Category talk:Townships in Pennsylvania by county

Naming conventions
I realize that category talk pages are not the usual place for discussions, but I think this is the best place for this discussion. It covers all of the townships in Pennsylvania. There has been much discussion lately about how township names in Pennsylvania should be titled. Some go for X Township, Pennsylvania. Others want X Township, Y County, Pennsylvania. Of course there are many Washington Townships in Pennsylvania so they and others like it will need to include the county name in the title. The townships in question are the unique ones like Horton Township and Plunketts Creek Township. I think it is best to limit this discussion to Pennsylvania. If other wikiprojects want to do it differently that is fine. The status of townships vary greatly from state to state. Gerry D (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The original place the subject came up is Talk:Horton Township, Elk County, Pennsylvania
 * A broader discussion of the topic is here Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)

I already started this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania, where my proposal to remove the county names where not needed for disambiguation was supported by two other contributors. Do we really need this conversation at four different places? Powers T 13:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not particularly, no, but only two or three people weighed in there. This is an attempt to get the discussion to focus on Pennsylvania. Here or there is fine. Gerry D (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about the behavior of certain partisans in this discussion; both Horton and Bensalem townships were recently moved to longer titles incorporating the county name, contrary to recent and decisive requested move discussions that favored the shorter titles. Going against consensus in that manner is a very bad idea.  Heck, Bensalem was moved twice.  Powers T 13:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated in the PA wiki project page, I am neutral on this matter. But I think a decision needs to be made for all Pennsylvania township articles, not just Horton and Bensalem. Gerry D (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. LtPowers: Bensalem was moved back and forth due to concerns from another editor about violating the standard naming practice for PA townships.  Such concerns are in part what broader discussions seek to address.  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  15:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

An important question to this discussion is: If the decision is made to move these, who is going to move them? Can a bot do the moving? I moved many of them a couple or more years ago and it took a long time. It was a three or four person job that took all of us a long time to move. The moves inlcuded avoiding the redirects, updating templates, etc. It's going to be a big project. This is my main reason for opposing the move in the first place. Gerry D (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you will allow a non-Pennsylvanian to weigh in here. As a general rule, I believe Pennsylvania townships should be named in the form "Foo Township, Pennsylvania," as "Township" is almost always included in the name and the county name is superfluous, except where needed for disambiguation. However, in my professional and personal interactions with the state, I have noticed that some townships often drop the word "township." An example is Upper St. Clair Township, Pennsylvania, which uses the postal address "Upper St. Clair, Pennsylvania," drops the "Township" in names like Upper St. Clair School District and Upper St. Clair High School, and even sometimes drops the "Upper" in names like that of St. Clair Country Club. Those predilections notwithstanding, I endorse keeping "township" in the names of all Pennsylvania townships. Additionally, while I have your attention and am discussing "St. Clair," I'd like to put in a plug for using hatnotes to disambiguate among similarly named Pennsylvania communities. It can be exasperatingly confusing for an outside to figure out whether a place in Pennsylvania that someone refers to as "St. Clair" is actually the borough in Schuylkill County (St. Clair, Pennsylvania), Upper St. Clair Township (in Allegheny County), St. Clair Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, or possibly East or West St. Clair Township in Bedford County. (Actually, I've only ever had to deal -- in different real-life contexts -- with people who were talking about the borough or Upper St. Clair, but that hasn't prevented me from being confused.) --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that these township articles should not be an exception to the article titles policy (and I am fine just discussing Pennsylvania for the moment, in the hope of finding a clear consensus). When there is only one township of a particular name in Pennsylvania, then it is being overly precise to include the county name. The county name is superfluous and lengthens the title unnecessarily, which is against the article titles policy. To me, it is pretty clear-cut and I'm not sure how many ways I can make the same argument. If necessary, I will copy/paste the arguments of some who are much more eloquent than myself from previous move discussions. I agree with Gerry that who will move these articles is an important question. It would be great if a bot could do it, but I'm not sure if one would be smart enough to know when the article needs to stay disambiguated and when it needs to be moved. That said, it probably wouldn't hurt to drop a note at somewhere like WP:BOTREQ to see what some bot operators say. If a bot can't do it, I would be willing to help out. I realise it would be a big project, but there's no deadline, so as long as we get it done eventually, it will be fine. Lastly, I agree with Orlady that Township should remain in the title of these townships. Jenks24 (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are the reasons why I supported moving the PA township articles so that all were "X Township, Y County, Pennsylvnia". First off it was consistent, so that every township article was named the same way. Second it makes life easier when adding links to township articles. Many townships are not well known outside (or even within) their counties, so it was never clear when adding a link to a township article if it was a dab link or not - for example, I know Centre County has a Rush Township, Pennsylvania, but was not certain if it was a unique name or not until I added it and previewed this and then went to the link (which is a dab). Third (on a related note), I think that most people on seeing a township name are not sure where it is, whereas adding the county helps better identify the location. Fourth, either name works if it is a unique name (so "X Township, Y County, Pennsylvania" and "X Township, Pennsylvania" both take the reader to the same article), so I do not see why they all have to be moved.

I agree that the word Township should be in the article name no matter what. At this point, I prefer that the article names stay the way they are, but see that most views are in favor of moving them to the simpler name if unique. I am pretty busy and would not be able to help move articles (again) if that is the consensus. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I also favor the existing "X Township, Y County, Pennsylvania" for a various reasons, some of which were explored in the earlier discussion. I think Ruhrfisch's points about consistency and clarity are well made, so rather than reiterate I'll simply say "agreed". Huwmanbeing &#9728;  &#9733;  12:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, for reasons given at length at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), I favor only including the county name in the title where needed for disambiguation. This makes these titles more consistent with the convention for most places in the U.S. Townships in Pennsylvania are simply one type of municipality and should not be treated any differently than other municipalities. Townships such as McCandless, Pennsylvania, can change how their name is styled while remaining a township so far as the commonwealth government is concerned. The issue of linking is minor. The confusion remains -- editors who are unaware of the ambiguity issues are likely to link to "X Township, Pennsylvania", which is what might be expected based on the standard convention, regardless of whether unambiguous townships include the county name. Those editors who are aware of ambiguity issues can always create "safe" links by using the name that included the county name and that will either link directly or link through a redirect to the correct article. older ≠ wiser 13:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC) I agree with Huwmanbeing and Ruhrfisch on this. "X Township, Y County, Pennsylvania" is best for reasons already stated here (and in similar discussions in several other places). Omnedon (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll be slightly contrarian here. In the earlier discussions referred to above, it seemed to me that PA townships were most similar to NJ townships. And as we found out, unambiguous NJ townships are found either at "X Township, NJ" or simply at "X, NJ". I'd like to see the same flexibility in PA. If, like Orlady said, some townships are generally known without "Township" in the title, we should probably title them as such. So that's my proposal: depending on sources and usage, use either "X Township, PA" or "X, PA" for unambiguous townships. As a backup, though, I'm happy with the "X Township, PA" formula as well. Dohn joe (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Practically, this already happens in a couple of cases. Both McCandless, Pennsylvania and Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania are first class townships so far as the commonwealth is concerned, although both have styled their names differently under home rule charters. But the general point is that townships are merely one type of municipality in PA and should follow the general naming conventions that apply to most other municipalities in the U.S. PS And then there are some home rule municipalities that have similarly styled their name without "Township", such as Penn Hills Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and yet this has been moved from Penn Hills, Pennsylvania to the longer name even though the municipality does not use that name. older ≠ wiser 22:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Stalemate
It really looks like we are at a stalemate here. I don't seeing us reaching a resolution that will satisfy all parties. That being said, where should be go from here? I am glad that all this attention is being brought to the township articles and the navigation of the articles in being improved witht the hat note drive that several users have undertaken. Do we do nothing? Do we go ahead and move all the articles over the object of some users? Do we leave it alone because it's too much work to move them? And trust me, it's a pile of work to do if they are moved. Gerry D (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What it means is that there's no consensus one way or the other, which conveniently means that there's no need to do any mass moves or to revert moves that have already occurred. Powers T 02:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So nobody's happy and the indifferent remain indifferent. Gerry D (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ... I suppose, if you want to be pessimistic about it. Powers T 11:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there really a stalemate? Seems to me that in the various forums where this has been discussed over the past month, a fairly strong consensus has formed to drop the county when it's unnecessary - roughly speaking, 10 editors have been in favor of that plan, with four or so in favor of the status quo. And Gerry D has switched to neutral. Even in this somewhat obscure forum, the current tally is 5 to 3 in favor of dropping the county. That seems strong enough to go forward with the county name removal plan (which, by the way, I'm happy to help with, if bots can't handle it). Doesn't it? Dohn joe (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see broad agreement having emerged from the discussions, which is what's needed for consensus. However, as Gerry points out, it's good that the discussion has nonetheless prompted other improvements.  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  20:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I think that the original discussion at Talk:Horton Township, Pennsylvania was too narrow and the one on the wikipedia talk was too broad. Here the "votes", which this isn't really a vote, have been too close to give a solid consensus. Gerry D (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think LtPowers has it about right. There is no consensus supporting a uniform convention to always include the county name in article titles and there is similarly no consensus for mass moving. As such it looks like articles will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when they are proposed to be renamed (and similarly, if pages are moved, they should not be moved back with edit summaries saying there is a standard). older ≠ wiser 11:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

List of dabs
There is a listing of all dab township names at Category:Pennsylvania township disambiguation pages. I have done all the A's that were not already fixed with a hat note and all the Rush and Washington Townships. See Washington Township, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. If only two townships shared a name I used distinguish instead - see Athens Township, Crawford County, Pennsylvania.

Perhaps we can keep track of what needs to be done / what has been done here? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I did much the same sort of thing for Michigan townships with similar names. I may be able to help out some here. older ≠ wiser 15:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PS, there is also List of townships in Pennsylvania, though I posed a question at Talk:List of townships in Pennsylvania whether it might be more helpful if that list were in alphabetical order since the townships are already categorized by county. The reason being that in addition to exact matched on township names, there are often some very close matches that could easily be confused. It would be somewhat easier to see such patterns in an alpha sorted list. older ≠ wiser 15:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote dabs done by first letter

 * A
 * B
 * C
 * D
 * E
 * F
 * G
 * H
 * I
 * J
 * K
 * L
 * M
 * N
 * O
 * P
 * No Q
 * R
 * S
 * T
 * U
 * V
 * W
 * No X
 * Y
 * No Z