Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (places)


 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Postal codes and postal abbreviations
I have to cringe whenever I see a postal abbreviation (like "OR") being used in plain text in place of a perfectly good state name (line "Oregon"). It's rather ugly, IMHO. And it's not even a particularly good set of abbreviations. Back when they were instituted there was a US Postmaster who said "they're awful -- don't use them". They could have used the state abbreviations from the Federal Boating Act; they're better. Enough ranting. Anyway, I don't know where else to put this, and I couldn't find anything in MoS about it.

Further, I've seen the phrase "Zip code", strictly an American term, used on articles about other parts of the world. I don't think that makes much sense. Any reason I shouldn't change these to "Postal code" on sight? ;Bear 18:59, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)


 * ZIP code would be correct for US postal codes. "Postal code" is indeed the most commonly used designator for all of these things in general.  Postal code appears to list what they're called in various places.  And I agree about avoiding using state abbreviations. Elf | Talk 19:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

City names and foreign equivalent
Which is the best when writing a city name and its equivalent in another language: e.g. Namur (Dutch: Namen) or Namur (Namen in Dutch)? Thanks. - Edcolins 20:07, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I'd probably do the former, just because it's shorter. Imagine you were doing this for a city in a country with 3 official languages: Place (Lang1: blah; Lang2: foo; Lang3: lalala).  It's more compact.  I don't know if there's an entry in the manual of style for this though.  fabiform | talk 21:35, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I concur. I've done a lot on multilingual topics, and that is the style I use, although I use commas rather than semicolons. -- Jmabel 04:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Country and City Sovereignty
When describing a locality, I believe the tradition in most cases is to identify its political association or sovereignty in the first paragraph, normally the first sentence.

But when there is a significant dispute over sovereignty by a local population, I believe the existing practice is to limit the first paragraph to geographic and /or ethnic description; and to first mention the current working sovereignty in the second or later paragraph. Doing so is more inducive to NPOV, avoids promoting an opinion instead of itemizing facts or details for the reader; and can greatly accelerate the process of finding mutually acceptable wording.

This seems to have been the case with well known areas of contention such as Jerusalem, West Bank, Kashmir. Is this suitable as a style recommendation ?Daeron 12:11, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC) Comments please:


 * Yes, that sounds very reasonable to me - after all, the introductory paragraph should be kept brief, and the political status of disputed regions can't really be mentioned briefly - except to say that it's disputed, I suppose. - IMSoP 00:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds eminently sensible. If sovereignty's disputed, then explaining that, all the background and the claims, in the 1st paragraph would make it very unwieldy. Which places are you thinking of, other than the ones you cited? –Hajor 14:02, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Ar, yes indeed initiated on account of silliness. Everything seemed fine and then Wik appeared, after a couple of reverts I decided to stand back and wait. West Papua is the real name of the article.Daeron 14:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd agree. In general, it's best to keep controversy out of the first paragraph, unless controversy is exactly what the article is about (e.g. if the article was Status of Jerusalem or Socialism and Nazism). -- Jmabel 17:26, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Wik certainly seems contentious, eh what? In looking at the history I see consecutive versions with almost everything in red for many paragraphs running, with the only words in common being 'the', 'and', and 'Papua'.  I find myself agreeing with a lot of what's been written above, but also the thought presents itself that somehow there might be room for divergent opinions.  Is it realistic for us to think that we can come up with THE final word on every subject, when we often can't arrive at consensus on one?  I don't know quite how we'd handle diverse views without totally degenerating into one of those famous quagmires that seem so popular on the world stage, but let's think about it. ;Bear 20:03, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)
 * Wik has a well working memory, but he is also an expert on causing hurt feelings and prestigeous conflicts where there was no before him entering a scene. Don't make the mistake to believe he represents someone more than himself.
 * --Ruhrjung 00:40, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is the point, I was writing "West Papua" according to reasonable facts, and keeping emotive comments out of that article. See eariler comments on Talk:West_Papuan_Genocide. I never said the Indonesians shouldn't be there, only that they invaded as per the US State Dept. records and the West Papuan records; I said they had no legal claim because they have never presented one, and when invited in the 1950's they did not present any such claim. In truth, I know what they claim is, but it is NOT based upon ANY legal precedent.Daeron 03:36, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The official Indonesian claim to West Papua is because Indonesia was a Dutch possession, and West Papua was a Dutch possession. That's it; I would love to see ANY Indonesian official to put that into writing in the public view, where the rest of the planet could read it. See, Java is 4,000Km away from Jayapura, is of a different race, religion, culture, and social aims; West Papua already has formed a government which was why Indonesia invade at that point in time. Even a lay person can see there was no legal claim. And Indonesia is still welcome to explain one even forty years later. The long & short of it is that Indonesia does the same kinds of thing in West Papua as it did in East Timor.Daeron 03:36, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Townships
I'm noticing that a lot of townships are listed by, , and a lot are just ,. Consistency, somebody said, is the hobgoblin of small minds, but whatever, my mind keeps noticing this. ;Bear 00:25, 2004 Apr 27 (UTC)

It might be relevent where in the world these townships are located for understanding and commenting on this topic. --Ruhrjung 00:40, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. These are in the Untied Snakes, I mean the United States. ;Bear 01:13, 2004 Apr 27 (UTC)


 * There has been some discussion of this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Counties. I found that many of the townships in Michigan were already named as simply, except where there was a conflict with city or village, in which case they were named as , , . I assumed this was the standard, but found out it was not. I *think* the consensus is to name as , , . If there is no conflict there can be a redirect at , . If there is a city or village with the same name, it gets the unqualified name, since townships are minor civil division in most of the U.S. However, I see little impetus for going back and changing already existing articles for the sake of conformity. Maybe you's like to take it on? (Keep in mind there are several thousand township articles, though.) But check on the Project page first. older &ne; wiser 01:37, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * That'll be long-term back-burner, but I'll start (real soon now) chipping away at it as I run across them. ;Bear 14:48, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Finally got around to checking the project page; lots of discussion on it there. ;Bear 01:14, 2004 May 11 (UTC)

Capitalization for region names
The existing guideline for capitalization of region names is confusingly vague. Manual of Style currently says:


 * Whether a region has attained proper-noun status can be a gray area. Use an appropriate reference if needed. Use lowercase when in doubt.

This seems to conflict with the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization), which I've codified in that page as "region names are proper nouns". I suggest trimming the confusing text quoted above and replacing it with the following guidelines: (a) region names and geographic features notable enough to have Wikipedia articles are proper nouns, and should be capitalized; (b) region names containing directions (eastern Iowa) are proper nouns only if widely used enough to merit their own articles, and should otherwise be lowercased in article text. Comments? -- Rbellin 22:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be better to clear up the ambiguity if we can. For what it's worth, the reason for the ambiguity in the wording is that there is a lot of ambiguity in actual use. You can read the discussion that led to this wording here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive8. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems that this basically substitutes "Wikipedia article" for "appropriate reference". I have no objection to that.  Undoubtedly it will sometimes be the case that a Wikipedia article should exist, but does not yet, but if the capitalization is fixed when links to a new article are added, then I don't think it will be a terribly big deal.   &mdash;Triskaideka 22:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with your rationale but not your policy as written. The suggested change could be read that capitalization depends on Wikipedia contents, but Wikipedia is a work in progress. I don't think I'm saying this very well. But if a given area could merit an article, but doesn't yet, then what? I think the policy as written is concise, and recognizes that the style guide can't cover all possible situations. Maybe we could compromise with a link to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization). Maurreen 02:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The primary thing that confused me about the existing guideline is that it seems to apply to all region names, when in fact (I think?) it wants to discuss the specific case of region names including directions. That is, regions like the Connecticut River Valley (this was the one I was trying to deal with) are preferably all-caps, at least according to Naming conventions (capitalization), while the case of eastern Iowa or Western Massachusetts can be more complicated. So I'm okay with the vagueness, if it must persist, on this subtopic, but the broader topic should be handled more prominently. (And "notable" or "meriting a Wikipedia article" is not a standard based on the current state of Wikipedia.) -- Rbellin 03:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you to a point, but can't figure out a good way to explain my disagreement or another suggestion. And because I'm the only one dissenting, I'll go along with your proposal. Maurreen 15:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the proposed change. Whether a particular region or geographical name is notable enough to be a Wikipedia article is both a grey area and irrelevant. I can imagine an article Grasslands of Wyoming in which within the article the form used would be "grasslands of Wyoming". There is a small valley within the city of Toronto commonly known as Hogg's Hollow, well known as place where traffic is often backed up to in local traffic reports. It probably will never deserve a Wikipedia mention. That doesn't mean that it would be correct to call it "Hogg's hollow" if mentioned in an article on Toronto.


 * Whether a descriptive name for an area is a proper name or the normal description of the area is also dubious. Do a Google search on "north circumpolar region". It seems about 80% of the hits have the description titlecased and about 20% in lower case. I don't think either convention is wrong. Search "northeastern states" for a similar variance. Saying "region names are proper nouns" is circular reasoning. Of course they are. But that doesn't help. Is "northeastern states" being used as a supposed region name or being used as a description? I did a study a few years back on capitalization of the term "prairie provinces". They phrase was usually titlecased when considered as a region. But the same article would probably lowercase it in a sentence such as: "The prairie provinces consist of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta." The same term, when its meaning is transparent, may in the same article be used sometimes as a name or proper noun and sometimes as a description: "Manitoba and Saskatchewan are prairie provinces." Titlecasing proper nouns is standard. The difficulty is in determining whether a particular short descriptive phrase referring to a region is best considered to be a proper noun or as a normal descriptive phrase, but not really a name or proper noun. The proposed emendations and the change at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) provides no clarification on that point. That change is redundant. It misses the point.


 * Jallan 17:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)