for this: No reader is ever going to come across "Oodnadatta" without context. If it is another article it will almost certainly be obvious from the context that this is the name of a place. No-one is going to conduct a search on a random collection of letters that just happen to spell Oodnadatta, there will always be a context. Even if this were not so, one click would reveal to the reader just exactly what Oodnadatta is. If for some reason a wikilink in a given context requires amplification for clarity, then the link can be made using the form [[Oodnadatta|Oodnadatta, South Australia]]. That would address any potential confusion for readers. It does not require everyone to immediately recognise what an article is about just from its title. In fact policy states that the title should be that which anyone familiar with the topic would commonly call it. Don't know what Oodnadatta is? No problem, you're not familiar with it, so your view does not count when choosing the article title. I am sure that there are thousands, possibly millions, of articles that I would have no idea what they are about from their titles. Is this a problem? No, because if I am interested I can click on the link and have my ignorance resolved, at least to some extent, and certainly to an extent far beyond what any addition of a word or two to the title would make. BTW, I have chosen Oodnadatta as an example because it was used in the post above and it is a non-US example, however, the same logic applies to US place names and as I have stated elsewhere, I remain unimpressed by the arguments for the current US place name policy which is just another form of special pleading with no supporting arguments that don't essentially reduce to US exceptionalism. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And in the cases where there is context, it might imply that this is a city somewhere. What is wrong with providing information for the reader so that they don't look for it? How does providing more information hurt the readers? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Because if the location of Oodnadatta was at all important within the context it is being used it will be explicit in context. In other words, if where it was was important it might say something like "the South Australian town of Oodnadatta" of even [[Oodnadatta|Oodnadatta, South Australia]], as I already stated above. Otherwise should we include additional information every time we use a wikilinked term that has other possible uses than the one intended? No, we do not. If people are not sure what is meant within a given context they can follow the link. This works for everything else in Wikipedia, literally millions of articles. There is no rational reason to push this exception: there is nothing special about place names that requires this dumbing down of the encyclopaedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

" Why not Oodnadatta, South Australia?" Serious question: How does adding "South Australia" to the title indicate to a reader unfamiliar with the topic that Oodnadatta is a town? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Nick: I disagree. People come across words and phrases in all sorts of contexts, or none at all. Could be a crossword puzzle, or the title of a chapter where the term is not defined till much later (or the full text is not available, online). Or someone just asks them: "Who or what is an Oodnadatta?" Sometimes it is enough to learn that it is a place of some kind, and not a singer from the 1930s, not an Aboriginal throwing stick, not a style of rock art, and so on. Added precision that uses a comma tells us that, even if what comes after the comma means nothing to us. For that reason, even Alagoda, Central Province is better than Alagoda (which could for all we know be a variant of standard batik, or a form of the Renaissance sonnet used in Catalonia). So readers may not even have to do that click, and load a whole article they don't need – just because they are now informed. It's geographical! As for your other observations, I think it's not so simple. The nature of recognisability (which in fact you mis-cite WP:TITLE concerning) is hotly contested at WT:TITLE (Born2cycle has been very active there, limiting its scope); and it is after all just one factor among several. You give no reason against my reasoning (and Vegaswikian's, and lots of other people's) for supplying a handy hint to the general topic of the article. In the case of geographical articles, that's easy, natural, helpful, and rational. Compare Britannica's practice; and consider the crucial question of how WP articles turn up in Google searches.

Vegaswikian: Excellent questions! Serve the readers (the core policy objective enshrined at WP:TITLE), not editors – nor the pet aversion that some have to useful precision, nor their insistence on the shortest possible title regardless of usefulness and the real world.

Mattinbgn: see my answers above. At least the reader then knows that Oodnadatta is something geographical! And indeed, most likely a town and not a city that might more reasonably be exempt from such added precision.

Noetica^Tea? 04:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Noetica firstly, the convention used in Britannica arose when it was a paper based encyclopaedia. In those circumstances it made sense. On a purely electronic encyclopedia, such conventions need not apply and we are free to make the most intelligent use of the resource. I fail to see how giving the reader the option to make a single click if the meaning of a word is unknown or not obvious to him or her is such an imposition - that is exactly what Wikilinking is for after all! If we provide a "handy hint" for every term that we use in every article then the encyclopaedia would soon become unreadable. All this "added information" distracts from whatever the subject is about and, as I have already said twice in this discussion, if in a given context some guidance is needed about what a particular term is about then providing alternate text to the link will satisfy that need. We don't need to provide it every time we use the term. What applies for every other article in Wikipedia without any problems can surely apply to geographical subjects. You have provided absolutely no compelling reason why geography is any different to, say, physics, or fish, or patchwork quilting so that we need to treat it differently. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Nick, I invited you to compare Britannica's practice. Did you do so? What they have online is quite different from what they had in print. In a typical print edition (15th, 1988) there is the entry "Mittenwald". But go to www.britannica.com and type in "mittenwald" slowly. By the time you get to "mitte", "Mittenwald (Germany)" appears among the prompts. That's where you need it! (Not at the article; that's arranged differently. By the time you get there, you have been informed that Mittenwald is in Germany so you don't need it in the heading.) Try also a raw unformatted Google search on mittenwald britannica; see the helpful precision there also. Try the same on Google with oodnadatta britannica; and again, type just "ood" at www.britannica.com, and see the prompt "Oodnadatta (South Australia, Australia)". Now that's how to help your readers! But type even the whole string "oodnadatta" in the WP search box (top right of the screen), and you still aren't told where or what kind of a thing it is. There are only indirect clues, and in many cases even they would be absent. Google rescues Wikipedia this time: a simple Google search on oodnadatta gets our article at the very top; but without "South Australia" highlighted, and often there is no such luck. Contrast, by the way, very many small Australian towns, like Mittagong. Type just "mitta" in the WP search box, and the prompt "Mittagong, New South Wales" comes up as first prompt. And try the corresponding one-word Google search. Inconsistent! Why? Because none of this is thought through properly on Wikipedia (unlike Britannica), and politics works against precision. And against the standard practices that are elsewhere taken for granted, to help readers find what they want.

Why are geographical entities more important, capable of unique special treatment with additions after a comma? Well, that reflects the structure of the world (literally) and our deep-rooted expectations. For the same reason, Britannica does not have to produce a large-format glossy guide to physics, fish, or patchwork quilting. (It does though, except in the case of patchwork quilting.) But it is absolutely de rigueur for it to produce a big, world-class, glossy atlas.

So much is taken for granted in setting up policy and guidelines for titles on Wikipedia. Unlike WP:MOS, which sifts through dozens of "reliable sources" to derive guidelines by consensual process. Practically all of WP:TITLE, WP:DAB, and the suite of naming conventions are tossed around on a sea of whim and scarcely informed opinion and unshakable political conviction, often favouring "conciseness" at any price. Hardly ever counting the cost, in fact; or bothering to measure it. Where are the "reliable sources" for all this? That's a serious question, and overdue for an answer.

Noetica^Tea? 09:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Use the same rules that apply without problem for the rest of Wikipedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support While USPLACE stands outside the guidelines that apply uniformly across the encyclopedia, this issue will continue to raise its head. The whole concept is entirely unnecessary and if the proposal was reversed (i.e. US places were at their plain name expect where disambiguation was required, and someone proposed to append the state name to every US place name) it wouldn't pass the common sense test. This convention may have had some use in Wikipedia's infancy but it has no value now. It should go. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, for the record. Rationale for the current convention was thoroughly discussed in the very recent preceding RfC, which concluded to maintain it. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I had thought this would die a quick death since it comes so soon after the earlier discussion. older ≠ wiser 15:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support This rule is simple and Wikipedia-wide. I don't see the problem of using the shortest common name as the article title. People who oppose seem to overstate the effect this guideline change will do. Mostly nothing will change since many U.S. place names are ambiguous. I don't see a problem with this principle. --Polaron | Talk 19:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The implementation of a single Wikipedia-wide rule for titling would allow policy to be explained simply and easily, especially for the benefit of new editors. If you look at Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, or any other professionally produced reference work, they don't put disambiguators in article titles. If you don't believe "Oodnadatta" is given in Britannica without a disambiguator, click here. We have software issues that require us to use disambiguators when there is a titling conflict, but otherwise they are unnecessary. Kauffner (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Flagrantly misleading, Kauffner. No one here has denied that "Oodnadatta" – or "Mittenwald", discussed above – is "given in Britannica without a disambiguator". I wrote (underlining now added):

But go to www.britannica.com and type in "mittenwald" slowly. By the time you get to "mitte", "Mittenwald (Germany)" appears among the prompts. That's where you need it! (Not at the article; that's arranged differently. By the time you get there, you have been informed that Mittenwald is in Germany so you don't need it in the heading.) Try also a raw unformatted Google search on mittenwald britannica; see the helpful precision there also.

It is uncivil of you to attribute assertions to those who have not made them. Here, no one has made them. Once again, for the record: Britannica returns a full-precision title on a Google search, or on an internal search at its website. Once you get to the article (chosen because of that precision), only a short title is needed. And that's what you then get. With Wikipedia, on the other hand, the title at the article itself is what Google reports, and what the WP search box prompts the reader with. So sufficient precision in actual titles at the article page is crucial, for efficiently serving the needs of a worldwide readership.

Noetica^Tea? 03:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Maintain status quo. --Bejnar (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose It's like deja-vu all over again. The reason why state names should be part of U.S. article names is that it is very common in the U.S. to consider the name of the state to be an intergral part of the place name much as a person's surname is an integral part of their name. In cases where context and familiarity make it so, the state name is sometimes dropped. However, in most situations, the name of the state is an integral part of the name of the place, and not a "disambiguator" used only to make distinctions where necessary. I understand people wish this weren't so, but it is, so Wikipedia should reflect how the world actually is, not how some people wish it were. I'm not particularly swayed by needing site-wide consistency on this, I favor accuracy over consistency, and including the state name in the U.S. place name more accurately reflects real world usage. Any guidance that ignores this does not make Wikipedia better. I'm willing to concede in places that other reliable sources (c.f. the AP style guide) explicitly excludes the state names, but insofar as reliable sources prefer the name to include the state, we should as well. --Jayron32 05:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The theory that reliable sources include a comma-state is testable, you know. Is it "Nashville" or "Nashville, Tennessee"? See here. Kauffner (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily. The first time Bill Clinton is mentioned in a work, he may be named as his full name, but further mentions in the same work are likely to merely call him "Clinton". That doesn't mean that the "Bill" part is a disambiguator, and not a valid part of his name. There's nothing about your ngrams search which invalidates the idea that the full, proper name of a U.S. place usually includes the state anymore than the fact that most times Bill Clinton's name is mentioned will omit his first name once context is established would make his first name superfluous for naming a Wikipedia article about him. --Jayron32 06:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Kauffner, that ngram evidence is worse than useless. Because the ngrams use comma as a separator, tested strings cannot contain a comma. And if a string omits an expected comma (as your "Nashville Tennessee" does), it will not reliably retrieve instances of "Nashville, Tennessee": only of the unlikely string "Nashville Tennessee". These limitations are explained; follow the "about" link at the bottom of the ngram screen. Please strike out your assertion. Noetica^Tea? 07:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Golly, is someone having trouble with the ngram? Because I'm here to help. No, the comma issue does not have any effect on the result. Compare here and here. Kauffner (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Um ... Google ngrams, Kauffner. Not straight Google searches. Read the last few posts in this exchange, and think. Slowly this time. And note anyway, something I have had to point out to you before: a string that contains "xxx" has fewer genuine occurrences than "xxx" alone. It cannot have more, as a matter of logical necessity. Finally, once again also: straight Google searches are indifferent to the presence of commas; and numbers at the top are Google's exceedingly unreliable estimates. Got all that? I'm here to help. Noetica^Tea? 09:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• If the ngram doesn't pickup the version of the phrase with commas, then there is something goofy going on with Washington DC and Paris Texas. Kauffner (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• The further problem is that even if Ngrams worked perfectly, and could return a perfectly reliable result for the relative usages of Nashville versus Nashville, Tennessee, it would NOT provide the guidance we need for naming Wikipedia articles because the exact same analysis would return a greater number of hits for the name "Clinton" in referring to the U.S. President over "Bill Clinton", and yet "Bill" is not an optional disambiguator in that case, anymore than "Tennessee" is. Context matters, and a raw Ngrams search, even one that works perfectly, doesn't allow for the context and nuance necessary to make judgements on. As Melanie notes below, the plain statements made by other well-respected style guidelines, however, DO have something relevent to add to this concept. --Jayron32 15:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• @Kauffner, rather than citing a sample of who-knows-what random Google hits, the community has chosen to follow an ACTUAL Reliable Source, namely the Associated Press guideline, which is followed by virtually all newspapers (i.e. Reliable Sources) in the U.S. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• You must know better than this. An RS for a city name is another encyclopedia, an atlas, or a reference work on cities. AP style was adopted as a pragmatic compromise. There is no logical connection between newspaper datelines and encyclopedia article titles. A newspaper reader selects a story based on the headline, so the writer must not assume any specific interest in the city. An encyclopedia reader got to city article by typing in the name of the city or otherwise expressing an interest in it. Kauffner (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose IMHO, unnecessary disambiguation as a concept/criteria is a subjective can of worms that causes more contentious discussion than is warranted. What appears unnecessary to one reader may indeed be necessary for another. And, the absence of necessary disambiguation is an impediment to the reader whereas the presence of unnecessary disambiguation does not impede readers in any fashion. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This argument obfuscates the issue. WP:D is quite clear: the need for disambiguation is necessary "when [a given term] refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles"; otherwise, including when one those topics is determined to be the primary topic for that term, disambiguation is unnecessary. The can of worms is opened when this clear and objective guidance is ignored. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: You Americans can do what you like in you own country, but please do not try to force it onto the rest of the world. Firstly, when discussing disambiguation, one should think of each US state as being equivalent to a European country - California (population 38 million) has a population that is almost identical to that of Poland and nore than twice that of the Netherlands making disambiguation the American way appropriate for the US, but not neccessarily for elsewhere. Furthermore, many European cities are already disambiguated - Kingston upon Hull, Kingston upon Thames, Aix-en-Provence and Aix-les-Bains, Baden-Baden and Baden-Württemberg for example. There is no need to put an American-style disambiguation on top of a European-style disambiguation. Martinvl (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think you might have misunderstood the proposal. The proposal would not force disambiguation on the titles of any articles. To the contrary, it would remove disambiguation from the titles of articles that don't require disambiguation. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • To further clarify, nobody has suggested that the "city, state" format used for US cities should be applied anywhere else in the world. I completely agree with you that it should apply only to cities in the US, as explained here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support One of the core components of WP:CRITERIA is consistency with similar articles. With this policy in mind, I support efforts to bring consistency to place names. --BDD (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I understand this is primarily about making American cities conform to global consensus. Local consensus contradicting global consensus is necessary sometimes but should be discouraged in general. However, in this case there isn't really a contradiction. In the US it seems to be general practice to add the state in non-local contexts, whether required for disambiguation or not. An encyclopedia entry is such a non-local context, and therefore according to WP:COMMONNAME, the format "place, state" is the correct one for most locations in the US. Therefore the local consensus for US places correctly reflects global consensus, even though in global discussions to see things otherwise. It follows that this proposal might lead to chaos and to an incorrect application of the global consensus to the US situation. (This might also apply to Australia and possibly India, but the other English-speaking countries are two small for this kind of disambiguation to occur, and we don't care much about how disambiguation works in other languages.) Consequently, for pragmatic reasons this proposal must be rejected, at least for now. Hans Adler 13:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Hans, also past practice suggests that this set-up is in conformance with common name. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - It makes sense to have consistent naming guideline for all places; the US does not need to be an exception. Additionally, changing this guideline would allow for WP:COMMONSENSE moves like Nashville, Tennessee → Nashville. Cheers, Rai•me 19:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Rolling Summary of !votes

While looking at the support/oppose !vote count summary is no substitute for reading, evaluating and weighing the arguments associated with each !vote, it can give us an idea of whether the status quo or proposal to change has consensus support.

I will add that, in general, when a long-standing status quo in a given situation repeatedly fails to garner consensus support, even though a proposal to change may even appear to have less support in terms of !vote counting, because of the natural human bias towards opposing change, if the proposal is well supported by policy and conventions, and opposed mostly by WP:JDLI arguments, the change is likely to gain support and even strong consensus support if it is adopted. I urge the closing admin to take this under advisement when evaluating the comments and arguments above, especially in the context of how long the exceptions to disambiguate only when necessary in place names have been controversial.

The lists below are intended to be updated accordingly, by anyone as appropriate, as more participate. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Support:

1. TBrandley (proposer)
2. Born2cycle
3. Hot Stop
4. Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
5. WaggersTALK
6. SMcCandlish
7. Nick Thorne
8. Mattinbgn
9. Polaron
10. Kauffner
11. BDD
12. Raime

Oppose:

1. Dicklyon
2. SarekOfVulcan
3. TheCatalyst31
4. Omnedon
5. MelanieN
6. Ben MacDui
7. Arthur Rubin
8. AgnosticAphid
9. Noetica
10. Huwmanbeing
11. Bkonrad (older≠wiser)
12. Bejnar
13. Jayron32
14. Mike Cline
15. Martinvl
16. Hans Adler
17. Alanscottwalker
18. Sbmeirow

More discussion

You are entirely incorrect, B2C, in stating that the change is mostly opposed by JDLI arguments. Once again you brush aside the many reasoned arguments made for keeping the current convention. You also seem to be suggesting that the change should be made even though the majority oppose it, so that the change can then gain support. The change cannot be made without a consensus to do so, and that does not exist. Omnedon (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not say the change is mostly opposed by JDLI arguments. Though it is my opinion that that is the case. That is a judgment call each of must make individually, and that includes the closing admin, of course. My point is that if the closer agrees that is the case, and the support, though perhaps a bit thinner in numbers, is recognized to be mostly based in policy, that that should be given due consideration.

I remind you that consensus is not determined by counting !votes, but by evaluating the strength of the arguments presented. So, yes, sometimes consensus is contrary to the majority of those participating in a given discussion. It's rare, but I do believe that this is one of those situations. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"I did not say the change is mostly opposed by JDLI arguments. " --Born2cycle, above

"...if the proposal is well supported by policy and conventions, and opposed mostly by WP:JDLI arguments, ..." --Born2cycle, above

And I remind you that this was thoroughly hashed out a couple of months ago, and closed. There is no consensus to make this change. Omnedon (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely you realize that pointing out there was "no consensus" "a couple of months ago" regarding one proposal is not a strong argument for opposing a related but different proposal today? I should also point out that of the 11 opposing here so far, 9 (Dicklyon, SarekOfVulcan, TheCatalyst31, Omnedon, MelanieN, Arthur Rubin, AgnosticAphid, Huwmanbeing, Bkonrad) have offered nothing other than pointing out the previous RfC.

On the other hand, all of the nine supporters so far have given reasons based in policy and/or convention (e.g disambiguate only if necessary) as basis for their positions. The proposer and I have both given extensive arguments supporting the proposal, and no one opposing has addressed any of the points made, much less refuted these arguments.

If it was closed today, I don't see how an evaluation of the arguments could result in anything other than finding consensus favoring the proposal. Do you? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"have offered nothing other than pointing out the previous RfC." You're darn right we have chosen not to rehash the 200,000-byte argument that was just closed with a 2-to-1 opinion AGAINST your disambiguate-only-when-necessary policy. You are absolutely right we have chosen not to respond once again to your repetitious arguments, having responded at great length with policy-supported arguments just last month. There really ought to be a statute of limitations saying that a thoroughly-discussed RfC proposal should not come before the community again until after the passage of some reasonable amount of time - say 6 months, or a year. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

MelanieN: Quite so. Per WP:CONSENSUS: "The continued, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided... Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process."

Perfect description of what is going on here. Chapter and verse. Achieving a new benchmark in this subsection, where it is being proposed that the current discussion should be closed against consensus because... well, just because. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C: I (and others) stipulated that good reasons were already elaborated on at length in the previous RfC. To now say that those reasons don't exist or carry no weight merely because they weren't explicitly rehashed in this RfC is disingenuous. Please see last month's archive. ╠╣uw [talk] 01:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing what made you decide there was supposedly "no consensus" the last time. The closure says no such thing. Two-thirds of participants supported either the status quo or a proposal very similar to it. It seems to me that there was a consensus to maintain the status quo, which is quite different. AgnosticAphid talk 02:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C: You're again asserting that support for current convention lacks strength and is largely mere JDLI. You've made it loudly and abundantly clear that that's your view (and that you feel the "little minds"[3] who favor the current convention will "finally realize how silly their position is"[4]), but such a view dismissively ignores the many clear rationales for the current convention that have been repeatedly articulated by many editors. Though you're obviously welcome to your views, please try to understand that there is indeed validity in positions other than your own.

As regards admins, I suspect it's unlikely that they would close an RfC with a recommendation to overturn an existing, long-standing convention when no consensus (nor even a majority) favor making such a change – and particularly unlikely since many sound reasons for retaining the convention have indeed been repeatedly explained by many editors (your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding). Further, please note that Wikipedia requires an even higher than normal level of consensus be reached when considering changing existing guidelines, on the understanding that stability in such matters is important to the community.

Finally, it seems frankly bizarre to suggest that overturning an existing, long-standing convention in favor of one that most involved editors do not support will be "likely to gain support and even strong consensus support if it is adopted". Even if that were so (and judging from this forum I see no reason to assume it would be), that's not how Wikipedia normally operates.

In short, there is no consensus to change the current convention, nor judging from multiple RfCs are we even close it to it. That being the case, further pursuit at this time risks the pitfall of tendentiousness, and denying that any refutations of your preferred alternative have been made (when in fact they've been made repeatedly) is inappropriate, inconsiderate, and unconstructive. I recommend letting it go and taking a breather. ╠╣uw [talk] 01:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C, you claim, "The proposer and I have both given extensive arguments supporting the proposal." The proposer, TBrandley, wrote a few sentences to request comment and left, never to be seen again thus far. So that is false. As for what you've said, it's been the same stuff as last time.

You claim that 9 of the 11 opposers have offered nothing than pointing out the previous RfC. There was more discussion about the issues by several of those editors (in the sections below that you inappropriately hatted). So that is false. However, as Melanie rightly points out, the issues were discussed extensively in the previous RfC, and nothing new has been brought by supporters, so opposers may not wish to go through it all again so soon.

You claim, "all of the nine supporters so far have given reasons based in policy and/or convention". So, let's look at some of those. Like, "there's an element of common sense that says all cities should be treated similarly" and "I can't see any good reason why US cities should be an exception to this otherwise universal, sensible guideline", and no other arguments from those two editors, just as examples. So that is false.

The previous recent RfC closed with no consensus to change. Accept it. Move on. Stop filibustering, assuming bad faith, and distorting the facts, please. It is not helpful to keep hammering away at the same subject over and over and over and over, claiming that the opposers have given no good reasons. They have, repeatedly. Omnedon (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the name of the state an integral part of the US place name?

Thank you to Jayron32 (talk · contribs) for supporting his oppose !vote above with an actual relevant argument. Jayron writes:

it is very common in the U.S. to consider the name of the state to be an intergral part of the place name much as a person's surname is an integral part of their name.

While it is true that someone from Nashville is likely to answer the question "Where are you from?" with "Nashville, Tennessee", that's not a very good question to ask to ascertain the name of the city one is from. The better, more direct, question, of course, is: "What is the name of the city you are from?" Try it. Ask people that question. What you'll get is answers of the form, "Nashville", without adding the state.

Further, in comparing this situation to names for people (the "Bill Clinton" example is often used), it must be pointed out that both "Bill" and "Clinton" are used as names of the same person. But nobody refers to Nashville as Tennessee; Tennessee (alone) is not the name of the city in any context, while Clinton is the name of the person in many contexts. So these are really incomparable examples.

The name of a city is the name of the city. Yes, for context when necessary we often add the state, but that doesn't make it part of the name, much less an integral part of the name. In the case of "Nashville, Tennessee", Tennessee is of course simply the name of the state that the city named Nashville is in.

In fact, to add the state to the article's title for any reason other than necessary disambiguation conveys incorrect information: that the state is part of the name of subject of that article. Why deliberately and unnecessarily misinform our readers like this? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"The name of a city is the name of the city." I suppose that is true, just as it is true that 1 equals 1. But to suggest that including the state in a city's article title will deliberately misinform the readers is once again blatant assumption of bad faith. Noetica has made a strong argument that including this helps the reader. It certainly does not misinform the reader in any way. Omnedon (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course it misinforms. When the Nashville, Tennessee title causes anyone to think that Tennessee is part of the name of Nashville, that person is misinformed about what the name of Nashville is.

I don't think there is any bad faith here. People are just not realizing this effect, as is made evident by claims that the state is integral to the name of the city. That's just plainly incorrect.

Whether readers benefit from having the state in the title is a separate question not relevant to the subject of this subsection. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Updated. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't misinform. It is simply the informative, useful title of the article. As for bad faith, you don't think an accusation of deliberately (your words) misinforming the reader is an attribution of bad faith? It is. If you don't mean that, then please choose your words more carefully. Omnedon (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Simply asserting that including the state in the article's title is "useful" is not even addressing, much less refuting, the argument that the state is not part of the name of that article's topic.

Once one realizes that the state is not part of the name of the city, then any misinforming in terms of suggesting the state is part of the name of the city that stems from having it unnecessarily in the title is deliberate. Now, one might argue that that misinformation is relatively minor compared to some claimed "useful" benefit of having the state in the title, but it's still misinformation regarding the name of the city, and deliberate. That doesn't mean bad faith, necessarily. It could be perceived as a good faith trade-off. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nashville stands alone in New York Times datelines even though it is no where near New York. So those who think datelines are a valid source should be sympathetic to giving this city a concise title. If a city is very well-known, disambiguation is patronizing. What people say in conversation doesn't necessarily correspond to the written language. If we did a study, we might find that the most common answer people from Nashville give is something like, "I'm from, uh, Nashville in, ah, Tennessee." Kauffner (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Which is why the AP guidelines are used for a reasonable list of exceptions when dealing with large cities. --Jayron32 07:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • @Kauffner, I do wish you would read the previous discussion. One of the options offered at that discussion was to use the New York Times list of exceptions instead of the AP list (thus adding Nashville to the exceptions), but that option got only two !votes. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C: To argue against City, State on the grounds that including the state "misleads" and "misinforms" readers is really reaching.

For one thing, it seemingly assumes that readers use Wikipedia article titles specifically to determine whether the formal name of a community is either City or City, State, but I see nothing to suggest that's how readers operate or indeed that they would even care about the intricacies of what we're presently debating.

For another, I see nothing to suggest that "article title" is synonymous with "name"; in fact, a lead sentence in WP:TITLE says, "the title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic." Further, it says that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." A quick survey of the sources cited in articles for cities in my area shows City, State used very frequently, in reliable sources ranging from Census resources[5][6] to the communities' own websites[7][8]... which of course also calls into question the very suggestion that the state is not part of the city's name. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing I have argued assumes that readers use WP article titles to determined formal or "official" names. It does assume readers use titles to determine the most commonly used name for the respective topics; I, for one, certainly do.

If you don't see that WP:COMMONNAME indicates that titles should reflect names when reasonably possible, I don't know how to help you, except to suggest that you click repeatedly on SPECIAL:RANDOM to see how that convention is practically universal on WP, especially if you ignore titles of articles about topics that don't have names (and thus have descriptive titles).

WP:TITLE says "it prefers the name that is most frequently used". While city, state may be frequently used to refer to a given state, it's not a name of the city, so that's irrelevant. Though specifying the state name after the city name, separated by a comma, is common practice (no one denies this), the names of the city and the state are never-the-less distinct. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can be suggesting using Wikipedia article titles themselves as a reliable means of determining the most commonly used name of a topic, particularly when it comes to geographic articles. For one thing, the very naming convention being proposed here (exceptionless minimum disambiguation, which you favor) means that many US placename articles would be titled Place and many others would be titled Place, State, with the choice between them determined strictly by ambiguity rather than usage. I also see nothing to suggest that average readers normally use titles for that purpose, though of course you're welcome to your opinion.

As for WP:COMMONNAME, it says that the most common name for a subject, as determined by usage in reliable sources, is often used as a title -- and as noted above, reliable sources frequently use City, State. You recognize that but argue that that's "not a name of the city". Again, you're welcome to that opinion, but I'd caution against favoring what one thinks reliable sources might mean over what those reliable sources actually present. Note too that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA say editors should also consider the goals of recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency, and may find it necessary to favor some over others. For example, one can favor consistency: WP:TITLE says that an ideal article title "resembles titles for similar articles" -- something a consistent application of City, State achieves but which exceptionless minimum disambiguation does not. ╠╣uw [talk] 03:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Because we tend to use the most commonly used name of a topic as the title of the article about that topic in WP, looking at the WP article title of a given topic is a remarkably reliable way to ascertain the most commonly used name of that topic. If you don't believe me, I again suggest you repeatedly click on SPECIAL:RANDOM and, ignoring titles of articles about nameless topics (which have descriptive titles), see how frequently the title reflects the most commonly used name of that topic (including when disambiguated by necessity), and how often it doesn't (including when unnecessarily disambiguated). If you do this and you're still not convinced, please let me know, because I'm really curious how this can be. Every time I do this experiment the incidence of common name reflection (including necessary disambiguation but not unnecessary disambiguations) is well above 90% (also noting that the scientific name of a plant is its most common name, by definition accepted by consensus at WP:NC(flora)).

The rest is being covered in our discussion at #Which is more concise? "City" or "City, State"?, so I won't repeat here. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's circular. You seem to be suggesting that WP is somehow a reliable source on common names because common names are often used. But you can't define a word by using the word itself in the definition. We use reliable sources to determine common name, and "City, State" is used by reliable sources. Omnedon (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If you think I'm suggesting WP editors use WP as a RS for making WP editorial decisions you're entirely missing the point. That said, one way to determine general consensus on WP is to look at common practice on WP. For example, if one wonders how prevalent the use of common name for titles is on WP, and thus how well it is supported by consensus, you can use the experiment I suggest above.

Why do you guys keep repeating the undisputed fact that RS commonly use city, state? RS also commonly use just city. The two facts cancel each other in terms of determining which form is preferred. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• The name of the state is not an integral part of a U.S. city name, but it comes pretty close to being an integral part of the city's identity. Cities in the United States are chartered/authorized by the government of the state in which they are located. Cities can't operate unless their state has authorized them to do so -- they aren't authorized by the national government (Washington, DC, is an exception) and they can't charter themselves. One indication of this is that city seals often include the name of the state; for examples of this, see the seals in the infoboxes for New Rochelle, New York ("City of New Rochelle, N.Y."), Oak Ridge, Tennessee ("Seal of the City of Oak Ridge" on the top of the circle and "Tennessee" on the bottom), Memphis, Tennessee ("Memphis" "Shelby County" "Tennessee"), Chattanooga, Tennessee ("Chattanooga, Tennessee Corporate Seal"), and East Haven, Connecticut ("Town of East Haven, Connecticut"). --Orlady (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Do readers benefit from having state in the title?

It has been argued that having state in the title benefits readers. For example:

it seems ridiculous to have an article called Oodnadatta, when most of the world has no idea that it is a town, let alone a town in the state of South Australia. Why not Oodnadatta, South Australia? A little long, but so the hell what? What benefit is that loss of precision to anyone? How, in a worldwide encyclopedia, can such sheer Oodnadattic or South Australian chauvinism gain such traction? It bespeaks a certain insecurity, perhaps. "Oodnadatta is so notable, and so famous, that everyone knows it's in South Australia. And if they don't, they should!"

The argument completely and conveniently ignores the fact that titles are supposed to be recognizable to those familiar with the article's topic, not necessarily to those who are unfamiliar with the topic. There is absolutely no implication of expected widespread notability of the name in the reasons for doing this.

I think we can all agree that "most of the world has no idea that [Oodnadatta] is a town, let alone a town in the state of South Australia." What's entirely unclear, at least to me, is why that undisputed fact is a reason to put "South Australia" in the title of the article. I mean, most of the world also has no idea that (clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM a few times) Tony Henderson is former Newcastle footballer, that Theispas was the Araratian weather-god, that Pârâul Arsurilor is a Romanian river, or that Take Me to Town is a 1953 film, but these facts are not reasons to add that respective information to each of these article titles. Why? Because we understand that people seeing these titles are either looking for them (and thus already have an understanding of what they are), or are seeing them in a context where what they are is clear from that context (like a link on a dab page or in another article). The only exception to this is possibly in a category list, but even there the category itself of course tells you what category it's in. For example, Oodnadatta is listed in Category:Towns_in_South_Australia.

So, how exactly do readers benefit from having states in titles? What readers in what contexts? And why should the undisputed fact that most of the world has no idea what these places are a reason to add information to their titles? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Don't fall for it, folks. These two latest section headings, based on points we have responded to numerous times in the past, are not worth replying to. They are just an attempt to roil the pot, to gin up discussion/argument, to get another 200,000-byte discussion going and thus "prove" that the issue is "disruptive". Plus, to try to create the impression that the result of this RfC is still in doubt. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The better question is do titles having helpful information hurt? If a title helps the reader is it bad? If the reader has to open an article to figure out what the article is about is that good? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Melanie, this is a rather odd expression of assuming good faith. Sorry, but this seems like Wikipedia:Stonewalling#Ignoring good faith questions to me. I've asked, presented and answered a legitimate and relevant question as succinctly as I could. If you think it's already addressed -- especially the what readers in what contexts? question - link to where, please.

      Vegas, a direct harm to readers of including the state in the title unnecessarily is misinforming them about the name of the topic - it incorrectly suggests the state is an integral part of the city's name. The section above is about that. Another harm is indirect, created by loss of time and energy due to editors spending years and years debating an issue that remains unresolved ultimately because of an inconsistency in how we name US places from most other articles, including most other articles about places. The harm to readers comes from the loss of presumed improvements that don't happen because of these unresolved issues and resulting debates. Maybe these don't add up to big harms, and you might even think they're "worth it", but against what? That is, what is the benefit to the readers... hence the original question to this subsection.

      So, in what specific context is a reader actually helped by a more informative title? When, specifically, does a reader have to open an article to figure out what the article is about? Walk us through it. Give us some specific examples. I mean, it's not like readers encounter pages that are entirely blank except for a link to Oodnadatta. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

      • Integral is really a slippery slope to bring up. That will lead to total confusion and your logic seems to be hinting at using the official name. After all if you look at most cities in the US, their names are usually 'City of foo' or 'City of foo, foo1'. You have been given examples long ago. No need to bring them up for every discussion. If you don't run into these on a regular basis, maybe you have not been reading enough articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Please don't blame me for addressing the arguments that others bring up in opposing this proposal! One of the only substantive oppose arguments presented in this RfC survey so far states that "it is very common in the U.S. to consider the name of the state to be an intergral part of the place name"[9]. And that's not the first time this argument has been made in support of the status quo US guideline. But I'm glad we agree that it's a lame argument. So what's not a lame argument opposing this RfC? That's the only reason I brought this up. I certainly have no "official name" argument. My record is quite consistent on favoring commonly used names over official names in article titles, but the emphasis is on names, of which the state has no part in city names. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
          • B2C: That state "has no part" is your opinion, but reliable sources commonly do include the state, and such sources are what we must consider. Further, name and article title aren't synonymous; please see WP:TITLE and my response above. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • See also: WP:Status quo stonewalling#Arguing the status quo "does no harm". --Born2cycle (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Please note that when Born2cycle cites WP:Status quo stonewalling, he is citing an essay written by himself. --MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

MelanieN: Agreed, we've been here before -- repeatedly and at length: Archives/2012/December. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is more concise? "City" or "City, State"?

One of the criteria for choosing titles is concision, for which "brief", "short" and "terse" are all synonyms. For any city with a unique name or which is the primary topic for its name, it's should be plainly clear that "city" is more concise than "City, State". All other factors held equal, the more concise title should be preferred. This is relevant because the other criteria doesn't clearly favor the "City, State" form. That is, neither is more recognizable (to those who are familiar with the city), neither is clearly more natural, both are equally precise, and the shorter form is consistent with how most other city articles are titled. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Your obsession with conciseness has been the biggest problem at WP:TITLE for last few years. All other factors are not equal – can't you let precision and recognizability have a little influence? Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What part of '"neither is more recognizable (to those who are familiar with the city)" and "both are equally precise" do you not understand? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Both parts; that is, I understand what they say, but not why you would believe them. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Okay. I just explained why I believe they're a wash for recognizability at #Does the recognizability criterion favor "City" or "City, Region"? Or is it a wash?. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So you did. And it relies on your idiosyncratic interpretation that "to someone familiar with..." means that there is zero value for recognizability more generally, which is an interpretation that received zero support when I probed it a year ago. Remember? Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall you asking something akin to "does anyone disagree?", no one participated, and you concluding from that everyone agreed. Maybe I'm wrong. Link? In any case, your wish to remove that crucial clarification wording from recognizability was clearly understood and unanimously rejected, with comments that almost universally supported what you refer to here as an "idiosyncratic" interpretation, in this poll. Remember?

Anyway, I explained below why it's important that we use this "idiosyncratic" interpretation. I understand you disagree, but don't understand why. An explanation, that addresses the points/explanation I gave, would be helpful. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It was more like "does anyone agree that recognizability has zero value beyond people already familiar with the topic?" and nobody did. I'm not assuming nobody does; I just can't find anyone who agrees with you on this. See this section and the poll before it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C: Yes, a more concise title is indeed more concise than a less concise title. However, as we've discussed before (and as we're seemingly destined to keep discussing) it's only your opinion that "the other criteria clearly doesn't favor the City, State form". That's not clear at all. Considerations like naturalness, consistency, etc. do not in my opinion favor (or even tie) the alternative of exceptionless minimum disambiguation. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion would be relevant if these determinations were based on our opinions. Thankfully, they're not. We don't apply whatever our opinions are about what the principles like "naturalness" and "consistency" means. They are both defined in considerable detail at WP:CRITERIA.

Naturalness says: "Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English."

Now, are readers searching for Nashville more "likely to look for or search with" Nashville, or Nashville, Tennessee? Which one, if either, better conveys what Nashville is actually called in English?

Just above, at the start of this subsection, I even stipulated neither is clearly more natural, but you're going to tell me that the longer version answers these questions better? Seriously.

As for consistency, it says: "Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles."

There can be no denying that most other articles about cities use just the city name for the title, when it's available. One can also argue that US cities in particular have so many ambiguous names, that most require including the state in their titles for disambiguation, thus the pattern most of them must follow is city, state, and so even those with unique names should also follow this pattern. Which of these two points is more compelling is something of a coin toss, hence the conclusion that consistency doesn't clearly favor either.

It's true that consistency also references specific guidelines, like this one (WP:PLACE), but since exactly what this one should say is what it is at issue here, it would be circular reasoning to rely on what this guideline says in this discussion. However, about guidelines like this consistency does give us this applicable guidance: "ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles above". And that is essentially what is driving this RfC's proposal: making WP:PLACE better indicate titles that are in accordance with the other principles, including conciseness. This is why the question in the heading of this subsection is what it is, and why I've been focussed on it so much with respect to WP:PLACE for years. We should all be able to recognize that for choosing between region-qualified and region-unqualified place names the other principles do not clearly indicate either the shorter or longer form, but conciseness does, of course.

Now, is anyone going to actually address what I just said, or will this be followed with more diversionary filibustering? --Born2cycle (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you're again wrongly labeling all opinion as WP:JDLI. We each favor a different convention for reasons that we (and many other involved editors) have already elaborated at great length.

Regarding naturalness, for instance: WP:TITLE does indeed say that titles should convey what the subject is actually called. How do we determine what a subject is actually called? We check reliable sources. How are US places frequently called in reliable sources? Placename, State. We've already been through this.

Regarding "what readers are likely to look for or search with", I don't see the evidence that a reader searching for a specific US place will be unlikely to consider the state, particularly given that the common usage (as indicated by reliable sources) is often for the state to be included.

Regarding consistency of titles, you're asserting that it's "something of a coin toss" as to which method is more consistent. Not so. Following Place, State produces a more consistent result for the titling of US places that does a convention that would name many as Place and many as Place, State.

Regarding conciseness, that is indeed one of the goals. I also know that "you've been focussed on it ... for years." (Believe me, we all know.) It is, however, one goal out of several, and Wikipedia's guideline asserts that it's appropriate to consider all of those goals and to sometimes favor or more over the others. This is done through discussion, which we've had at great length, and which has not led to exceptionless minimum disambiguation becoming the favored convention in this case. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. You make my point. No one has ever denied that reliable sources frequently call US places "Placename, State". But no one has ever denied that reliable sources also frequently call US places "Placename". Therefore, what RS frequently call US place names does not clearly favor "Placename, State" or "Placename". Same with "what readers are likely to look for or search with". Again, no clear indication. Yes, we've been through this, but you still, to this very day, ignore all that discussion and claim naturalness favors "Placename, State". That's why we never get anywhere in these discussions. You seem to ignore what is said in these discussions.

Regarding your "consistency" argument, you repeat, in a reworded form, what I just said. I wrote: "...thus the pattern most of them must follow is city, state, and so even those with unique names should also follow this pattern". You wrote: "Following Place, State produces a more consistent result". Yes, that's ONE of the consistency arguments. The OTHER is "most other articles about cities use just the city name for the title", so using just the city name, when possible, produces a more consistent result. The difference here is whether the OTHER arguments, not just your own, are recognized, and a wash is seen as the coin toss it is.

If one doesn't ignore all of the discussion that has occurred here and before, especially the arguments made by the other side, it should be clear that all of the WP:CRITERIA principles other than conciseness do not clearly favor either the region-qualified or the region-unqualified form of the place name over the other. That's why conciseness is especially weighty to this proposal. Conciseness is the only WP:CRITERIA principle that clearly favors one of the forms; and of course it favors the more concise form. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You give conciseness extra weight because you believe the others are ambiguous on this. But that is only your opinion. For example, it is recognized by Wikipedia that some subjects may require different title treatment than others. United States place names are so often re-used from state to state that a majority of articles must have the state included. So within the scope of United States places, it is consistent to use that for the remaining titles; and that is not a "wash" or a "coin toss". It is consistent.

As for conciseness, here is one definition of "concise", from dictionary.reference.com:

"expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but comprehensive in scope; succinct; terse"

Thus, the title "Portage, Indiana" is concise. It is short, but it also conveys useful information. The title "Portage" doesn't convey much information at all (see Noetica's statements on this subject above). Therefore "Portage, Indiana" is a concise title. What you are talking about is not concision, but some sort of absolute minimum. It can't be titled any less than "Portage", so that to you is concision. But that's not what the word means. Omnedon (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Above, you use the argument that "concise", "brief", "short" and "terse" are all synonyms, and that therefore "brief", "short" and "terse" are what matter. But concise has an extra layer of meaning, as I've shown. The definition matters; and synonyms for a word do not necessarily have the same meaning, only meanings that are somehow similar. So to answer the question asked in this title: "City, State" is more concise than "City" alone. Omnedon (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The question of recognizability raises a point about familiarity. WP:TITLE says, "Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic." When we speak of places in the United States, some are recognizable the world over -- like Chicago. But many would be unfamiliar to the vast majority of the population. Removing the state from a title like "McLouth, Kansas" means that only someone who already knew about this town would find it recognizable as such, and very few people in the United States would know about it. Yet the title "McLouth, Kansas" is quickly and easily recognizable as a populated place in the state of Kansas -- something that most United States readers would instantly know without being an expert. So this also is not a "wash" or a "coin toss".

As for naturalness, applying the same principle as with recognizability, very few people would find the name "McLouth" natural. For the nation, "McLouth, Kansas" is the natural form.

Regarding precision, "City, State" meets that requirement. It is not overly precise, but it is sufficiently precise. "McLouth" is not a precise article title for a populated place in Kansas.

Thus, "City, State" is more recognizable, more natural, more precise, more concise, and more consistent. Omnedon (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C: No, I don't ignore what you say, I merely disagree with some of it. I recognize you believe exceptionless minimum disambiguation is the favorable alternative, and that you have said why you believe so. I for my own part believe that it is not a favorable alternative, and have said why I believe so. Many other editors have also made their points pro and con on this and other related matters.

You worry that that means we "never get anywhere", but I'm not sure where you think we're supposed to be getting. We're simply discussing and commenting on matters relevant to the proposal at hand to see if consensus emerges. Such consensus is good to seek through constructive discussion, but if a proposal does not gain consensus support, that is an acceptable result, and shouldn't necessarily be seen as a failure nor as an invitation to rehash.

As to your specific points: the common usage of City, State in reliable sources is relevant to the question of naturalness. No one is asserting that every source uses that form in every case; certainly some do not. One can omit a placename's state in context just as one can omit a person's surname in context. I understand that that is something we disagree about as well, and have already discussed repeatedly before, so it seems unnecessary to repeat that debate again here.

As to your statement, "the difference here is whether the OTHER arguments, not just your own, are recognized": I don't say other arguments aren't recognized. All points should be considered and weighed through discussion by the community, as the many involved editors in this forum have done, are doing, and will continue to do. You feel that some of the arguments are "a wash". That's fine. Others (myself among them) disagree, and have said why. Please respect that. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

When I say you ignore what I say, I don't mean that you ignore it in your mind. I mean that you ignore it when you present your argument; you don't acknowledge (you ignore) the counter-arguments previously presented.

I missed where you or anyone else explained why having basically equal arguments favoring one or the other form based on a given criterion doesn't create "a wash" with respect to that criterion. What I've seen is the asserting of the argument favoring the longer form, and ignoring or dismissing (at least not acknowledging) the similar argument favoring the shorter form, and then conveniently concluding in favor of the longer form. In fact, this is exactly what Omnedon just did above:

United States place names are so often re-used from state to state that a majority of articles must have the state included. So within the scope of United States places, it is consistent to use that for the remaining titles; and that is not a "wash" or a "coin toss".

You see? He's restating the consistency argument favoring the long form I myself repeatedly acknowledged above, but doesn't acknowledge at all the consistency argument favoring the shorter form (most of our articles about cities are titled with just City when possible, so it's more consistent to do that with all of our cities), and so concludes that the consistency criterion therefore favors the longer form! Both arguments are sound, valid, and based on policy, RS and common practice. It's totally unreasonable to simply dismiss the argument favoring the position you oppose without reason. Yet that's exactly what is done to claim it's not a wash or coin toss with regard to consistency.

Now, let's look at naturalness, and these two relevant undisputed points:

1. The undisputed common use of "city, state" in RS indicates "city, state" is natural.
2. The undisputed common use of "city" in RS indicates "city" is natural.

Given these two points, and without conveniently ignoring #2, please explain why you believe we don't have "a wash" with respect to the naturalness criterion. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C: You state, "I missed where you or anyone else explained why having basically equal arguments...doesn't create 'a wash'". You didn't miss that, since no one's saying that basically equal arguments are not a wash; rather, I'm saying that the arguments are not basically equal.

As for what you quote, the assertion I see being made is that it's more consistent to use the longer form for all US places since the longer form under either convention would have to be used for most of those places anyway. This seems reasonable. Your complaint with the quote seems to be that the editor doesn't in his statement specifically address or refute your argument for the shorter form (or your assertion that it's a wash), which is an odd complaint. Other editors are here to comment on this RfC, and shouldn't face hectoring charges of being "totally unreasonable" if they don't specifically refute to your satisfaction a point that you yourself make.

As for your specific question, we've already discussed it. Place, State is frequently used by reliable sources ranging from the Census Bureau to official municipal websites, and while Place by itself is indeed also used, such use tends to be in cases where state is already established by context (just as one might simply say "Clinton" when it's established that one is speaking about "Bill Clinton".) On the subject of naturalness, WP:TITLE asserts that a natural title is one that readers are "likely to look for or search with"; given that the context necessary to omit the name of the state cannot assumed to be present in a world-wide encyclopedia (as well as for other reasons, such as the frequently ambiguous and non-unique nature of US place names), it's reasonable to consider that the user will indeed be likely to use the state.

You may disagree with that, and that's fine. I'm not demanding you agree, nor am I demanding that you refute me; I'm simply contributing my view and my reasons for it. However, I'd ask that you please stop accusing others of taking opposing positions "without reason" when such reasons (even if you disagree with them) have indeed been clearly stated many times. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You again make my point. Of course I disagree. Personally, I find the naturalness and consistency arguments favoring the shorter form to be more compelling than those arguments favoring the longer form. Your opinion is the reverse. Fine. We agree it's fine to disagree. We agree these are matters of opinion. We agree to disagree. Great! That's why, because reasonable arguments based in policy and common actual practices, with respect to these criteria, can be made to favor either form, it's a wash.

This is not the case for concision (Omnedon's novel argument notwithstanding), and why it's so significant here. Concision clearly favors the shorter form. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Omnedon, you have introduced a new argument. Thank you. I don't recall anyone ever arguing that "city, state" is more concise than "city" (or, more generally that XY is more concise than X for any string Y when X uniquely refers to the topic in question, or that topic is recognized to be primary for X). But based on a cherry-picking interpretation of a dictionary definition of "concise", it's certainly valid. The problem with it, of course, is that there is no precedent, so far as I know, for using this interpretation of concision in article title determination, certainly none accepted by consensus. If I'm mistaken and there is such consensus-backed precedent for this interpretation, I, for one, would be very appreciative if you brought it to our attention. But I suggest if we accepted this interpretation of concision, a great many titles, long stable, would be put into question.

As to your other points, I think this discussion will remain more coherent if we take them up in separate sections as they're not specifically about the principle question this section is about; the question about which form is more concise. While the issue about whether the arguments with respect to other criteria are a wash or not are relevant here, because that's the basis for my claim about why concision is so weighty on this issue, it's really tangential to the main point. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C, "concise" has a meaning in the English language. It simply does not have the same meaning as "brief" or "short". Something that is concise is both short and informative. It's the meaning of the word. Thus, "City, State" for United States places is more concise than "City" alone. It strikes a good balance between maximum shortness and conveyance of useful information.

Of course my argument is specific to this situation, regarding titles for articles about United States places. You know, the situation we've been trying to discuss with you? That's the context of the argument I presented. It works best for United States places. Wikipedia allows flexibility in titling depending on the situation. You are trying to muddy the waters by taking it out of context. Not surprising.

The problem is not that this argument is specific to US Places (which is fine, of course), but that the INTERPRETATION of the consistency criterion, upon which this argument is based, is specific to US places. We can't interpret the same words in general principles differently in different situations based on the outcome we seek! Consistency might apply differently in various situation, but what it means fundamentally can't change from one situation to another. Otherwise, everybody could choose to interpret the principles as they wish. "Over here it means "this"; over there it means "that". What's the point of having principles, criteria and policy if it's all wide open to whatever interpretation anyone wants to apply? Choosing whatever interpretation of a general principle that favors your preference is the epitome of JDLI rationalization. Surely you recognize and appreciate why that's fallacious.

Besides, per your reasoning, City, State, Country is even more "concise" than "City, State", since "City, State, Country" is more informative than "City, State". And, there's no reason why this reasoning should not apply to titles of articles about places outside of the US. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you assume bad faith, and top it off with a personal insult. No, my argument is not fallacious, and no, it is not JDLI rationalization. Anything that any of us say to you is dismissed. You make any kind of progress impossible with your behavior.

I have argued that "City, State" is the appropriate level of detail for United States places. No one is suggesting "City, State, Country". That is a fallacy, which you are once again committing: the slippery slope fallacy. Omnedon (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not mistake the logical implications that I point out about your argument as assumptions of bad faith or insults. By the way, simply asserting that your argument is not fallacious, without addressing the reasons I gave for why it is, is not an argument. I'm not dismissing anything you're saying. I'm obviously paying enough attention to realize and point out the logical implications of what you're saying. Are you? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Telling someone, "Surely you realize you are wrong?" is insulting. From day one you have dismissed anything that disagreed with your single-minded goal. You have assumed bad faith, been insulting and dismissive, and done anything you could to keep this argument going. You have a right to your views, just as we do. You have no consensus to make this change. You seem to have nothing new to offer. Omnedon (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My comment was not about you or you being wrong. It was an assessment of the argument, and how it (not you) is fallacious. I'm sorry you take this personally. It was not intended that way. I note for anyone following along that you are no longer addressing the substance of the arguments and points I've made (which are new despite your claim to the contrary). --Born2cycle (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You keep using the term JDLI even when strong arguments are presented based on data, not emotion. I am the one who made a new argument here, looking at the actual definition of the word "concise". You have yet to deal with that, instead skirting it and using cheap debating tactics in an attempt to turn it around. You can't argue with the meaning of the word, so you go a different direction. When you make it personal, that's how people will take it. Omnedon (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Omnedon: Agreed, this is getting out of hand.

B2C: I know you've expressed your hope that the "little minds"[10] who support the current convention with their "blind conformance" will "finally understand how silly their position is"[11], but repeated dismissiveness or hectoring challenges to views expressed by others in good faith – views this RfC exists to solicit – is not benefiting this forum. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Born2cycle, you are really being insufferable here. Please recall that you were warned by ArbCom less than a year ago:[12]
  "Born2cycle warned:
  5) Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors."
  Also please recall that the same month you came close to being topic-banned from move discussions.[13] You might want to reread the promises you made there to avoid being topic-banned. --MelanieN (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • And... we're back to more filibustering! --Born2cycle (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The sheer volume of text you have contributed to this exact topic makes your word choice there a bit... ironic. --Jayron32 06:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Just trying to be substantive and clear, which is why I created these separate sections, each focussed on a specific relevant issue. What I mean by "filibustering" is off-topic diversionary commentary that have nothing to do with discussing the merits of this proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Jayron32: Quite so.

          Born2Cycle: You've been more than clear what your views are: you've expressed them at frankly remarkable length and have gotten feedback on them. However, several editors are now expressing the concern that it's grown to the point of a filibuster. Please consider taking a breather. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• The reason that I'm against using just the City instead of City, State is numerous city name duplication across America and some across the entire world, such as [Springfield] and [Marion]. The reason I hate just the City is because the first thing I have to do is read down through the intro or infobox to determine if I have the right article, but when I go to an article with the state on it then it's immediately 100% obvious that I'm in the right place. (Note: you are welcome to comment against this comment, but I won't respond. I don't have time for the childish arguments that are going on here). • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Does the recognizability criterion favor "City" or "City, Region"? Or is it a wash?

The recognizability criterion states:

Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic

The bold emphasis is mine. I submit that to someone familiar with a given city, the city will be just as recognizable from the name alone as it is from the name qualified with the region it is in. Therefore, the recognizability criterion does not favor either form; it's a wash. For example, to someone who remembers driving through McLouth (and, years later, might be looking it up on WP), McLouth is just as recognizabile as is McLouth, Kansas. Neither form is favored by this criterion.

Above, Omnedon offered the following argument that it's not a wash, that the recognizability criterion favors the region-qualified form, at least for US cities:

The question of recognizability raises a point about familiarity. WP:TITLE says, "Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic." When we speak of places in the United States, some are recognizable the world over -- like Chicago. But many would be unfamiliar to the vast majority of the population. Removing the state from a title like "McLouth, Kansas" means that only someone who already knew about this town would find it recognizable as such, and very few people in the United States would know about it. Yet the title "McLouth, Kansas" is quickly and easily recognizable as a populated place in the state of Kansas -- something that most United States readers would instantly know without being an expert. So this also is not a "wash" or a "coin toss".

This argument must be rejected for at least the following reasons.

1. It completely ignores the "to someone familiar with the topic" qualification in the description of the criterion, resulting in a much broader interpretation. Of course ""McLouth, Kansas" is more recognizable than "McLouth" to someone unfamiliar with McLouth, but someone unfamiliar with McLouth is irrelevant to the recognizability criterion, narrowly interpreted, because of the crucial "to someone familiar with the topic" qualification.
2. There is nothing US specific to the argument. If we applied this broad interpretation of recognizability to articles about places outside of the US, we would have to favor region qualification for all place names that are not recognizable to people unfamiliar with them. For example, it would indicate moving articles like Saint Hailer to Saint Helier, Jersey. To apply this argument's reasoning here: Removing the island name from a title like "Saint Helier, Jersey" means that only someone who already knew about this parish would find it recognizable as such, and very few people in Great Britain would know about it. Yet the title "Saint Helier, Jersey" is quickly and easily recognizable as a populated place on the island of Jersey -- something that most British readers would instantly know without being an expert. There are probably thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of such cases where this reasoning would apply. I presume nobody wants to go there, yet that's exactly where this broad interpretation of recognizability leads, and it's worse than that, much worse, because...
3. In fact, there is nothing place specific to the argument. If we applied this broad interpretation of recognizability to articles not about places, we would have to favor descriptive qualification for all topic names that are not recognizable to people unfamiliar with them. For example, this broad interpretation of recognizability would indicate moving articles of obscure films like Of Time, Tombs and Treasures to perhaps one of:
   1. Of Time, Tombs and Treasures (film).
   2. Of Time, Tombs and Treasures (1977 film)
   3. Of Time, Tombs and Treasures (1977 documentary film)
   4. Of Time, Tombs and Treasures (1977 short documentary film)

   I mean, each of these is progressively more "recognizable", and, so, better meets (the broad interpretation of) the recognizability criterion, yes? And with this broader interpretation of recognizability, we would have no real indication which of these to favor, especially with Omnedon's unique interpretation of conciseness, except the most descriptive title. In that case, why stop at #4? Why not Of Time, Tombs and Treasures (1977 short documentary film about the discovery of the Tomb of the Tutankamun. Produced by James R. Messenger, the film was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Short.) There are probably millions of such cases... articles currently at stable, clear, unambiguous titles, suddenly subject to question, questions that can be reasonably answered in countless ways, none clearly favored by any guidance. This is the reason the qualification is in there and cannot be ignored. I know that's not the intent of applying a broader interpretation of recognizability, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with. Logically, this is where a broad interpretation would lead; to unprecedented lack of guidance with regard to how our articles should be titled.

4. In case anyone is thinking we could interpret recognizability broadly only for, say, US article titles, it's untenable to interpret criteria one way for some articles, and other ways for other articles. Once we establish precedent for a particular interpretation of a criterion, that precedent can and almost surely will be used with respect to other titles. There is no reasonable way to contain this, except perhaps to clumsily specify an exception in writing in the criterion itself. But that too opens up a can of worms by setting precedent for making such hokey exceptions in the general criteria.

And if we don't ignore the crucial qualification, then the recognizability criterion does not favor either form; titles using either form are equally recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic. It's a wash. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Just as it is clear that this RfC was focused on United States places, my argument was as well -- that is what we were discussing, in a section about "City, State". You assume that "the topic" is the specific place in question, such as "McLouth", and very few people in the United States are likely ever to have heard of it. But "the topic" may also be broader: places in the United States, or in Kansas. And common usage includes the state, as in "McLouth, Kansas", which immediately tells anyone familiar with the United States that this is a place. That single extra piece of information instantly helps to identify and set context. It is a simple identifier that strikes the right balance for United States places, for all the reasons I and others given over the last several months. Despite your attempts to muddy the waters, this is still the right match for this group of articles. Please stay on topic.

For recognizability of United States places, "City, State" is best. For conciseness, it's also best. In fact in all five titling goals, it is best. Don't drag film names in here, or Channel Island names, or whatever. That's irrelevant to this discussion. Omnedon (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Those examples are not irrelevant to this discussion in which you're applying an interpretation of recognizability, a general principle/criterion that applies to all article titles, not just US place titles, that logically leads to these examples. Besides, I a presented an argument (at the top of this section before mentioning yours) that stands alone, and you have not addressed it. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Born2Cycle, read it again. I addressed point 1, which deals with people familiar with the topic. Omnedon (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

To be clear my argument is simple and short, contained entirely in the paragraph that starts "The emphasis is mine". You addressed that?

I confess I don't understand what you're getting at here:

You assume that "the topic" is the specific place in question, such as "McLouth", and very few people in the United States are likely ever to have heard of it. But "the topic" may also be broader: places in the United States, or in Kansas.

Yes, for an article entitled McLouth I assume the article topic is the town named McLouth. Of course. How might the topic be broader, and why are you putting "the topic" in quotes? How can the topic of McLouth be "places in the United States, or in Kansas"? I mean, McLouth would be a very wrong title for an article whose topic is "places in the United States". Not following. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I made it quite clear. You feel the topic, in the context of titling principles, must be the specific town and nothing else. I am suggesting that the topic, for these purposes, can be more general than a town of 800 people in Kansas. It's a town in Kansas, so make that clear by adding a single word to the title. Bang -- it's then immediately clear what the topic is: a place in Kansas. Omnedon (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I've responded to this on my talk page: User talk:Born2cycle#On topics and titles. Shall we continue there? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why on earth should this discussion continue on your talk page? This is a community discussion which has been going on here. It should stay here. What is your goal in moving it elsewhere? The focus is on article titles for places in the United States. That's what we're dealing with, in practice -- here. But the discussion is increasingly difficult anyway. We explain why it not a "wash" and you continue to assert that it is. I provide a definition of "concise" and you call it cherry-picking. You have your views on this. We have ours. Omnedon (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been suggested that I "take a breather" from continuing these discussions here, so I invited you to continue on my talk page. You declined and continued here. That's fine. I will continue here as well.

The topic of an article is what the article is about regardless of its title, so of course the topic of McLouth "must be the specific town and nothing else". The topic is "the specific town and nothing else" regardless of whether its title is McLouth, McLouth, Kansas, McLouth, Kansas, United States, City of McLouth, or anything else. Changing the title does not affect the WP:SCOPE of the topic.

I agree this proposal is ostensibly about WP:PLACE and in practice it mostly (but not only) affects WP:USPLACE, but there are consequences that potentially affect all other article titles. This is because in our discussions we present arguments, as we should, based on what WP:AT says and means, and WP:AT governs how all articles are titled, not just USPLACE.

We all know that WP does not have hard and fast rules. Not only is there WP:IAR, a pillar, but our rules, like our articles, are constantly subject to the pressures of evolution. One of the ways rules change is when it is observed that they do not accurately reflect practice.

Despite all that, our titles, and the rules governing them, are remarkably stable. Well over 99% of our titles are very stable - have not changed in years and will probably not ever change - primarily because most topics have a single obvious name, and our practice is to use that name, and nothing more, as the article's title. The primary exceptions to this occur when a topic has no single obvious name, or when the name has multiple uses. But the primary practice, to use just the single obvious name when possible, is reflected at WP:AT, primarily in the recognizability and conciseness criteria. This is why the vast majority of our titles are as stable as they are.

But over the last few years there have been efforts to change this. In numerous RM discussions, it has been argued that titles of various articles need to be more descriptive to help the reader. In policy discussions it has been argued that our goal for recognizability should be expanded from only those who are familiar with a topic, to all readers, and that concision should be understood to prefer longer titles when they are more informative. Of course, the intent of all these efforts is not to destabilize our titles, but that would be the unintended consequence, were they to succeed.

The main reason we enjoy the extraordinary stability in well over 99% of our article titles is because there are no policy grounds, given a certain understanding and interpretation of the criteria at WP:AT, to change them. To understand where I'm coming from, you really have to appreciate this. Key to this understanding and appreciation is that the scope of recognizability is limited to "those familiar with the topic" - that there is no goal to make titles recognizable to anyone who is not familiar with the respective topics. Equally critical is that concision means we don't add information to our titles to make them more informative than is necessary for meeting the recognizability criteria (given its limited scope).

To illustrate what I mean, consider the following list of five randomly selected titles. On the left are current titles, stable because of the interpretation of recognizability and conciseness I just explained; right of each arrow are titles that could be reasonably justified if, for example, your interpretation of conciseness were to be accepted, adopted, and applied.

• Marriotts Ridge High School → Marriotts Ridge High School, Marriottsville, Maryland, Marriotts Ridge High School (Marriottsville, Maryland), Marriotts Ridge High School, Howard County Public School System, Marriottsville, Maryland, Marriotts Ridge High School, Howard County Public School System, Marriottsville, Maryland, established 2005
• George Frost (cricketer) → George Frost (English cricketer) , George Frost (English cricketer, 1848-1913)
• Miss Universe United Kingdom 2006 →Miss Universe United Kingdom 2006 (beauty pageant)
• Donji Mosti →Donji Mosti, Croatia, Donji Mosti, Croatia (village), Donji Mosti (village in Croatia)
• Joe Skeen → Joe Skeen (Congressman), Joe Skeen (Congressman), Congressman Joe Skeen, New Mexico, served 1927-2003

It comes down to this: if you are going to argue that McLouth, Kansas meets the conciseness criteria better than McLouth because it is more informative (and thus more recognizable to people unfamiliar with the city), then what is to keep anyone else from supporting moves of all five of the above articles to any of the corresponding titles on the rights, on the same policy grounds? More to the point, what's to keep others from arguing for moving any or all of the well over 99% of our articles that are currently at stable titles, on the same policy grounds? You cannot argue that conciseness is better met with longer, more informative titles, but only for US place names. If longer more informative US Place titles are "more concise", than longer more informative British Place titles are "more concise", and so are longer more informative titles of all of our articles. There is simply nothing about US place names that justifies interpreting conciseness differently for them than for any other titles. And if your interpretation were to be accepted in general, it would destabilize our entire title space. Again, I know that's not your intent, but can't you see that that would be the unintended consequence? That's why this interpretation must be rejected.

If we interpret recognizability or conciseness in any way that makes McLouth, Kansas more recognizable or more concise than McLouth, then we are accepting interpretations that will destabilize the entire title space on WP. On the other hand, if we recognize that McLouth meets recognizability just as well as McLouth, Kansas (because the scope is explicitly limited "to those familiar"), and that McLouth meets conciseness better than McLouth, Kansas, then we are interpreting these criteria in the manner that gives us the title stability we currently enjoy. That's what is ultimately at stake here, and why I feel so strongly about it. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Care to explain how "taking a breather" means "move the discussion to your talk page"? And why should I discuss it with you there rather than here? How do you think that will change anything? Take a breather, Born2Cycle, instead of posting responses of over 6000 bytes. You are going to have to learn to accept the views of other editors. Have you anything to say about the promises you made last year, and how they might apply here?

Including the name of the state along with the name of the city in the title of a United States place will in no way destabilize Wikipedia. It has been this way for a long time, and no such consequences have arisen, because it works well for this set of articles. You have a tendency to go to the extreme, to fall into the slippery-slope fallacy. For McLouth, Kansas, "city, state" is more concise. It is the right balance. That is not necessarily the case with other types of articles. That's why we have flexibility. Please stick to the point. Omnedon (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

People in the United States tend to be familiar with the way United States places are named. It is common usage to refer to them using the "City, State" convention. I was not familiar with McLouth, Kansas until I looked it up. Almost no one in the nation is familiar with McLouth, Kansas. But almost everyone in the nation is going to know that Kansas is a state, and that therefore McLouth must be a place there. This is why familiarity does applies when using the "City, State" convention. People in the United States are familiar with that. There absolutely is something about US place names that justifies this: the fact that place names tend to be re-used from state to state very often.

I have never argued that longer names are more concise. I have argued that where US places are concerned, "McLouth, Kansas" (for example) is more concise than just "McLouth" because it meets both requirements of conciseness: both short and informative. Adding more than the state makes it too long to be concise; taking away the state makes it insufficiently informative. This is simply the meaning of the word "concise", and United States places are the clear focus of this discussion. As for your examples, you give absurdly long examples -- again, slippery slope fallacy. Simply applying the word "concise" as it is defined prevents the slippery slope you seem to see. Don't focus only on brevity, nor only on informativeness, but both. Omnedon (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the length. I want to make sure I'm not misunderstood. I appreciate your patience.

A slippery slope argument is not necessarily a fallacy.

I recognize that this set of articles has been this way for a long time, and is stable. That doesn't mean that these titles are consistent with the practice and policy that gives us overall stability. It could be an anomaly, based on JDLI preference (albeit popular JDLI preference) rather than on policy, which I believe it is.

My ultimate concern is overall title stability. I believe overall title stability is achieved with application of title policy interpreted consistently in practice. My concern here is that PLACE guidelines that are inconsistent with title criteria contribute to a loose or novel interpretation of the criteria that makes us more vulnerable to an overall title system destabilization.

To the point, I have these questions... if "McLouth, Kansas" is "more concise" than "McLouth", then isn't Marriotts Ridge High School, Marriottsville, Maryland "more concise" (more informative, and no more less brief than "McLouth, Kansas" is less brief than "McLouth") than Marriotts Ridge High School? If so, then how isn't Donji Mosti, Croatia also more concise than Donji Mosti? In either case, how do you draw the distinction?

How you draw the distinction is key because currently the line is drawn by considering whether more information is needed for disambiguation. If the extra information is not needed for disambiguation, then it's not included in the title. It's not a line defined crystal clearly, but it's pretty close, and, in practice, it works remarkably well. If your policy-based defense of US Place relies on an interpretation of the consistency criterion that crosses this line, then you need to explain what the new line is, and how it is drawn. Or, you need to come up with a new policy based argument, or concede that you don't have one. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, here is a current example (active RM discussion) illustrating the problem I'm talking about[14]. If the scope of recognizability was expanded, or your interpretation of conciseness adopted, this would the norm, not the rare exception, as it thankfully is, for now. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I agree with that move. It would cause the title to convey a basic idea of the subject of the article. Just as in this case, where adding the state makes the title quickly recognizable as a place. Omnedon (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. That move definitely should be made, because the title is ambiguous; there are many other National Pension Schemes, even if only one of them has a Wikipedia article at the moment. I also agree that the "slippery slope" arguments being presented here and at B2c's talk page are ridiculous (as such arguments usually are.[15] In my experience, "slippery slope" arguments only get deployed when the arguer can't think of any actual, realistic objection to the proposal under discussion.) For the record, nobody is claiming that all titles should have piles of additional identifying information added to them - only that there are cases where additional identifying information strengthens the encyclopedia. Those include cases where the additional information is a natural, commonly used formation like McLouth, Kansas. Nobody is proposing artificial constructs like Congressman Joe Skeen, New Mexico, served 1927-2003. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Recommend closure or rescoping

TBrandley: This RfC would affect US placename convention, which (as other editors rightly point out) was already the subject of a very recent and very lengthy RfC – one which closed as "maintain status quo". I see no reason to reopen the question again so soon. I would strongly recommend either:

• closing this RfC in deference to the recently-completed one, or
• changing the scope of the RfC to address specific conventions elsewhere exclusive of the US.

Thanks ╠╣uw [talk] 17:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that the very insecurity of those who itch to close this RfC is an indication that the consensus around USPLACE isn't really as strong as it's purported to be. Anyway, forget about USPLACE for a while and look at this suggestion on its own merits, with the whole of Wikipedia in mind. Overall, it's a good formal general guideline which represents fairly accurately the practices followed for most countries in the world, so we might as well document it. I, for one, see no good reason to speedily close this RfC just because some USPLACE supporters are scared to death it will overtake USPLACE if implemented! If the consensus is indeed strong that USPLACE should stand, then implementing the guideline proposed in this RfC will have absolutely no effect on it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 10, 2013; 17:59 (UTC)

The consensus is indeed strong, and I don't think anyone is "scared to death" of this RfC. For myself, I simply see no point in re-hashing this less than two months after closing the previous RfC. The examples given in this latest RfC relates directly to USPLACE, so the focus seems pretty clear. Omnedon (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Further, "Maintain status quo" is the default result when there is "no consensus" on an issue, which was the case with the previous RFC (not to mention that determining any kind of consensus from such a poorly structured proposal would be very difficult). As consensus is developed through discussion, efforts to stifle civil discussion (including refusals to discuss, and calls for closing, this clear and simple RFC), and thus development of consensus, are inherently disruptive. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C, the consensus was to maintain the current practice. It was discussed extensively very recently, and the new RfC only gives United States places as examples. What's disruptive is the inability or unwillingness of some editors to accept the consensus. Omnedon (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The finding of consensus for maintaining the current practice from that discussion is without basis by any definition of consensus, but most notably WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus was never established for the practice of unnecessary disambiguation for US Places, and the fact that previously uninvolved editors, like the one who started this RFC, keep proposing it be changed, is just more evidence of that. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ezhiki: In what way is wishing to avoid duplicating an already completed recent discussion a sign of weakness in anyone's position? To suggest ulterior motives on the part of others who do wish to avoid such a rehash (myself included) is not in good faith.

B2C: How is it "disruptive" or "stifling civil discussion" to consider avoiding another lengthy debate on questions already exhaustively discussed in a previous RfC only weeks ago? I'm happy to participate in civil discussion, but at the same time express my preference to give the dead horse a break. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Huw, as I explained in several places above, I disagree this RfC as a "duplication" of the USPLACE RfC at all (even considering the examples used). While it is, of course, your right to disagree with this assessment, please respect the right of other people to have opinions which differ from your own. For my part, I was merely pointing out that every single plea urging to speedily close this RfC came from the folks who were vehement to keep USPLACE up and running during the previous RfC. And while this fact alone isn't indicative of any "ulterior motives" (not even my words), it's most certainly curious.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 10, 2013; 19:16 (UTC)

The only examples given -- "Seattle" and "Tacoma, Washington" -- are indeed exactly what USPLACE deals with. I say once more: this was discussed at great length just recently. Given the clear focus of this new RfC, it is indeed at least partly duplication. Omnedon (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So why focus on the duplicative part and completely disregard the substance of the proposal? Do you (or other opposers) really object to documenting the "disambiguate only when necessary" practice as a formal guideline, providing that consensus-based exceptions (which USPLACE claims to be) are explicitly recognized?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 10, 2013; 19:45 (UTC)

Huw, a previously uninvolved editor has made a proposal and requested commentary. The community, including you, should respect that. Not engaging in substantive discussion about the proposal (no one has responded to anything I said in support of it, for example), based on dubious claims about there being a consensus opposed to the proposal, is not only disrespectful, but disruptive. If you can't see how or why, I can't help you. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The "previously uninvolved editor" made the proposal and vanished. They have not been here to respond to comments, specifically to my comment that their proposal is based on a misunderstanding of the current situation. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No idea who this editor is or where they went, but I don't see how that matters. The only demonstrated misunderstanding associated with this RfC has been yours, first by inexplicably thinking the proposal might be referring specifically to Canadian cities[16], and later thinking it applied only to US cites apparently based on the erroneous assumption that places in all other countries already are consistent with disambiguate only when necessary. After all that to say the proposal is "based on a misunderstanding" takes some chutzpah. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should focus on content? Omnedon (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Would love too, instead of dealing with all this Status Quo Stonewalling. But nobody has addressed any of the points I made in favor of the proposal in my first comment on it above. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No stonewalling is occurring. Many editors had input on the USPLACE RfC and a huge amount of discussion took place, leading to the result that the current practice stands. This new RfC clearly involves USPLACE. You stated that this RfC would involve all countries, not just the US; and clearly this depends upon overturning established consensus on USPLACE. You claim there was no consensus. Certainly there was not unanimous agreement; but that's not required for consensus. We simply do not need to discuss this again mere weeks after closure of the last discussion. Omnedon (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, by no definition of consensus that I know, certainly not per the one given at WP:CONSENSUS or in any dictionary, has there ever been anything close to consensus regarding the unnecessary disambiguation of US place names. Of course unanimity is not required to have consensus. But you also can't have strong arguments and large numbers on both sides and still claim some kind of consensus. That's quintessential "no consensus", which is what we have here, and that makes for fertile ground for more discussion, not less, including the consideration of broader/simpler proposals, like the one made here. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C: It's true that there's clearly no consensus for changing the current convention. The last RfC on the subject demonstrated that very clearly, which is why it was closed with a determination to keep the current convention. What puzzles me is why you consider that result problematic or unacceptable. If I understand correctly, you seem to be suggesting that reaching no consensus to change a convention means that discussions to change it must therefor continue to be repeated (and indeed increase) until the change you seek is made, but I don't think that's quite how things work.

That said, I'm perfectly happy to discuss new matters that we haven't already beaten to death during our recent very lengthy debates, but am less inclined to keep retreading the same ground over and over every few weeks. Again, it seems like a WP:DEADHORSE. ╠╣uw [talk] 01:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Omnedon: Quite so -- I don't know what "stonewalling" B2C is referring to. All I'm asserting is this: that having just gone through a lengthy and elaborate discussion of the pros and cons of placename disambiguation as part of the previous RfC (which reached no consensus for any change), it's probably not necessary to immediately rehash it all again. ╠╣uw [talk] 01:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The previous discussion went way beyond "no consensus to change". In fact, there was a clear consensus AGAINST moving to a "no unnecessary disambiguation" rule for US cities. Out of the 58 people who posted opinions there, only 18 (31%) expressed a preference for the method proposed by this RfC and endlessly endorsed by B2C, namely, "no unnecessary disambiguation in US placenames". The remaining 69% of editors wanted at least some "unnecessary disambiguation" for US cities. A plurality, 34%, wanted to keep the existing "compromise" position of listing the state name except for 40 named cities where the state name is omitted. A significant minority, 26%, wanted to disambiguate ALL US city names, no exceptions. A few (8%) wanted a larger list of cities where the the state name is omitted. The bottom line is that the consensus, by more than 2 to 1, was that US city names should NOT follow the "no unnecessary disambiguation" rule. It's hard to see what B2C would accept as consensus, if 2 to 1 is not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C, as far as I can see, you want one thing regarding this issue: no "unnecessary disambiguation" in titles, ever. No compromise. There are reasons why many of us do not feel this is best for the encyclopedia or its users. They've been stated again and again. You say, "...the only way the problem here -- place name titles inconsistent with disambiguate only when necessary -- is ever going to be resolved, ..." So are you saying that you will never accept any other solution? If so, how are we supposed to discuss this and try to reach compromise? There are other solutions. One is to acknowledge that the principle you support isn't the only principle involved in article titles, that the "one size fits all" approach may simply not work in such a diverse environment, and that Wikipedia, like the world, is more complicated than that. Omnedon (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you making this about me? This is not about what I will accept! Who cares about what I will accept or not?

I didn't start this proposal. I'm just the messenger. I'm just pointing out that as long titles remain unnnecessarily disambiguated, they will remain an obvious problem for many. You may not like that. You may not like me pointing it out. Sorry. But don't blame me for it. That's just the way it is, and you, I nor anyone else has the power or ability to change that. What we can change is the titles so that they're not so obviously inconsistent and problematic. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles titled according to USPLACE are neither problematic nor inconsistent. I am asking you because you are involved in the discussion. You are not "the messenger", but an active participant. So I ask you again if you can accept any solution aside from absolute adherence to this one principle. I think it is a fair question. This is not about you; but you are the one insisting that there will be problems unless we go your way on this. Omnedon (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a participant, and one of those who recognizes that unnecessary disambiguation is inconsistent and therefore problematic. But I'm not the only one, nor only part of a small minority (if that were the case I would not be a participant). And I'm pointing out that even if I quit WP for good as soon as I finish this post, there will be problems as long as this problem remains unresolved. That fact has nothing to do with me. Again, what I will accept or not is irrelevant. It's like me asking if you'll accept that the problem will not be resolved until the problem is fixed. What is the point? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The point is this: you wish to discuss this further, but if you have no intention of accepting any solution but your own, then where is the hope of compromise? I believe you have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. But this issue was just discussed very extensively just recently, and mere weeks later we are here again; the one who opened the RfC hasn't commented further, but you are again pushing the same agenda. Omnedon (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C: To suggest that unnecessary disambiguation must always be "problematic" is certainly an opinion you're entitled to, and one that we've already explored in great depth. Your position is clear. However, you must understand that there's no agreement on that in this forum, and no consensus on changing the current convention (as clearly demonstrated by the results of the recent RfC on the subject). I understand you consider it "unresolved" since it didn't produce the result you personally sought; however, the last RfC did resolve... with a determination to retain the current convention[17]. I know you dislike that outcome, but that is indeed the outcome that it reached. ╠╣uw [talk] 02:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"I understand you consider it "unresolved" since it didn't produce the result you personally sought". No. The reason it's unresolved is not because it didn't produce the result I personally sought. The lack of resolution here has nothing to do with me.

It's unresolved because this convention remains inconsistent with other conventions and this inconsistency will continue to cause people like Roman Spinner [18], Marcus Qwertyus[19], Unreal7[20], Kauffner (RFC above), TBrandley (this RFC) and countless others to seek to have it rectified via guideline or one article at a time, year after year, until it is resolved. It's the actions of all these people, not my words, that establishes the lack of resolution here. If they didn't take those actions, then we would have nothing to talk about.

Conversely, once the issue is resolved -- the convention is changed to make all place names disambiguated only when necessary, exactly as has been proposed here -- peace and tranquility will ensue. That is, it will be resolved, finally. Just as it has been resolved for Canada and Australia place names. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C: You say, "it's unresolved because this convention remains inconsistent with other conventions."

The question remains: Why does that mean anything is unresolved?

Conventions will always vary from one another – that's why Wikipedia has more than one convention. Believe me when I say that Wikipedia does indeed recognize that it's appropriate for different, varied classes of article to follow somewhat different and varied conventions, and that titling in particular may indeed sometimes vary from broader guidelines in order to satisfy other interests.

As for the "countless" others whom you claim want this rectified: as of the last RfC there were 18 (less than a third of respondents) who favored exceptionless minimum disambiguation for US placenames.

You of course have a right to dislike the current convention, and you have a right to try to change it. However, you also have a responsibility as an editor to work constructively with others – and a sizable majority of other involved editors do not favor the alternative you support. If there are indeed unconsidered issues that you or others would like to bring to the community, then those matters can and should be civilly discussed... but to assert that "peace and tranquility" will only ensue if your favored change is made (or until the "little minds"[21] who oppose it "finally realize how silly their position is"[22]) is unconstructive. Peace and tranquility can also be achieved by working cooperatively with the community, and by understanding that other views have merit and should be fairly and respectfully considered. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't start this proposal. I did put in my 2 cents, and made a comment correcting what someone wrote about me. Everything since has been under the umbrellas of discussing whether to close this RFC/proposal (this subsection) or start a new one (next subsection).

While it's true that theoretically "peace and tranquility" could ensue if we could force everyone who brings up RM requests and RFCs contrary to this convention to stop, but last I checked we have no such power. The same argument was made, for years, at Yogurt. And my response to that here is the same: We have a fundamental problem of inconsistency with other rules/articles that gives basis to those who favor change. If that change occurs, then the result will be consistent with how we do things, and so nobody will have basis to justify the change in reverse. And, so, peace and tranquility will actually ensue. I was right about that at Yogurt, and I'm confident I'm right about that here too, because fundamentally it's the same problem, with the same solution. It is that simple. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You again assert we have a "fundamental problem of inconsistency", but don't answer the question of why. For what reason is variation between this convention and other conventions a fundamental problem?

If the concern is with the very notion of inconsistency among conventions, then that's a discussion that might best be held in a broader policy forum, since it challenges a pretty fundamental Wikipedia practice: creating conventions to address differences among varied sets of articles.

If the concern is that variation between conventions leads to debates, it may, but I'm not sure why that's a problem. So long as debates are productive and civil, rather than merely repetitive or tendentious, then discussion is fine. (And if the latter occurs, that's simply an issue of editor behavior.) ╠╣uw [talk] 12:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know why it creates a problem. Perhaps because people like consistency. Anyway, the creation of this RFC by an experienced editor demonstrates the existence of the problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the RfC demonstrates that the requester feels there's a problem on which he seeks broader input; others may not consider it a problem. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to say that the creation of the RfC alone demonstrates the problem. Taken in isolation from many other similar actions (Comments and other RFCs supporting change to the guideline, moves and RM proposals, etc. from countless other experienced editors) all it demonstrates is something about this requester. But the demonstration of the problem comes from the fact that this RfC creation is neither unusual or surprising. It's typical, and is part of a pattern that is almost a decade old. See the archives of this page. They are dominated by discussion about this one guideline. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a first for me, but I actually have to agree with Born2cycle. And with Ëzhiki, at the top of this subsection. The fact that random Wikipedians, with no connection to each other, or who don't even often agree, are repeatedly challenging with entirely local "consensus" of one wikiproject that no one buts is own participants pays any attention to, is clear indication that there is, in fact, no Wikipedia consensus to do what this project insists on, which violates WP:AT and WP:DAB. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 03:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Which Wikiproject? I'm not an active member of any such Wikiproject, and I've not been canvassed into this discussion nor has my opinion been affected by my membership or belonging to anything. I challenge you to provide evidence that my opinions on this matter are influenced for the reasons you describe, and if you cannot I ask kindly that you retract any accusations or implications that I have personally acted in any inappropriate way here. --Jayron32 17:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That the proposer of this RfC didn't read or understand the just-closed RfC isn't grounds for declaring there is not a consensus to retain the current guidelines per US places. He/she saw a problem, and didn't see the solution he/she is proposing was rejected last week. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Reword?

So let's reword it (after all, the proposal as made doesn't make any sense (striking as unduly harsh) and reflects an incorrect understanding of the actual situation). How about this: RfC to affirm that the names of cities should be listed in the most concise way, without adding unnecessary disambiguation, except when a different rule has been formally agreed to for a particular country. (I put it that way because I don't know if there are other countries that have stated a preference to add the state/province/départment to the city name, or if it is just the U.S.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a very different proposal. There is nothing nonsensical about the current proposal, nor does it reflect an incorrect understanding of the actual situation. If you really think it does, please explain how. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It certainly does. The proposal states "I propose that the common naming convention for places across the world be changed. It has already been done for Canadian places at WP:CAN, but for other countries, the common naming consensus should be adjusted to remove the state, province, island name from the end if possible, because it is an unnecessary disambiguation, unless it is not a primary term." But this would not be a change, it is already the current understanding; the "unnecessary disambiguation" has already been removed from countries other than the U.S. The proposer then goes on to give US cities as examples, thus wanting to reopen USPLACE, which is the reason for the "strong oppose" !votes to the proposal as stated. If the proposer has examples from countries other than the US where this policy would represent a change, let them show an example. Without such examples, it is asking for a reaffirmation of the current situation, and the only "change" would be to eliminate the specific exception of USPLACE. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if the proposal affected only the US, it would be a change, of course. The point is to make all place names consistent with disambiguate only if necessary. Whether that affects the places in 10, 5, 3, 2 or just 1 country that remain inconsistent with disambiguate only if necessary doesn't matter.

Anyway, your assumption that "the "unnecessary disambiguation" has already been removed from countries other than the U.S." is incorrect. The examples provided in the proposal are obviously meant to be illustrative. It's not unreasonable to assume that people should be able to grasp the concept from just one example. But if you need another...

Otaru, Hokkaidō → Otaru

If you still think the proposal does not make sense, or reflects an incorrect understanding of the current situation, please explain how. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, good, thanks. There's an example of a place that could get affected by reaffirming the "no unnecessary disambiguation" policy, and suggests there is a need to reaffirm it. That was certainly not the place that the original proposer had in mind here - they were targeting American cities - but it does show a need for a reaffirmation such as the one I am proposing here. It appears that Otaru, Hokkaidō is not an anomaly but is the result of a preference by the Project:Japan people. Looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Place names, it appears that the Japan folks DO want the prefecture added to cities; if that is based on consensus, then Japan could be specified as another exception.
The rewording I have proposed would address this and similar cases. I really don't see why you are objecting to my proposed wording. Is it because my version specifically allows for exceptions like USPLACE, while the original proposal was worded so as to cast doubt on USPLACE? Face it, the only type of RfC that is going to pass here is one that specifically does not reopen the USPLACE discussion. Not because people are "insecure" about an exception for US cities (which was reviewed by more than 50 people only 6 weeks ago and reaffirmed by a 2-to-1 ratio), but because we are sick and tired of the endless haggling about it, and would like to see that issue put to rest (or allowed to remain at rest) so that we can get back to improving the encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not (necessarily) objecting to your proposed wording (that's not support either). I'm pointing out that it's a completely different proposal, and that nothing which you've said is wrong with the current proposal is actually wrong. Whether the proposer knew which if any places besides the examples listed would be affected is irrelevant. The proposal is to simply bring all place names that currently unnecessarily disambiguate in compliance with disambiguate only when necessary, period, whatever/whereever they may be. That's what we're supposed to be discussing. I'm sorry you and so many others are stick and tired of the haggling about it, but the fact is that the current unnatural/inconsistent situation is obviously problematic not only to many of us regulars, but to many previously uninvolved editors. Until this gets resolved, by actually fixing it, proposals like this are going to be made. The situation is very reminiscent of what happened at Yogurt/Yoghurt. Those favoring restoring the original title were blamed by those favoring the status qho for all the consternation, but it was new uninvolved editors that kept raising the issue over and over, and the issue was finally resolved, as we had predicted, only when the original title was restored.

Similarly, the only way the problem here -- place name titles inconsistent with disambiguate only when necessary -- is ever going to be resolved, is by making all the place name titles consistent with disambiguate only when necessary. Don't blame the messenger. That's not a threat. It's a simple prediction based on facts and years of observation. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words, yes, the original proposal here IS an attempt to overturn the recent discussion and reopen discussion on USPLACE, and you are supporting it on that basis. Thank you for confirming that. In that case, I will go back up to that proposal and make my opposition clear. I'm disappointed that you are unable to accept the result of the previous discussion, but there WAS a discussion and consensus was reached (whether or not you agree with it), and the clear feeling here is that people don't want to reopen it. IMO it would have been decent to allow for some kind of grace period (at least longer than six weeks?) before attempting to overturn that decision. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, by no reasonable standard of consensus could the result in the previous discussion be construed as "consensus". The closing admin notably did not use that word. The result was "maintain status quo", and I agree with that being a reasonable result of that discussion, given the preference for status quo when there is no consensus. But that should not preclude further discussion. To the contrary - we need more discussion to actually achieve consensus. Indeed, discussion is how we develop consensus on WP. And now, perhaps to that end, someone has made another proposal. A related but simpler and broader proposal. I applaud that, and so should you. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C: You describe the current convention as "obviously problematic", but that view isn't one shared by most involved editors. Most of them (indeed more than two-thirds, based on the many responses to the last RfC) actually favor some form of exceptional disambiguation in this case.

That said, I understand that you do consider any exception to the broad rule of minimum disambiguation as a "problem" to be solved, but by no means is that necessarily so. Indeed, Wikipedia acknowledges that to follow a rule just because it's a rule is inappropriate; instead one must determine how and whether to apply a rule based on common sense, reasonability, previous agreements, the best interests of readers, and other unique considerations of the case. We've openly considered such things in this forum many times, and explored at great length the pros and cons of current and alternative proposals – and the outcome has been the continued retention of the current convention. That's a valid result.

Might consensus emerge in the future to change the convention? Of course. But it hasn't yet, nor has it even come close. Certainly if editors raise points that haven't already been talked to death, it'd be very good to discuss them; however, merely repeating the same debate over and over every few weeks simply because a vocal minority are unhappy with the status quo seems (again) like unnecessarily beating a dead horse. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Years and years of discussion of an issue (by hundreds of people) without resolution is a problem. Ultimately, that's what makes the current convention "obviously problematic". The root problem (not quite as obvious) is that unnecessary disambiguation is inconsistent with how we choose most of our other titles on WP, including the titles of most our other articles about places. That inconsistency makes the problem inherent to this convention. If others choose to ignore or deny these problems, that doesn't mean they don't exist, or are not obvious. For years people also claimed there was no problem with the Yoghurt title - but the discussions (by dozens if not hundreds) persisted, averaging about one RM per year, and countless other intervening discussions, for over eight years. But as soon as the title was changed, that "nonexistent" problem was resolved, finally and permanently. We saw similar and arguably more analogous situations when the conventions for Canada and Australia place names were loosened to no longer require unnecessary disambiguation... years of pointless discussion were replaced by a few short and productive renames in a sea of peace and tranquility. That experience with Canada is what apparently motivated this proposal, by the way.

Choosing to continue the convention is indeed a "valid" result, just as "valid" as was the result, RM after RM after RM, to retain the Yoghurt title, and the early decisions to retain the unnecessary disambiguation conventions for Canada and Australia. But these "valid" results didn't address their respective problems, much less solve them. Only results that actually changed the situations to address the respective root problems were the problems solved.

I stopped raising this issue myself years ago. That doesn't mean I refrain from participating when others raise the issue, as was the case in the previous RFC, and this one, not only by sharing my opinion, but also by explaining the reasons I hold my opinion, and by pointing out the flaws in other arguments. I do this because I believe it will help us achieve the only way to resolve the issue sooner.

I didn't understand why people were so enamored with the h in Yoghurt that they fought tooth and nail to retain it year after year, all along claiming "there is no problem" and those seeking change were beating a dead horse, etc. But no change was possible until enough finally realized how silly their position was. The same kind of thing happened with TV episode names (where one contingent insisted on adding the TV series name to the title of articles about TV episodes even if the episode had a unique name), though in that case it had to go to Arbcom before sanity and consistency finally prevailed. I'm similarly perplexed by why people here are so insistent on keeping an exceptional (and obviously problematic) inconsistent convention. And I realize no change is possible here also until enough finally realize how silly their position is. Since it took eight years with Yoghurt, I'm in no position to predict how long it will take here. But it will finally occur, I'm fairly confident about that. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone just see a Hobgoblin run though here? --Jayron32 19:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Perfect! Indeed, blind conformance with the City, State convention was the hobgloblin of the little minds of those who supported it even for cities like San Francisco and Chicago, and remains for those who continue to support it for cities with unique names. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Blind conformance"? Many reasonable points have repeatedly been raised in favor of the convention; to sweepingly deny the validity of such points, and to suggest that mere "blind conformance" is what motivates "those who continue to support it", is highly unproductive. Merit can indeed exist in opinions other than your own; please try to recognize that. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Years and years without a resolution? A resolution to what? The convention has been used stably and successfully for many years, and there's no consensus to change it. It seems that what you're actually lamenting is that years and years have gone by without your preferred alternative being adopted, but that in itself is not "obviously problematic".

You also suggest that not following exceptionless minimum disambiguation is an "inherent" problem: but why? It's never been Wikipedia policy that the broad guideline of minimum disambiguation must be applied universally; indeed, Wikipedia makes it clear that common sense, reasonability, previous agreements, the best interests of readers, and other relevant considerations are just as important. Rules aren't meant to be followed for rules' sake.

And finally: if you do wish to adhere strictly to Wikipedia standards, then please consider adhering to the precepts of WP:AGF. Taking the position that the only solution here is to wait for everyone else to "finally realize how silly their position is" is uncooperative, unconstructive, and in bad faith. ╠╣uw [talk] 02:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C, you seem to assume bad faith on the part of those that disagree with you. You speak of pointing out flaws in arguments, insanity, inconsistency, silliness, little minds, pointless discussion, et cetera. You continue to communicate, in various ways, that you will not stop until you get the result you want, and that you have no respect for any opposing view. The previous RfC discussion produced a strong majority result, but you say there was no resolution. All this makes it difficult to have a productive discussion, when it seems so clear that you will not compromise. There is another way: accept that article naming is more complicated than you make it seem. Omnedon (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C, it is totally inappropriate for you to dismiss as "silly" the considered and policy-based arguments of all those who don't share your interpretation of the naming conventions. Sure, the controversy over how to spell yogurt was "silly" (or rather "lame"; I just noticed that it is a featured discussion at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Yoghurt or yogurt), which didn't stop you from pursuing it single-mindedly for eight years, and doesn't stop you now from repeated gloating over the fact that you finally got your way in that case. And that controversy was not "resolved finally and permanently" as you claim; in fact there is a debate about it going on right now, as you well know. But the issue here is not a argument about how to spell "yogurt". It is about how to name thousands of cities, where millions of people live. Dozens of editors have stated positions in opposition to yours, offering reasoned arguments and citing policy, but you dismiss them all as "silly", while you continue your crusade. (Interesting that you couldn't recognize yourself in the quote cited above, about those who demand a "foolish consistency".) Your attitude that only you are right, and that this issue will only be settled when it is done your way, and that you will continue hammering on it for years and years until that happens - these attitudes on your part are not in accord with Wikipedia traditions and are not beneficial to the project. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

What she said. --Jayron32 21:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Omnedon, for the record, I don't think anyone involved here is operating in bad faith, and I apologize if any of my words implied I thought they were. I assure that was not the intent. If anyone is being silly, for example, I suspect they don't realize it.

The creation of this RFC/proposal, before I commented on it, along with various similar actions by others, indicates a lack of resolution regarding this issue, not my words.

You claim, There is another way: accept that article naming is more complicated than you make it seem. How can I accept something that none of the evidence supports, and all of the evidence contradicts? I've seen this and similar "beating a dead horse" arguments made time after time after time, always in defense of some status quo, and time after time after time, it's eventually proven wrong.

Article naming does not have to be complicated. We can have clear and simple rules that lead to obvious non-controversial titles. Of course there will always be a few difficult individual cases here and there, but there is no justification for creating an unnatural and inherent conflict by having a rule that treats a whole category of titles differently from all others. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is being silly, for example, I suspect they don't realize it. That's the most backhanded "apology" I ever heard. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Melanie, it's not "my way" to disambiguate only when necessary. It's the Wikipedia way. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's only PART of the Wikipedia way, and not the most important part. According to the nutshell summary at Wikipedia:Article titles, "This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." USPLACE is based on those criteria, particularly the Reliable Source criterion. You seem to believe that the MOST IMPORTANT criterion is "no unnecessary disambiguation", but that opinion is not supported by that page, or by WP usage generally. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Not true, Melanie. I don't believe following usage in RS is less important, or that "no unnecessary disambiguation" is most important. There is no conflict in guidance here for which weighing different considerations to make a compromise must be made.

Your argument that using the city, state convention is following usage in RS might sound reasonable at first, but it's actually clearly wrong.

For any given city, it's true that both "cityname" alone and "cityname, statename" are commonly used to refer to the city in reliable sources, but in contexts where the location of the city is known the statename is rarely included, indicating sources include statename as information, not as part of the name. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to suggest that the fact that the state may be dropped in cases where the state is already known from context means that the state must not be part of the name, but that doesn't follow. If it's understood that I'm talking about John Smith, I'll likely just refer to him as John... but that doesn't indicate that Smith is not part of his name. ╠╣uw [talk] 01:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"John", "Smith" and "John Smith" are all names for the same person, and all are reasonable answers to " what is his name?". "San Francisco" is the name of a city in the state with the name "California", but "California" is not a name for that city, and neither is "San Francisco, California". While "San Francisco, California" might reasonably answer " where are you from?", it's never the answer to " what is the NAME of the city that..." --Born2cycle (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I simply note that it's incorrect to claim that the elimination in common usage of part of an identifier, in a context where that part is already understood, must necessarily indicate that that part is merely informational, as demonstrated by the counterexample of the personal name. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing I said was based on the premise that "elimination in common usage of part of an identifier, in a context where that part is already understood, must necessarily indicate that that part is merely informational". That's not the case for names of persons with respect to first/last names, as you point out, but it is the case with respect to place names when specified with the name of the larger geographical area in which it is. I mean, "Smith" and "John Smith" are also names of the person. "California" and "San Francisco, California" are not names of the city. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C: No, minimum disambiguation is often but not always the way. Wikipedia frequently recognizes that exceptions to minimum disambiguation are indeed desirable and beneficial. (WP:NCP, for instance, has guidelines for redirecting even unambiguous short names to full ones, like Oprah redirecting to Oprah Winfrey.)

It is, however, the Wikipedia way not to be bound to rules simply for rules' sake: WP:IAR.

Exceptions should be limited to individual situations or articles. They should not apply to an entire class of 1000s of articles. That's not an exception. That's creating a new rule. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not Wikipedia policy.

In fact, Wikipedia supports a host of class conventions that vary in some way from other broad guidelines. WP:NCP, for example, states: "Don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used." It doesn't merely make exceptions for an explicit, static list of individual articles, but rather it creates a convention that applies to any articles in that class: Oprah→Oprah Winfrey, Mao→Mao Zedong, Beyoncé→Beyoncé Knowles, etc. More broadly, WP:NCP itself exists for the purpose of defining exceptional conventions to the broader guideline of "Firstname Lastname"; many other conventions operate similarly.

Put simply, naming conventions in general recognize and serve an important purpose that merely applying broad and exceptionless guidelines (like "never exceed minimum disambiguation") would not, which is why we have them. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, since both the first and last names of people are both names of the subject in question, as is their combination, that's a very different situation. It's more of a clarification of what to do in an ambiguous situation, not an exception. There is no ambiguity in the case of (for example) San Francisco as neither "California" nor the two names in combination are the name of that subject. Very different. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying that different types of articles may need different naming conventions. USPLACE works. It is not an "exception" to a "rule", but a convention based on the particular subject -- in this case, United States places. There are many such situations throughout Wikipedia. We've been over all of this. Do you have anything new to offer that hasn't been discussed over and over just recently? Omnedon (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C: Again, as I said above, Wikipedia recognizes a great many conventions that vary in some ways from broader guidelines, of which NCP is one. Wikipedia considers it appropriate for titling to be handled in somewhat different and varied ways in order to accommodate the needs of different and varied sets of articles. That's what specific conventions are for. You may dislike that that is so, but it is so. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Omnedon and Huwman, this is a response to both of your comments.

First, please stop referring to what you believe I like or dislike. Personal likes/dislikes, including mine, whatever they may be, are irrelevant here, of course.

Now, clarifying an otherwise ambiguous situation with specific conventions in a way that does not contradict general conventions shared by most other articles is one thing, and not a problem. Establishing specific conventions that are contrary to general conventions shared by most other articles is quite another, and usually creates problems. Doing so does not necessarily create problems, but the evidence in this case regarding how problematic this convention is, years and years of controversy involving hundreds of editors on this page and countless talk pages of US city articles, is overwhelming. Until the root problem is identified and rectified, that won't change. That's not a threat, it's an educated prediction based on years of reams of data.

Also, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Just because there are other problematic conventions that contradict basic titling principles like disambiguate only when necessary is not an excuse to not solve that problem elsewhere, like here. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C: You seem to suggest that conventions should merely "clarify ambiguity", but I don't see where that's established. For titling in some areas to vary from titling in others is not necessarily problematic, and accords with Wikipedia policies such as WP:TITLE which assert that favoring some goals (like naturalness or consistency) over other goals (like precision or conciseness, to which the guideline of minimum disambiguation relates) may indeed be necessary and appropriate. The community in this case seemingly does not recognize such variation as a problem either, with proposals to implement the alternative of exceptionless minimum disambiguation gaining only a mixed and largely unfavorable response.

Will there still be debate? Probably. That's normal. Any convention affecting many thousands of articles edited and maintained by many hundreds of editors (like USPLACE) is almost bound to include some who dissent, and that's fine. Proposing alternatives is good, and discussing them is desirable. We do that. However, if debates cease to be productive and civil and instead become repetitive or tendentious (as some editors have suggested they've grown), then that is certainly a problem... but it's a problem with editor behavior that can be solved by better adhering to the principles of responsible, civil, and constructive interaction. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not explicitly stated, but it's common sense that the WP:AT principles are prioritized. For example, naturalness is a higher priority than conciseness. Always, not just in some cases. Otherwise, someone could reasonably argue moving Grand Canyon to Grand Canyo. Now, if two names are approximately equal in naturalness, then concision has a role to play. That is, a title that is not natural is never a consideration, no matter how concise.

As an aside, we would be a lot better off if the priorities were completely worked out and clearly stated for consistent/objective application. It would end most RM debates which are usually about a reasonable title and a reasonable alternative, and are dominated by JDLI arguments based on each person prioritizing the principles in a manner that happens to favor his or her personal preference.

Resolving the underlying reasons for having these never-ending disagreements is what is at stake here. And years and years of having different experienced editors repeatedly bring up the same objections to a given situation is about the strongest evidence there can be in favor of needing a change. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no indication whatsoever that the five titling goals presented at WP:AT are listed in any sort of priority order, nor does common sense indicate that. In fact the text below indicates the reverse. First of all it says these are goals, not rules; and, "It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others." This allows some flexibility, which is positive, not negative. Omnedon (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If in fact there is any implication of priority of goals at WP:Article titles, it would be that the most important are listed in the nutshell. That nutshell summary states "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." In other words, the highest priority goals are recognizability, lack of ambiguity, and consistency with Reliable Sources. See anything in there to suggest that "concision" is a top priority? Neither do I. In fact, concision clearly takes second place to the three listed there. One reason why so many editors support USPLACE, is because it meets these three objectives. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you someone can't see the inherent common sense priority everyone, including you, gives naturalness over conciseness, especially after my explanation above, I can't help you. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC) totally misread Melanie's comment. made statement general. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I was merely quoting the nutshell, which presumably reflects consensus about titling conventions; their words, not mine. The nutshell does not address the relative priorities of "naturalness" and "conciseness", and in fact implies that the three goals it does mention are more important than either - unless "naturalness" is a synonym for "recognizability"? --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that for a given city with an unambiguous name, the short and long (state qualified) title meet recognizability (remember, that's not general recognizability, but recognizability to those familiar with the topic), and are unambiguous and consistent with usage. Since those high priority nutshell principles don't favor either one, we go to the lower priority criteria to break the tie, where concision indicates we should go with the shorter. Not to mention that only the short one is actually the name of the topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

All the "flexibility" enables is the rationalization of JDLI arguments. If everyone assigns the relative weights of each principle in each situation however they wish, practically any title can be justified. Why have principles at all?

The flexibility, which dilutes if not defeats the value of the principles, is negative, not positive. The result is that in any given situation in deciding between titles A and B, instead of looking at the principles to decide which is best, one can decide which he likes best, and then decide how to weigh the principle priorities in order to favor that preference. It's ridiculous. That's not positive. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This encyclopedia covers so many different kinds of subjects that some degree of flexibility is not just positive, it's vital. Different situations may call for different solutions, and it is done by consensus. The principles of article titling are being followed here. As I have said before, article titling is not about the single rule that you continually state (least disambiguation). Omnedon (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence for the need for this kind of wide open flexibility. Exceptions for individual unusual cases in less than half of 1% of cases (like two nearby cities in same region with same name - see below)? Yes, absolutely. But a broad flexibility that allows for assigning the priorities differently for each article title? No way. I'm confident a slightly tightened down consistently prioritized criteria could determine titles clearly and objectively for the vast, vast majority of our articles without any need for any kind of flexibility at all. It's not that hard.

To be clear, I'm talking about determining the undisambiguated title of all articles - where disambiguation is required additional rules (special conventions) are often required beyond the general principles/criteria. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence of "wide open flexibility". Omnedon (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Melanie quoted the nutshell of WP:AT earlier, but here it is again: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." How does your tight focus on least disambiguation fit into this? I don't believe it serves the reader, as Noetica stated very well above. As for the list of goals, it is bulleted, not numbered, which is yet another indication that they are in no particular order. Are you actually saying we should not have any flexibility in article titling? Omnedon (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Born2Cycle: No one's suggesting that "everyone assigns the relative weights of each principle in each situation however they wish". The matter at hand is one particular convention where the community of involved editors weighs relevant principles by publicly debating all reasonable considerations. I see nothing ridiculous about that. Further, current convention is not about handling "each article title" differently; quite the reverse – it applies a single, consistent form to the broad class of articles it addresses.

If you do honestly think that flexibility in Wikipedia rules serves no other purpose than the "rationalization of JDLI" arguments, then (to quote a phrase) I can't help you. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone was suggesting that "everyone assigns the relative weights of each principle in each situation however they wish". I merely pointed out that that's what happens naturally when no guidance is given on how to prioritize the principles when there is a conflict.

And I made no statement about flexibility in WP rules in general, or what purpose that serves. I was speaking specifically about rules having to do with selecting titles. In the specific context of title selection, flexibility in the rules serves no purpose other than to facilitate the rationalization of JDLI arguments. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So, nothing new, then? Omnedon (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This was very thoughouhly hashed out just two months ago with a strong consensus to keep the current guidelines. No, there's nothing new here. Nor will there likely be when it is brought up again next quarter by people who apparently enjoy this kind of wankery. Jonathunder (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the person who brought it up this quarter "enjoys this kind of wankery"? If not, please clarify.

And there was no consensus to keep or change the guidelines; no consensus favored the status quo. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It is more accurate to say that there was no consensus to make a change to the well-established convention. Omnedon (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

yes, about two-thirds of participants supported either the status quo or a proposal similar to it. It's not as if it was a wash. AgnosticAphid talk 11:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If B2C is hatting proposals that he says don't have consensus support, why is he objecting the closing the RFC, which clearly is nowhere close to consensus support itself? Dicklyon (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I un-hatted them, as the template specifically provides (in bold, nonetheless), "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators..." AgnosticAphid talk 14:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Was not aware of that. The hatting of subsections by involved editors is pretty common practice, and I see nothing wrong with it, assuming that the reverting of the hatting by anyone who disagrees with the hatting is respected, which it is in this case. I just thought the tangential discussions in these sections were unproductive, getting unwieldy and diverted focus from the RfC/proposal. That's why I hatted them. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that next time you read the instructions of a template before you use it. Also, surely you're not arguing that your hatting was correct just because lots of other people make the same mistake? Perhaps we should close this discussion on the basis that lots of cities already use the city, state naming convention. AgnosticAphid talk 12:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. You say you hatted them because you thought they diverted attention from the RfC proposal. Yet you have now opened these new sections:

• Do readers benefit from having state in the title?
• Which is more concise? "City" or "City, State"?
• Is the name of the state an integral part of the US place name?

According to you, this RfC isn't about US place names. Yet that's pretty much all you talk about. The wording of the RfC and the subsequent discussion definitely shows that the focus is on US place names. And that was already discussed extensively. Omnedon (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I opened up subsections to bring focus to specific issues relevant to this proposal initially brought up by others, one of which, by the way, the "benefit" issue, is dominated by an example from Australia. The "integral" one was brought up exactly like that about US cities in particular as justification to oppose this proposal. Don't blame me for addressing an argument brought up by someone else in the terms they used. The concision argument, which I raised, applies to all city article titles, not just US city article titles, and the point there is totally consistent with the proposal (make the convention for all place names universally consistent across countries). Enough with the filibustering! --Born2cycle (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C: No, USPLACE was not initially brought up by others, it was initially brought up by the requestor of the RfC who makes explicit reference to WP:USPLACE and specific US places. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly USPLACE would be affected by this proposal, so of course it's likely to be referenced as example. So what? That doesn't mean that this proposal is "about USPLACE". It's not. This proposal is about WP:PLACE, and making all the article titles covered by each of the country-specific sub-area subsections, including WP:USPLACE, more consistent with each other, and in better accordance with the principles at WP:CRITERIA. Why would anyone be against such an initiative? --Born2cycle (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

For the reasons discussed. Not everyone agrees that the proposal would be in better accordance with all the principles of good naming, particularly in its application to specific areas like the US. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

End the madness

This discussion is not productive. The previous RfC was closed after a huge amount of discussion among a lot of editors, and in the end we kept the current convention for United States places. Yet here we are again, much too soon, re-hashing it. Let's just stop. Omnedon (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This RFC has gone on for 18 days now and 24 people have already voted. A summary close would disrespect the discussion that has already taken place. This is an important issue that involves the titles of hundreds of city articles. We can afford to follow procedure and close it after a full 30-day discussion. Kauffner (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The existence of this discussion is disrespectful of the previous discussion, a mere month ago, in which 58 people !voted and a 2:1 consensus was reached. --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, in 30 days within minutes after this one closing, there'll be another. --Jayron32 04:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner, it's basically the same RfC as a couple of months ago. We've been over all of it already. Nothing new is happening here. Omnedon (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you all think of my suggestion above that there ought to be some kind of "statute of limitations," so that after a thorough discussion of an issue, the same issue can't be brought before the community again until after a decent time interval - say 12 months, or at least 6 months? This discussion, coming so soon after the massive previous discussion and so repetitive of it, is a complete violation of the guideline at WP:TITLE which says "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." --MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. If you think a discussion is madness, w a l k a w a y. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy suggests everyone walk away and cool down when debate becomes repetitious and tendentious. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Translating Born2cycle's statement into plain English: "Let me have my way and it all stops". --Calton | Talk 04:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Every section of this RfC is loaded with filibustering about how we discussed it all before. Anyone who thinks they have something better to do, please just do it. Kauffner (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  It's not "filibustering"; in most cases, it's an accurate note that the matter has been discussed before, and the stated request of this RfC has gotten a strong consensus against. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  The purpose of the RFC is to discuss the merits of the proposal that was made. If you are using it for another purpose, that is filibustering. Kauffner (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  The merits have been discussed, both here and elsewhere. It's appropriate to point out that debate in this RfC is essentially the same as in the lengthy preceding one, and many editors are indeed rightly pointing to such repetition as a problem. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  If I complain about filibustering, you respond with more filibustering. Tell me when elementary school is over. Kauffner (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  No, I'm actually agreeing with you: the merits of exceptionless minimum disambiguation should indeed be discussed – and have been. Further, if there are additional relevant points that we have not yet discussed, then discussing them would be fine. Do you have any? ╠╣uw [talk] 19:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  There has never been a consensus regarding this issue in general, much less a strong consensus. There has never been any discussion regarding the specific proposal made in this proposal. That's why there should be more, not less, discussion. See Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building in talk pages. The only madness here revolves around the extraordinary efforts being made by the status quo defenders to avoid discussing the proposal, and instead discuss the need to stop discussing the proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  B2C: Continuing to assert that there has "never been any discussion regarding the specific proposal made" is false and unconstructive. Clearly many editors have made points both pro and con; I myself responded directly to specific, related questions you posed above within this RfC; others have also discussed matters directly related to this debate. In earlier sections of this very RfC you, I, and others discussed naming conventions, disambiguation, prioritization of article title goals, etc. (And of course an extremely lengthy and detailed discussion of literally pages of pros and cons surrounding exceptionless minimum disambiguation and other alternatives was undertaken before that). I understand you disagree with others' views, but they do exist and have been well articulated many times; dismissing them as nonexistent is extremely unhelpful and in bad faith.

  That said, it's certainly true that some many editors ([23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31], etc.) have recently expressed concern that the current debate unnecessarily or inappropriately repeats earlier recent debates, including an RfC closed with a clear determination to retain the existing USPLACES convention. I don't consider it madness to voice concern over such repetition, nor madness to wish to avoid it; WP:CONSENSUS itself cautions against such repetition, calling it disruptive and damaging. I strongly agree that that's so, and feel we've reached that point here. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  My point was that prior to this RfC, there has never been discussion about the specific proposal made in this RfC. The fact that some (albeit very little, particularly from the oppose side, especially as compared to how much has been said by them in favor of ending this discussion) has occurred in this RfC is beside the point. The specific proposal here goes beyond USPLACE and would bring consistency uniformly to the guidelines for place names in all countries. That, AFAIK, prior to this RfC, has never been discussed, and nothing you cited indicates otherwise. Enough with the filibustering! --Born2cycle (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I expressed willingness to consider this specific proposal as a GENERAL rule, with provision for consensus-based exceptions such as USPLACE. I even proposed that as a possible wording, but nobody followed up on it. You clearly intend that this "new" proposal should be applied universally, without exceptions. That is what takes this out of the realm of a new idea; it isn't. Your arguments here (all of which you have made many times before, including in the just-closed discussion) reduce it to just another in a long line of attempts on your part to overturn USPLACE (which is the only exception you seem to care about; there are other place-name conventions that involve adding a state, province, prefecture, etc. that never seem to cause any problems or attract your notice). --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C: The proposal made in this RfC is to apply the convention of exceptionless minimum disambiguation to all place names, with explicit reference to USPLACE. We've previously discussed the merits of such a convention and its effect on US placenames at great length. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

And no consensus was reached in that discussion (which in my opinion was initially structured in a way that made consensus especially difficult). That doesn't mean consensus cannot be reached in a new discussion, like this one, especially if people actually engage in discussion of the issues, like at #Which is more concise? "City" or "City, State"?, instead of filibustering in sections like this one. Enough with the filibustering! --Born2cycle (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You give conciseness extra weight because you believe the others are ambiguous on this. But that is only your opinion. For example, it is recognized by Wikipedia that some subjects may require different title treatment than others. United States place names are so often re-used from state to state that a majority of articles must have the state included. So within the scope of United States places, it is consistent to use that for the remaining titles; and that is not a "wash" or a "coin toss". It is consistent.

As for conciseness, here is one definition of "concise", from dictionary.reference.com:

"expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but comprehensive in scope; succinct; terse"

Thus, the title "Portage, Indiana" is concise. It is short, but it also conveys useful information. The title "Portage" doesn't convey much information at all (see Noetica's statements on this subject above). Therefore "Portage, Indiana" is a concise title. What you are talking about is not concision, but some sort of absolute minimum. It can't be titled any less than "Portage", so that to you is concision. But that's not what the word means. Omnedon (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C: Yes, filibustering should indeed end. Do you have any new points to raise that haven't already been previously considered? ╠╣uw [talk]

Off the top of my head, new points/arguments recently made that I don't think have ever been made before:

1. An explanation for why conciseness is particularly weighty with regard to this issue.
2. Specific reasons why conciseness favors the shorter form
3. An explanation for why an argument that says the state is integral to the name of a US city is flawed
4. why a particular argument saying conciseness favors the longer form is flawed.
5. An argument for why naturalness favors neither.
6. An argument for why consistency favors neither.

--Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)