Talk:Vidalia, Georgia, micropolitan area

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: page moved, as a compromise between those wanting more disambiguation and those wanting to maintain status quo (the second-comma concern applies to prose, not article titles).  Mini  apolis  13:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Vidalia micropolitan area → Vidalia, Georgia micropolitan area – Add state to form standard article title. Buaidh 04:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: The preferred article title for micropolitan areas is the article title of the principal city with the lower-case words " micropolitan area" appended. Please see the List of metropolitan areas of the United States. Yours aye, Buaidh  17:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, Vidalia is a disambiguation page. Buaidh 21:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't find any real sources using either the current or the proposed title. Unlike metropolitan area, "micropolitan areas" aren't in wide use outside of government statistics yet; it's probably better just to go with whatever the OMB calls it. Would that be Vidalia, Georgia Micropolitan Statistical Area?--Cúchullain t/ c 15:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my opinion to oppose barring a better suggestion. As at Talk:Glasgow micropolitan area, barring a common name or some other more suitable name, the current title is the simplest available descriptive title. It's not reasonable to think anyone will confuse this with any other existing article considering there aren't any more "micropolitan area" articles for other towns of this name.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be better, as these are officially defined areas that would not otherwise be topics. Is there a reason for the "descriptive" title? Peter&#160;James (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, other than to be clearer than the presumably clunky title used by the OMB. I don't oppose a move if we can think of a better one, but the proposed title is even worse as it doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia. In contrast to the metropolitan areas, which appear in many other sources under common names (as we see at other RMs like Talk:Pensacola metropolitan area and Talk:Brunswick metropolitan area) the micropolitan areas/Micropolitan Statistical Areas don't seem to have much currency outside of government statistics, but if we want an article on them we have to call them something.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename to Vidalia, Georgia (U.S. state) micropolitan region to avoid confusion with Vidalia, Louisiana and Georgia (country) -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Trivial oppose based on grammar. State names are properly set off with commas.  I am neutral on the proposal if changed to Vidalia, Georgia, micropolitan area.  Powers T 14:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Commment: A comma is missing in the proposed title per WP:Copyedit, section Punctuation; "Location constructions such as Vilnius, Lithuania require a comma after the second element, e.g., He was born in Vilnius, Lithuania, after the country had gained independence." HandsomeFella (talk) 14:38, 23 April 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.

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: pages moved Chihin.chong (tea and biscuits) 08:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * current1=Vidalia, Georgia micropolitan area|new1=Vidalia, Georgia, micropolitan area|current2=Glasgow, Kentucky micropolitan area|new2=Glasgow, Kentucky, micropolitan area|}}

– State names are properly set off with commas on both sides. Article titles must still be grammatical, notwithstanding the inexplicable comment above that "the second-comma concern applies to prose, not article titles". Powers T 13:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Vidalia, Georgia micropolitan area → Vidalia, Georgia, micropolitan area
 * Glasgow, Kentucky micropolitan area → Glasgow, Kentucky, micropolitan area
 * Oppose both. The grammar with two commas suggests that Vidalia and Glasgow are micropolitan areas, which is not what is meant. With one comma, there is a micropolitan area centered on Vidalia and Glasgow, which is the meaning used. A review of the cats involved shows that one comma is used for this type of article, such as Jacksonville, Illinois micropolitan area. Apteva (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of the meanings denoted by the two punctuation options is idiosyncratic at best. The state name is delimited by commas because it is an interruption to the regular flow of the phrase.  Much like one would say "the British style of government" or "New York state of mind", we have a noun phrase ("micropolitan area") being modified by a location ("Vidalia") to form a descriptive phrase ("Vidalia micropolitan area").  It's an area named for or identified by the community "Vidalia".  The state name, here, is used as it is in running prose: "The man said he was from the Tupelo, Mississippi, area."  One would not say "... from the Tupelo, Mississippi area", because one is not talking of a "Mississippi area".  Likewise, we are not speaking of a "Georgia micropolitan area"; we're talking of a micropolitan area named for "Vidalia, Georgia".  Thus, the commas are necessary, just as they would be in running prose.  Powers T 21:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support both per WP:Copyedit mentioned in the previous RM above. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support seems better -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:06, 4 May 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.

Requested move 3

 * 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 move. This seems like a basic comma point. "Georgia", "Kentucky", and "Alabama" act as disambiguators and so the second comma in each title is required. As for whether it would be okay to drop the states, there doesn't appear to be consensus for that (running counter to WP:USPLACE as written) and it seems only to be a compromise where one, at least from a grammatical standpoint, does not need to be made. --  tariq abjotu  07:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

– Revert previous close. Grammatically the second comma only applies if the micropolitan area is completely enclosed within the city limits. Neither is. The one comma format is followed by dozens if not a hundred micro and metropolitan area US related articles. --Relisted. --  tariq abjotu  18:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Apteva (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Vidalia, Georgia, micropolitan area → Vidalia, Georgia micropolitan area
 * Glasgow, Kentucky, micropolitan area → Glasgow, Kentucky micropolitan area
 * Birmingham, Alabama, metropolitan area → Birmingham, Alabama metropolitan area
 * Comment Georgia should use "(U.S. state)" -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a Vidalia in the country Georgia? Our article is at Vidalia, Georgia, and it is common to only add (U.S. state) if necessary, for example Georgia (U.S. state). Apteva (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Without the disambiguators, such as in a context where statename is obvious or implicit, one would say "Vidalia micropolitan area" and "Glasgow micropolitan area", right? So "micropolitan area" refers to the placename. Here, however, a disambiguator is needed. Following the example from the placenames themselves – comma-separation rather than parentheses – the end of the disambiguator needs to be marked (as would a parentheses-type disambiguator). HandsomeFella (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Georgia is the location of the micropolitan area, which is not located within Vidalia, or Glasgow. Both are located within two towns or cities in their respective states, so Georgia micropolitan and Kentucky micropolitan are a unit, and not separated by a comma. See the categories micropolitan and metropolitan areas. These three are the anomalies (added Birmingham, Alabama metropolitan area). Apteva (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the metropolitan area is located within Vidalia, because by definition, it can't be. What I am saying, is that the name refers to Vidalia – and if a disambiguator is needed, the end of it also needs to be marked, as it isn't the end of the expression, as is the case with Vidalia, Georgia. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Meh. We could follow the Pensacola example and just move back to Vidalia micropolitan area anyway (not with the others, as Birmingham and Glasgow have different primary topics). Support the moves in general, in the interest of removing an ugly construction that does nothing for readers. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Move the Birmingham article to Birmingham metropolitan area, since (1) it's over 5x more common than the present title, and (2) there are other articles that are actually ambiguous. The area around Birmingham, England doesn't have an article; the closest it has is the West Midlands conurbation, which isn't called the "Birmingham metropolitan area" in any source I can find. Disambiguate with hatnotes if necessary.
 * I don't know about the micropolitan area articles since those names are not widely used in sources. I suggest "Vidalia Micropolitan Statistical Area" and "Glasgow Micropolitan Statistical Area", which seem to be closer to what the few available sources for the topic actually use (unlike metropolitan areas, they're not in wide use outside the government sources that originated the concept).--Cúchullain t/ c 18:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that all of our articles use micropolitan and metropolitan, but the census bureau uses Statistical Area. I do not have any objection to Birmingham metropolitan area as long as it does not conflict with Birmingham England. Apteva (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. What we are saying is "the micropolitan area of vidalia, georgia" and so on, not "the georgia micropolitan area of vidalia".  Georgia is being used as a disambiguator.  Georgia is not being used as an essential part of the article title which is what omitting the comma implies.  So the comma should stay.
 * As for getting rid of the state name completely, that's a discussion about getting rid of the "comma convention" at WP:USPLACE, not this comma-related requested move. Ditching the "comma convention" in an impromptu fashion with little attention paid (this RM didn't even spawn notices at the top of the 3 concerned pages) isn't the answer. AgnosticAphid  talk 02:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be true if the micropolitan region was contained within Vidalia, which it is not. It is contained within Georgia, though, so it is the Georgia micropolitan area that includes Vidalia. Apteva (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Move notices are only on talk pages, not on the articles. Apteva (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're just wrong here, I'm afraid. I hate to be so blunt, but it's true. The reason why this must have a second comma if the state is to be the second word  is illustrated by the especially unfortunate article at Rochester, New York metropolitan area, which clearly suggests the article is about an area called Rochester within the "New York metropolitan area" when what's actually meant is "the metropolitan area in Rochester, New York" – one that's not with the "NY metropolitan area."  Grammatical rules exist partly to eliminate ambiguity in instances like this.  I suggest leaving the current title which is grammatically correct.  AgnosticAphid  talk 16:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * New York is both a city and a state. Rochester is pretty well known, and if anyone says Rochester, no one is going to think it is part of the New York City metropolitan area. Rochester, New York metropolitan area, is not located in Rochester, but is located in a rather large number of cities and towns centered on Rochester, New York. There are three articles to be moved, but there are dozens if not a hundred that are the format City, State metropolitan area, or City, State micropolitan area. Which is it, all of those are wrong, or these are wrong? Consensus clearly seems to favor those being right, and these being wrong. I do agree that if the metropolitan area was within the city limits of Rochester, the grammatically correct name would be Rochester, New York, metropolitan area. Apteva (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. The US census does not use a second comma, but uses Vidalia, GA Micropolitan Statistical Area, Glasgow, KY Micropolitan Statistical Area, and Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area. Apteva (talk) 22:34, 22 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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Vidalia, Georgia, micropolitan area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326160047/http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/tables/2009/CBSA-EST2009-01.csv to http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/tables/2009/CBSA-EST2009-01.csv
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)