User:Agne27/City, State convention

Some collected thoughts on the continual discussion of the City, State naming convention over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). If there is a need for comment, they can be made at the talk page.

Reasons for the City, State convention
The City, State convention was developed for a reason and has served the Wikipedia community well. It covers all practical needs that an article title should fill. In contrast to the alternative, the City, State conventions offers several benefits including...


 * 1) Consistency and Stability
 * 2) History and Precision

Consistency and Stability
First consider the Inconsistency and Instability of the alternative. The City, State convention is the ONLY convention that has the potential to be a consistent and stable naming convention. Obviously, this consistency and stability needs a strong affirmation in the Naming Convention Guideline that would discourage "philosophical" page move request. But evaluating the matter on a purely practical scale, the consistency and stability is evident.
 * 1) It is virtually impossible to have no ambiguity issues with every US City and most likely even the majority of the US cities will have ambiguity issues, especially with fellow cities. Therefore, the convention is at the mercy of potential subjective standards for "exceptions" that have CITYNAME only titles. This creates inherent and broad scale inconsistency among all articles as we have unambiguous names like Assawoman, Virginia and ambiguous names like Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine. Consistency with exceptions is for all practical purposes an oxymoron.
 * 2) With the potential "subjective" standard for creating "exceptions", the whims of a changing editor base on any given City article (or outside philosophically driven editors) could fashion new or demolish old standards on what qualifies as an exception endlessly. Philadelphia maybe considered an exception now but 6 months from now it may not. Yes, it is the nature of the wiki but the fundamental question is whether this instability is beneficial to the article, much less the project?
 * 3) The standards for "Ambiguity" could change as well. While Assawoman, Virginia is currently the only Assawoman article on Wikipedia, there very well could be another use of the name that comes along that supplant Assawoman, VA for "primary use" of that name. (A porn star, a band, a Suzanne Summer's exercise device?) This would require another page move request. Unlike redirects and top billing on a disambig page, article titles are bit more serious of a deal and shouldn't be at the whim of changing "primary topic" consideration.
 * 1) Every city can conform to the City, State standard with no need for exceptions.
 * 2) An article titled Houston, Texas leaves no doubt at to what the article is about. Furthermore, the likelihood of another "Houston, Texas" appearing to cause confusion is exceedingly slim.
 * 3) There is only two instability threats-that either the city or the state change their name. The "city" name change threat is shared equal with the "CITYNAME-only" convention and is MUCH MORE likely to every happen then if an entire State changes it name.
 * 4) There is no practical need for a shorter "CITYNAME only" title since the practical use of redirects prevents a reader wanting to search for or link to the city article from having to type any extra keystrokes. Hence, there is no practical need for a page move request, only philosophical ones.

History and Precision
At the risk of offending any Federalists among us, the US is a composition of STATES that belong to a union. While Americans (and residents of any US city) do think of themselves in the broad context of their country, they are first and foremost citizens of their state. Conversely, a city is first and foremost a location within a state. History lays the groundwork of the intimate connection between a City and the State, almost to the extent of a FIRST NAME and LAST NAME relationship. To everyone that is familiar with Bob Smith, he is known as Bob. However, the intimate connection to his last name "Smith" is always present and he will always be Bob Smith. Chicago is known by those familiar and referring to it in an informal sort of way as Chicago, but it will always be Chicago, Illinois. The argument that a CITYNAME-only is the most common name for a city presents a context that the City, State name is uncommon which is obviously not the case. Furthermore, the benefit of precision can not be understated. A City, State name leave no doubt of what the article is about. This serves the PURPOSE of a title to a "T" and is of the most service to the reader. Ideally, a reader with an initial awareness of a subject (i.e. that there is a City named Chicago) should be able to look at an article title and be confident that they are at the right page instead of having to read the article BODY to know if that is the case and they didn't end up on one of the other "Chicago" pages. A title like Chicago, Illinois does the trick MUCH better then a singular CITYNAME only title like Chicago ever could. Additionally, for those not even familiar with a city like Assawoman will be more aware of the fact that it is a city when it's connected to Assawoman, Virginia. (For more on this and potential strawman response see the faulty argument section below).

Things that need to be demonstrated by the "Anti-Comma" crowd

 * 1) That there is some harm that is being done to US city articles with the current City, State title
 * 2) OR conversely there is substantial benefit to the article with the CITYNAME only title

For City, State w/ exceptions crowd

 * 1) There needs to be demonstrated a distinct benefit in having "exceptions" in the first place in contrast to uniform consistency.
 * 2) There needs to be an objective criteria that is limited in scope that distinguishes the exceptions as "exceptional" in some way.
 * 3) There needs to be an absence of a US Centric bias in this criteria, meaning that a reader outside of the US can understand or see the "exceptional" nature of these exception.
 * 4) As part of this "objective criteria" there needs to be consistent evaluation of what makes something unambiguous or not. (See below)

Ambiguity and Disambiguation
The vast majority of US City have another city or item that shares the same name. The existence of a disambiguation page shows some level of ambiguity. So what level of "ambiguity" do we care about? Ambiguity with another location? Ambiguity with an American object/concept/person? This is a bit different from a cut and dry application of Disambiguation because an article title does more then just convey the "notability" or "primary usage" of a subject. In contrast, consideration made in where redirects go or what gets top billing on a disambig page DO make ample use of what the primary usage is or how notable each use is. But an article title is meant to convey, above all else, PRECISELY what the article is about. So how well does the CITYNAME only title convey the subject matter of the article? Or to put it another way, how likely will a "Random Article" search reader be able to discern what the article is about based on the CITYNAME alone? To that extent, we have to consider WHO that reader might be. Considering the diverse readership of the English Wikipedia we need to keep in mind a couple prudent points.
 * 1) The reader is not always going to be American. There is a stereotypical "American arrogance" in the assumption that every relatively large American city is as intimately familiar to those abroad as they are here. The Wiki-effect, we see can be shown in a demonstrated US centric bias that we need to avoid at all cost.
 * 2) Even if the reader is American there is always the "Jaywalking Principle", which (loosely and crudely stated) is the ignorance of the average American should never be underestimated. What might be "obvious" and "familiar" to you might not be so obvious and familiar to the average American surfing Wikipedia.

Faulty arguments against the City, State convention
Several of the counter arguments used below are points that have already been made above but considering the frequency that these arguments come up, I'm treating them as separate response apart from above.

The "Common Names" argument

 * All articles in Wikipedia should follow Naming conventions (common names), which dictate that CITYNAME (alone) be the title of this article; there is no reason that cities, and CITYNAME in particular, should be an exception to these rules.
 * Reply The "Common Names" is not the predominant naming convention that trumps all others. It is improper and a complete misrepresentation of that guideline to quote it in such a manner. In fact, WP:NC (CN) explicitly says in the nutshell summary "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" These other naming conventions include the existing Naming conventions (settlements) and the Naming conventions (precision) which also notes the particular purpose of an article title to begin with. "Article titles give the reader an idea of what they can expect within an article." Ideally, a good title can convey precisely what the subject of an article is about. Consider the effectiveness of a title when a reader, hitting the "Random Article" button comes across Boston, Massachusetts versus a CITYNAME alone Boston title which could mean anything from the band, the dynasty, the dance, or even the original city or one of the several other cities with the name "Boston". Of course, as soon as you read the article you "hopefully" begin to realize what the article is about but the effectiveness of the title is diminished with the CITYNAME only title while the City, State title does the trick perfectly.
 * Rebuttal Examples Football, Set, Black, Poseidon, and Yard which all have items (of varying degrees of notability) with the same name yet these primary topics have the single item name.
 * Reply Those are good examples but I think we then hit the fundamental difference between a LOCATION and a thing or concept which the examples are. The geographic coordinates 41°54′N 87°39′W refers to the location of Chicago, Illinois and not just the city of Chicago and it is unique in its own right. The state of Illinois has every claim to that land as the city itself. In contrast the concept of a "game", the mathematical concept, the color concept, the myth and the measurement do not hold such connection to above examples. It does not make the article title anymore complete or precise to include those concepts. The City, State convention does make the title of any US city more complete and more precise.
 * Strawman Alert "Well if you really want to precise how about Chicago, Illinois, USA, North America, Planet Earth?" The connection of a City to its state (especially in the United States) is a stronger, more intimate connection then the farther reaching disambiguation. Plus, again going back to the "Random Article" reader, coming across an article titled Chicago, Illinois is going to convey precisely what it is about--just like its purpose as a title is to do. There is no need to go further.

The "CITYNAME is already a Redirect" argument

 * The name of CITYNAME alone redirects directly to here, therefore there are no known disambiguation issues, and no reason to disambiguate.
 * Reply Oprah redirects to the article Oprah Winfrey and is probably even the most common name that she is referred by. There is also no known disambiguation issue. However, it is not the most appropriate title for the article. The issue is not really about ambiguity (either the presence or the absence). The issue is about what is the most appropriate title. Furthermore, The existence of a redirect is not a motivating reason to move the page to that title. We could use the same level of validity in the above argument and try to contend that the page on the Republican Party (United States) be move to the redirect title of GOP or United States to the redirect direct title of USA. They already redirect there, so why not? Sarcasm aside, I think it's pretty evident that despite the familiarity of GOP and USA, they don't convey as precisely and completely as the full title of those articles.

The "Adding the statename will confuse readers" argument

 * The name of the city is CITYNAME; that should be the name of the article. Titles that use the "comma convention" make it impossible for the reader to know if the name is CITYNAME or CITYNAME, STATENAME.
 * Reply The article is about a location which happens to be located at CITY, STATE like Wenham, Massachusetts. It requires a significant degree of ignorance on the reader's behalf to think the "CITYNAME" is Wenham, Massachusetts (with the subsequent postal address being Wenham, Massachusetts, MA 01984). However it would be accurate for the reader to determine that the location name is Wenham, Massachusetts. In contrast to confusion, the City, State convention can actually lessen confusion for the reader in that the addition of the potentially more recognizable statename can help the reader immediately recognize that the article is about a location. With the previous example, how many readers would stumble upon an article titled only Wenham and wonder "What the heck is a Wenham?". Or "What is an Assawoman?", "What is a Smackover?", or "What is a Bucksnort?" etc. The article's subject being a location is much more clear when it is labeled as Assawoman, Virginia, Smackover, Arkansas, and Bucksnort, Tennessee.

The "World City" and the "Other countries naming convention" arguments

 * A world famous city like CITYNAME should be treated consistently with other world famous cities, both inside and outside of the U.S. (Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, Paris, London, Montreal, etc.) AND "The other countries have a CITYNAME only convention"
 * Reply The US naming convention most likely has the largest article scope in the English encyclopedia due to the size of the US and number of US cities with articles in contrast to other countries. The closest is probably Canada. To that extent, it is not really beneficial to try and compare this "large scope" naming convention to those of countries with significantly fewer articles that are affected. The merit and benefits of the US naming convention (and the thousands of city articles it covers) should be weighed on its own.
 * As for the "world class" contention, the definition of "world class" is very subjective as the current "exception" of Philadelphia shows. Out of the 6 above, Philadelphia seems to be fit with the Sesame Street song "One of these things is not like the other...". This is not to disparage the city of Philadelphia but it highlights a fault in the page move system when the editors of a particular city article are asked to determine if the city (of which they may have a personal connection to) is a "World City" or a "World Class City"--whatever that means. Nearly ever relatively large US city will have editors thinking it is a World Class city--something that a Middle Schooler in South Africa might not agree with.
 * For the "World Class" city argument to have any weight, two things must be demonstrated.
 * 1.) That there is an objective standard to define "World Class City" that is free of a US centric bias.
 * 2.) That there is a distinct benefit to the article (and such, for the reader) in having these "World Class Cities" distinguished with a CITYNAME only title and be inconsistent with the rest of the US city articles. World Class City vs. Consistency.

The "Familarity of Statename" argument

 * CITYNAME is better known than STATENAME.'
 * Reply This maybe true. But for the VAST majority of US city article this is not. (See the above examples like Assawoman, Virginia). Again we would have to go counter to consistency to accommodate the (relatively) few cities with more familiarity then their statename.
 * Furthermore, if a city is familiar then it location within the United States is familiar. As the country name unequivocally proclaims, this country is a federation of STATES and the identity of every city is intimately connected with the state that it resides in--more so then even the country. If you are talking to our hypothetical middle schooler in South Africa and want to convey that you are from Philadelphia, you would probably say you are from Philadelphia, USA. How would we convey the location place to that same middle schooler with our Wikipedia article title? The naming convention explicitly prohibits us from titling encyclopedia articles with USA in the title. Yet, the same lack of familiarity about Philadelphia that the middle schooler has still persists. The next best thing is to include the include the STATE in title which helps to convey the country of origin as the United States. While we can not accommodate every level of "unfamiliarity" or "ignorance" that any reader of the english wikipedia may have, having the best possible title will ensure that we are reaching as broad of an audience as possible. The CITYNAME only title excludes quite a bit.