Talk:Rochester metropolitan area, New York/Archive 1

article title falsely identifies topic as part of NY metropolitan area
I realize there was just a requested move, but this is a particularly terrible article to omit the second comma from. New York is being used as a disambiguator, to say "no, this article isn't about the Minnesota or some other Rochester metropolitan area!" The "Rochester, NY metropolitan area" title states that the article is about the area within the New York metropolitan area called Rochester, in the same way that "St. Paul, Minnesota" means the the area within Minnesota called St Paul." But of course Rochester isn't in the New York metropolitan area!  If someone makes another RM someday I'd support it. AgnosticAphid  talk 02:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See also this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Do_article_titles_that_include_proper_names_need_to_follow_standard_grammatical_rules.3F  AgnosticAphid  talk 03:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Two opposes, two supports (including nominator). Given that lack of consensus, and also previous move results on teh same topic, I conclude that there is no consensus to move. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Rochester, New York metropolitan area → Rochester, New York, metropolitan area – Grammatically, state names used as qualifiers must be set off with commas on both sides. "When both a city's name and that city's state or country's name are mentioned together, the state or country's name is treated as a parenthetical element." Powers T 15:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a misinterpretation of correct grammar. Is the subject the metropolitan area, or the Rochester, New York, metropolitan area (within the city limits of Rochester). Since it is the former, there is no comma to separate the state and metropolitan area. (the city is not the metropolitan area, the greater area is the metropolitan area) This discussion has come up multiple times and has always been rejected. See a little further down in the referenced grammar guide, where it says "Also, when the state or country's name becomes part of a compound structure, the second comma is dropped" Apteva (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: without the comma, it looks like one is referencing firstly to "Rochester", and secondly to "New York metropolitan area". HandsomeFella (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What we are referencing is a New York metropolitan area which is centered on Rochester. Apteva (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that. But the "metropolitan area" part relates to Rochester, not New York, right? "New York" is only a disambiguator, albeit comma-separated and not enclosed in parentheses, and the end of the disambiguator should be marked with a comma. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Opppse – The "New York" in the "New York metropolitan area" doesn't refer to the state of New York but the New York metropolitan area as a whole. The comma rule doesn't apply here. --Article editor (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Where in the world do you get that idea? This has nothing to do with the New York metropolitan area, which is hundreds of miles away.  Powers T 14:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, nevermind. I withdraw my vote. --Article editor (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Proposal is contrary to the naming given in Census Bureau source documents:, .  Also oppose for the reason given by User:Apteva.  Finally, I can't believe anyone would seriously consider applying the rule cited—which is clearly intended for sentence construction—to a proper noun.  -- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a proper noun; if it were, it'd be "Rochester, New York Metropolitan Area". Powers T 14:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's funny, the term meets the definition of a proper noun. You should correct the term given in the lede (viz., Rochester, New York Metropolitan Statistical Area) and contact the Census Bureau and tell them their capitalization is not to your liking.  -- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rochester, New York Metropolitan Statistical Area may be a proper noun, but Rochester, New York metropolitan area is not, as evidenced by the lack of capitalization. Considering the latter is the page title I'm trying to change, I'm not sure what your point is.  Powers T 00:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Previous discussions are here, here, here, and here. I will be re-opening Vidalia, Georgia micropolitan area and Glasgow, Kentucky micropolitan area, as it should have been closed as "no consensus", unless the micropolitan area is totally contained within the city limits in both cases (neither is). Apteva (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So the same editor is shopping around the same argument about different articles without disclosing the existence of past debates and the failure to achieve consensus to his proposed renaming? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No comment on intent. One slipped through and was moved, but we have a large number of articles of the single comma format, which grammatically appears to be correct. Apteva (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image help?
The map of the metro area is missing Yates County. Anybody know how to create an accurate map to replace it? I checked, and the editor who created the current one hasn't edited for three years, so they're probably no help. I'd do it myself, but it's beyond my technical skills. Dohn joe (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's "missing" only because some vandal added Yates County to the article in this edit. I've reverted to the August 3rd version of the article. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, according to the OMB, Yates is in: see here. It used to not be (as recently as 2009). So the original map was correct at the time, but needs to be updated. Dohn joe (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you review your edit before clicking "save page"? You restored this article to the nonexistent "Metropolitan areas of Hemet" category.  Also, it's good to see that we can count on the Census Bureau's site to be woefully out of date.  As far as the map image goes, here's what I did:
 * Downloaded the image from Commons
 * Opened in my favorite image editor (e.g. MSPaint)
 * Used the eyedropper tool to select the appropriate color pixel (viz., red)
 * Used the paintbucket tool to automatically fill the area bounded by the lines representing Yates County's borders
 * Used the "Upload a new version of this file" button to upload the edited version back to Commons
 * -- DanielPenfield (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the "Hemet" snafu. Didn't scroll down that far. As for the image, thanks for the update, but at least for me, the infobox still shows the old, Yates-less version. When you click on it, the correct one shows up. Any ideas on why the discrepancy between the two? Dohn joe (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Clear your browser's cache. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Unfortunately, it's quite clear that there is no consensus about this specific title on any level. No WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in this discussion, and no clear policy guidance reflecting community consensus on which is preferred. The arguments are not policy-based on either side ("Makes no sense!"; "Makes plenty of sense!"), as there is no applicable policy. Guidance about this at WT:PLACE appears to be in flux itself. Perhaps if that is ever settled this title can be revisited. B2C 23:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Rochester, New York metropolitan area → Rochester, New York, metropolitan area – The title makes no sense without the second comma. The non-admin close of the previous RM based on two completely opposing and totally bizarre reasons also makes no sense. Let's just fix this. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment how about Metropolitan area of Rochester, New York ? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see that despite a lack of consensus on this point someone has been busily editing the guideline as if there was. The thing to do is check reliable sources and see what the best name is to use. The actual census name is Rochester, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area. Apteva (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment as the non-admin closer of the previous RM I dispute the characterisation of the "oppose" arguments as bizarre, or that my closure was somehow unjustified given that there was a clear lack of consensus after the full listing period. Clearly there are reliable sources around that use both forms, and both can be justified using valid arguments. Given that this article had been at this title since its inception in 2007, and there was no consensus to move, there is no reason not to leave it here. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the criteria say "Non-admin closes normally require: The consensus or lack of consensus is clear after a full listing period (seven days). ..." But here the "lack of consensus" was hardly clear, since the only two in opposition were Apteva with his widely rejected theory of meaning and punctuation of such things, and a guy who thought it was a proper name even though it's lowercase here and in most sources.  If you neglect those clearly irrelevant distractions, there was a clear consensus to move.  If that wasn't clear to you, you shouldn't have closed it.  You boned it.  So, we go again... Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, please refrain from making personal attacks, and I'd appreciate if you would assume good faith as well. I saw no reason to disregard the arguments of Apteva and DanielPenfield, which cited both sources and interpretations of grammar construction rules on what is clearly a grey area. Therefore since both arguments are valid and there was an even split of votes, I didn't "bone" anything - the lack of consensus was clear, and hence the unofficial rule permitting non-admin closure held. Had I closed it as "Move" that really would have been controversial, and I think it highly unlikely any admin would have done so. I consulted with admin User:BDD on this, and (s)he kindly replied at User talk:Amakuru, saying that the close was entirely appropriate. The only question raised there was whether I should have relisted for a further week, given the low volume of responses. Well I'll take that on board, but it doesn't mean the close was incorrect. Thanks. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The title makes plenty of sense with one comma, and reads much less awkwardly with one comma than two. Book sources are no stranger to the one-comma version, further indicating that the present version "makes sense". Grammatically, the second comma is not necessary, because "Rochester, New York" constitutes a single lexical unit. Just as we wouldn't insert a comma if we were writing about the "Rochester metropolitan area", neither do we need one for the "Rochester, New York metropolitan area". The confusion or misinterpretation of other editors is not pertinent to that. Adding the second comma would cause more confusion that omitting it. The second comma may satisfy some pedants, but it actually conveys the meaning of the phrase less naturally. Dohn joe (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This needs to be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). We simply can not go about changing guidelines and then ignoring them. I am currently working on a list of metro areas affected. So far I have found Americus, Georgia micropolitan area. We can not have some of them use one comma and some of them use two commas. All of them need to be the same. Apteva (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support; there was a clear consensus at the guideline talk page that normal English grammatical rules should be followed. Powers T 01:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:COMMA and the related rules of English grammar. Constructions like “City, State, metropolitan area” are called apposition: State is appositional to City, and so it’s set off with commas. The subject is the Rochester (which is in New York) metropolitan area. Contrary to Apteva’s (frankly baffling) view in the previous RM, it is not a “New York metropolitan area” named Rochester (and if it were, we wouldn’t use any commas). —Frungi (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Dohn joe. I think it's frankly absurd to suggest the presence or absence of that second comma is going to do anything for readers. And the highly pedantic justifications offered in support of the move fall apart upon investigation. The topic is either the metropolitan area of Rochester, New York, or the New York metropolitan area centered around Rochester. New York has several metropolitan areas, including Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. Let this be. There are probably hundreds of articles which would need to be changed, all for a very unclear benefit. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The relevant discussion if you think there's a reason to not use matching commas has re-opened at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). I thought it was settled, but apparently you and Dohn Joe are against the result.  So why not try to explain why there?  Dicklyon (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I'll do that. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Dohn joe (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you see that comma you put after "New York"? We're supposed to have that in the title too.  Why would you use it in your sentence but not in this title??  Powers T 01:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That comma serves a completely different function than the proposed one. It serves to set off two clauses, as opposed to setting off an appositive. Dohn joe (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, that comma serves both purposes, but even if you have two reasons for putting a comma there, you don't write two commas. If you skip "New York", there could still be a comma; "The topic is either the metropolitan area of Rochester, or the New York metropolitan area centered around Rochester". HandsomeFella (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The second clause is dependent and thus doesn't take a comma to set it off from the first. Powers T 13:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per what I have put forth in previous RMs. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You, too, should join the RFC mentioned above if you care: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Dicklyon (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen it, and will join the discussion. Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per the convincing rationales articulated above by Dohn Joe and BDD. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  09:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - The way it is titled now with only a single comma reads as "Rochester, in the New York metropolitan area". The second comma is necessary to have it read as "the metropolitan area of the Rochester in New York".  As mentioned above, "New York" is being used as a parenthetical to clarify which Rochester's metropolitan area is the subject of the article.  Also the MSA is not the same as the title here.  That's a proper noun created by the Census Bureau, and can use whatever grammar it wants.  As this is the descriptor of the area, proper punctuation is essential to properly identify the area.  Just because this article title is similar to the proper noun created by the Census Bureau does not mean the Census Bureau formatting should hold any weight in the formatting of the article title. Dworjan (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as nom. Given the way the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) is going, staying with the one-comma name is certainly not going to be OK.  Either we add the second comma, which is what I proposed here, or we choose a title that avoids the comma problem, such as Rochester metropolitan area, New York.  I feel the latter is more awkward, not less, but I won't oppose it if that's how people  want to go.  Other good ideas?  Perhaps Rochester metropolitan area (New York)?  Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose for the following reasons:
 * Naming should be consistent project-wide as User:Apteva pointed out. Why is the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/September so inadequate that each individual article on metro areas needs to have its own individual debate, starting with this one?
 * Proposal is contrary to the naming given in Census Bureau source documents:,.
 * It's not clear (at least to me and several others) that a rule clearly intended for sentence construction should be applied to article titles, especially only one of the sources given in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) shows the exact form about which we're talking (viz., "city, state as modifier," noun). -- DanielPenfield (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Move to close I think we can all agree Rochester shouldn't be an exception, and that this article should be moved as part of the group currently under discussion at WT:PLACE. I recommend a procedural close. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Or not moved, depending on the ultimate consensus. But yes, I think the utility of keeping this RM open is low at this point. I would inform all the participants here of the discussion at WT:PLACE and then move on. Dohn joe (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.