Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/November

USPLACE RFC?
There's clearly interest in revisiting USPLACE at this point. I'm leaning towards starting an RFC. Does anyone know of any discussions on the guideline in the past, especially as pertains to its origin? Searching the archives here, I only see notifications about individual RMs and this discussion from June. Has USPLACE ever been subject to a robust RFC before? If you just read this page, you'd think there was a strong consensus against, but there's been no shortage of USPLACE defenders on RMs. Do they genuinely like the guideline or just don't want individual exceptions? It's hard to say at this point. So any information you can throw at me right now would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There was an RFC in early 2011. I haven't reread the whole thing (it goes on for quite a while), but if I recall correctly, much of the discussion was dominated by a small number of users with very strong opinions. - Eureka Lott 00:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer your question: as a "US PLACE defender" at many individual RM's, I genuinely like the standard of City, State as the default, and I think there should be exceptions as long as they are clearly defined and enumerated, and based on what Reliable Sources do. In other words, no uncertainty, no arguments; every city has a clearly defined name. We currently base the exceptions on the AP manual of style, since it is used by most Reliable Sources in the United States. But there are other systems with a larger number of exceptions that could be adopted. At an earlier discussion on an individual talk page here (Talk:Beverly Hills, California/Archives/2012), someone pointed out that the The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (another Reliable Source) lists more exceptions than the 30 allowed by the AP - including that perennial flash point Nashville. I expressed myself as perfectly willing to consider using the NYT standard and thus allowing more exceptions (supported by a Reliable Source), but nobody picked up on it. IMO the people who want to "disambiguate only when necessary" - and completely dump USPLACE - those folks do not appear to be open to any kind of compromise. The folks on the "defender" side (like me) want the default to be City, State but are open to exceptions based on Reliable Source usage. I haven't seen any argument from anyone saying "no exceptions at all"; the AP exceptions seem to be universally accepted, and I sense openness to more exceptions if there is a Reliable Source basis for them. What we DON'T want is a system where nobody knows what to call an individual city unless they do the research to find out the "primary meaning". In the US where there are so many cities in different with the same name, not to mention cities in other countries with the same name, that is an invitation to chaos. I should add that the "defender" side would be much more inclined to accept an expanded list of exceptions such as the NYT stylebook, if the "dump US PLACE" side would buy into it - and agree to stop contesting the question on individual talk pages. --MelanieN (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What is it about US place names that warrants such special treatment? AP and similar style guides are fine for the purpose for which they were designed - writing newspaper articles.  This is not a newspaper and I see no reason why the same standard that applies to every other place name in the world and indeed every other article in Wikipedia should not apply to US place names.  I like it is not a satisfactory justification to continue with this blight on the Wikiscape.  This is the English Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia, the rest of the English speaking world seems to manage quite well without this unnecessary pre-disambiguation.  The only time I can see any justification is when there are more than one well known towns of the same name such that none can be considered the primary topic.  In all other cases, a dab link at the top of the primary page works perfectly well. -  Nick Thorne  talk  03:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's not so much the particular special treatment, but that we found a compromise way to settle the otherwise never-ending stream of arguments of which cities should be disambiguated and which should have the their names stand alone. I think it's a great compromise, working well, and best left as it is.  It's very helpful to readers, for one thing, since it's usually clear what the topic is when the title is City, State, and often not otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also very helpful to content creators. If I am working on an article about someone who was born in Burlingame, California, I know how to wikilink it without having to do any research. But above all, it IS the way cities are named in the United States, for reasons both historic and practical. The rest of the world may not refer to their cities by citing the province or départment or shire; fine, no one is asking them to. But Americans pretty much always append the state name, whether in writing or in casual conversation, making City, State the WP:Common name as well as the name supported by Reliable Sources. In any case, I don't thing user:BDD was asking us to rehash the arguments here for the thousandth time; I think they were asking if there is any basis for an RFC. I suggested such a basis above, but as usual no one seems interested in any kind of solution or compromise. In which case I don't see much point in an RFC. The appropriate guideline is here: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." and "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." --MelanieN (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On your claim (above) that going with disambiguate only when necessary for US cities "is an invitation to chaos"... for the umpteenth time, we're talking only about those cases where the unadorned city name already redirects to the city name saddled with state baggage. A bot could take care of these in a matter of hours.  No chaos whatsoever.  As to the claim that it is helpful to content creators to have a predictable title (e.g. Burlingame, California), it's only helpful to the lazy content creator who doesn't habitually open another tab to verify the link, or at least right-click/open in a new window/tab on the link when previewing.  Every link should be verified like this as a best practice.  If it turns out it goes through a redirect, you update the link.  No big deal.   This is, or should be, SOP for all articles.  --Born2cycle (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Melanie, I appreciate your feedback, but speaking as a firm opponent of USPLACE, I am certainly open to compromise. I appreciate that some editors are wary of large, sweeping changes like those that would be caused by the wholesale abandonment of USPLACE, so I think it's a great idea to grow the exceptions list. I would see it as a weaning off of USPLACE and a demonstration that all hell won't break lose if we go beyond the AP stylebook. Given that it's been almost two years since the last RFC started, I do think there's value in revisiting the discussion, especially since there have been several contentious RMs lately on the subject. I'd just like to see promotion of ranked voting, similar to in Kauffner's Ireland RM/RFC, that could better gauge support for a compromise. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if there were a solid consensus to throw out USPLACE, but I suspect more of its defenders are open to compromise as well. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Although the precise number is irrelevant, the last US Census identified ~19,300 populated places in the US. WP:USPLACE is a naming convention that ought to apply to these ~19,300 equally. Make no mistake about it, a naming convention is a style guideline and our style ought to be consistent. Arguments for a specific exception to a consistent style based on Common Name, Primary Topic, the AP style book, that readers are going to be confused, etc., are just IMHO nonsense and just eat up valuable editor time on useless discussion. Useless discussion that breeds contentiousness and literally brings nothing positive to WP. Right now, less than 0.001% of the populated places in the US have WP article names that are exceptions. Some editors clearly want to increase that percentage. But to what end, more contentious debates over Primary Topic and Common Name, more contentious fantasy about what millions of readers do and do not think? If there is an RfC on WP:USPLACE, the question ought to be clear—Should USPLACE specify a consistent style for all place names or should USPLACE be rewritten in a way that encourages contentious, meaningless debates about specific article titles on US populated places?--Mike Cline (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike, you've framed the question in a strongly POV manner. You're better than that. I could just as easily phrase the question, "Should USPLACE override more prevalent guidelines such as COMMONNAME and PRIMARYTOPIC, or should its arbitrary requirements of unnecessary disambiguation be replaced?" There are good arguments for USPLACE and there are good arguments against it. But you've made me think about the inherent difficulties of the wording of an RFC on the topic. Almost any editor sufficiently interested in the question has strong opinions one way or the other. Suppose one or two editors on each side collaborated on an RFC wording. I think it would be a better prompt for robust discussion than a one-sided, argumentative phrasing. What do you think? --BDD (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed you are perceptive. It was indeed a POV statement meant to be retorical, not a suggestion for the actual RfC question.  We are going to spend an extraordinary amount of volunteer energy arguing whether or not we should change USPLACE to allow endless, contentious discussion on another 100 titles (< ~.01% of all US Places) with no concievable benefit to WP.  Common Name and Primary Topic may have their place in our titling regime, but USPLACE shouldn't be one of them.  The flaws in actually determining Common Name and Primary Topic are just too obvious when talking about the names of US populated places.  One of my favorite Ngrams:   Based on Common Name, all instances of the numeral one should be changed to Roman numeral I. Oh how selective we are. I want a naming convention that is a no brainer, requires no endless, contentious discussions. We are here to build content, not discuss the irrelevant. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again... The issue of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for each U.S. city is already resolved. In each case, either the plain name redirects to the article about the city, or it doesn't.  We're talking only about those cases where the city in question is already determined to be the primary topic, by virtue of the fact that Cityname redirects to the article.  Maybe there are a few edge cases where that issue is not resolved, but for the vast, vast majority of the 19,300 to which you refer, it is definitely resolved.  You acknowledge that PRIMARYTOPIC has its place "in our titling regime", but you assert, without explanation, that USPLACE isn't "one of them" (one of them what?).  You refer to the flaws in determining Primary Topic, but you neglect to acknowledge that those flaws do not apply to USPLACE, because, again, the PRIMARY TOPIC issue is resolved for the plain city name of every article covered by USPLACE. As to no benefit to WP, the benefits are 1) consistency with how we name almost all of our articles, including most other city articles, and 2) resolving the USPLACE matter once and for all.  I made a similar argument about moving Yoghurt to Yogurt for years, to no avail, until it was finally moved, and I was proven to have been correct about that (that issue is now resolved, and almost certainly forever).  I'm sorry, Mike, but your objection makes no sense.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Although this is not an RfC, I will state my position as clearly as possible. WP is an encyclopedia with 4M+ articles full of content, not 4M+ titles.  The actual title of any given article is essentially irrelevant as it is the content (knowledge) in the article that counts.  One would think with the energy that is put into changing article titles, that we had 1000s of articles that were invisible to our readers and extraordinary effort was needed to make them visible.  I believe USPLACE should be simple and clear—Any US populated place article should be titled with [City], [State] with no exceptions.  It is a simple, easily explained and enforced naming convention, an easy style to follow.  It would eliminate the useless and unproductive types of debates we must suffer through today.  I would enjoy listening to someone that thinks renaming an article such as Beverly Hills, California to Beverly Hills has a net positive to the encyclopedia, when regardless of the article title, it’s the content of the article that is important, not the title.  As I said above, there are ~ 19,300 US place names.  Please explain why an incredibly small percentage of articles about them should be titled with anything other than [City], [State].  If it requires endless, contentious debate to decide each exception, what is gained by that. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In order to have a discussion, you have to at least address the points the other person has made. Your sentences 2, 3, and 4 amount to a general preserve the status quo argument that could be used to oppose almost any article title change. If you don't think titles matter, maybe you should recuse yourself from these discussions. Sentence #5 is simply a statement of your position, which is supported, a bit, by #6.  But #6 ultimately supports any convention for predictability, without regard to our other concerns.  The rest of it completely ignores the point I made above, which I repeat here one more time.  The proposal is to essentially limit USPLACE to apply only in those cases where disambiguation is necessary - where the primary topic for the plain city name doesn't exist, or is not the US Place.  That is, USPLACE would apply only to those cases where the plain city name currently does not redirect to the article about the US city.  In all cases where the city name currently does redirect to the article about the US city, the article would be moved to plain city name.  There would be nothing to discuss.  There would be nothing to listen to.  It would be a simple, easily explained and enforced naming convention, an easy style to follow. If the primary topic for the plain city name is the city, then the article about the city is at the plain city name.  Very simple.  Very easy.  Trivial to implement and enforce.   --Born2cycle (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * B2C, although your position is logical, it has never been supported with the net benefit to WP if we took your naming convention seriously. Its real intent (as far as I can discern is to eliminate so-called unnecessary disambiguation), the benefit of which is unknown and unproven.  We disagree on this fundamental point.  When it comes to US place names, there is no such thing as unnecessary disambiguation in the [City], [State] naming convention. And, IMHO, there is no net benefit to WP by naming some exception of articles of ~19,300 place names with something other than the [City], [State] naming convention.  I understand that you disagree with that.  That’s OK.  My position is that we should strive for naming conventions that eliminate subjective, contentious titling debates that sap the volunteer energy of the community with no net benefit to the encyclopedia.  I trust you appreciate that intent. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There are two main problems with B2C's proposal: First, the primary topic is a source of perennial debate, so it would throw many of these titles back into that chaos.  Second, it makes many titles worse in terms of recognizability, and sometimes precision (which are long-standing provisions of WP:TITLE that B2C has been working to dilute or remove for years).  Dicklyon (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Guys, it's not like we're coming up with new US cities. We already have all the US city articles in place.  The primary topic issue is resolved for all of them.  If for a tiny few it isn't, then it will be debated regardless of which convention we use, because both are affected by primary topic determination (currently, whether the plain city name redirects to the city article; per my hypothetical proposal, whether the city is at the plain city name).  So much for the first of the "main problems".  The recognizability argument applies to almost all non-US city articles... why should US cities be treated any differently?  See User:Born2cycle. Why is it a "main problem" for US cities, but not Austrian cities, or any other cities?  Makes no sense.  So much for the second "main problem". Mike, I do appreciate your intent.  What I don't understand is why you won't address my explanation for why the hypothetical proposal is not contrary to that intent.  That is, title determination is just as deterministic if we simply avoid unnecessary disambiguation (where one type of unnecessary disambiguation is whenever X redirects to X (something) or to X, something and can be easily remedied by moving the article at X (something) or X, something to X ).  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * B2C, I simply don't think the community agrees with your approach, thus it is inevitably contentious.  And it is that contention which we should seek to avoid as it is unproductive in the long run. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * replied below, at --Born2cycle (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As per Mike Cline, and as per DickLyon above. If something is working, don't fix it. It may seem that there's one or two exceptions which AP doesn't cover, but if a clear case can't be made for a location with entertainment leveraged notability like Talk:Beverly Hills, California then it's dubious it can beneficially be made for many other cities.
 * Nick Thorne comments "What is it about US place names that warrants such special treatment?" I would think that the answer is that (a) there is less need for disambiguation in smaller countries, (b) I'm guessing a convenient benchmark like AP doesn't exist for Australia or Germany? (c) the AP list is a counterbalance per WP:CSB which intended or not helps to avoid underdisambiguation for users outside US.
 * Per Melanie N below this thread in itself pretty well what will happen with an RfC, but if there is an RfC, Melanie please notify me. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not sure what you mean by smaller, but Australia is about the same size as the contiguous United States and whilst we may not have as many people as the US, we certainly have just as many "places". I'm sorry, but your argument on that point seems pretty lame.  As for ready references, I can't speak for Germany, but in Australia we can always search on the official government Geoscience Australia web site which provides an easy to use reference to Australian place names.  OTOH, AP has no special standing except to those in the press and some here on Wikipedia who seem to regard it as some sort of holy writ.  In the end it seems to me that your arguments are simply examples of special pleading, which is never convincing, quite apart from being a logical fallacy. -  Nick Thorne  talk  01:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick Thorne, as I said (a) there is less need for disambiguation in smaller countries, for example Australia being a smaller country than US only has 1x Beverly Hills (disambiguation) wheras US has 8x. I'm not sure what about this point is "logical fallacy" or "special pleading" or why you need to load up the discussion with such terms when someone gives an answer to your question you do not agree with. Also as (c) some of us might view the AP list is a counterbalance per WP:CSB which intended or not helps to avoid underdisambiguation for users outside US. I don't see why this is a "logical fallacy" or "special pleading" either. It's a view. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to use my name at the beginning of a direct answer to one of my posts - it comes across as somewhat aggressive, please don't.
 * I fail to see how the number of localities named Beverly Hills is in any way a measure of the size of a country. Perhaps you need to consult an atlas, but as I stated in my previous post, Australia is actually slightly larger the contiguous United States.  That is a solid fact, not a matter of interpretation.  In any case whether the US is larger or not is entirely beside the point, if you want to go that way, perhaps you might like to consider the number of localities in India or China.  I am sure anyone would recognise that way madness lies.  The special pleading is the attempt to argue that the USA should be treated differently from everywhere else.  This is the epitome of special pleading.  That the user of such an argument does not recognise the logical fallacy is no surprise, most people that use logical fallacies do not recognise it.  Regardless, the argument is still a logical fallacy. -  Nick Thorne  talk  10:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick,
 * Alternatively see Springfield. USA has 3x as many Springfields as smaller Anglophone countries like UK, Aus, Canada. This again is a typical situation, hence again the typical need for disambiguation in US geonames. You'll have to explain step by step why the observation that more similar names requires more disambiguation is a "logical fallacy."
 * But that's point (a), point (c) as above would be that without USPLACE the tendency would always be for Googlehits and TV to mean more article shifts counter WP:CSB. If you consider an argument WP:CSB "special pleading" well the whole point of WP:CSB is special pleading. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not start direct replies to my posts with my name. I have already asked you to stop this, I will not ask again.  Continuing to do this especially right after you were asked not to is uncivil, and I will take it further if necessary.
 * Since we are talking about only those place names where there is a clear primary topic - ie those for which the more concise name already redirects to the article in question - an argument about "more disambiguation" in at best non-sequitur. I don't think WP:CSD means what your comments imply, the opposite in fact.  The special pleading is in attempting to continue with the systemic bias, treating US place names differently to the way we treat articles for all other places and subjects in the world, in other words purely from a US perspective and forgetting that Wikipedia is not just a US venture, it is global.  It is special pleading because it is asking for articles about US place names to be treated differently to those for all other places and subjects, primarily it would seem, because some people in the USA like that form.  Not a reason to keep this exception to the general rule IMHO. -  Nick Thorne  talk  03:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we can abandon any hope of actually discussing whether to have an RFC, and any possibility of actually reaching some kind of agreed solution to stop the endless arguing. Nice try, BDD, but forget it, it's hopeless. Instead, this thread will simply rehash the arguments pro and con USPLACE at infinite length for the thousand-and-first time. (I knew that would happen as soon as Born2cycle got here.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if we can create a list of the options:
 * A. Put all US cities in common-name-comma-state format.
 * B. Follow the AP list. (Thirty cities titled at their common names, the rest at comma-state format)
 * C. Follow the New York Times list. (59 cities)
 * D. Follow Britannica and Columbia. (~250 cities)
 * E. Disambiguate only when necessary to avoid title clashes. Kauffner (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In the earlier RFC, I suggested using a population threshold, but the idea didn't go over very well. Perhaps there's some criteria that we haven't yet considered. - Eureka Lott 02:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the NYT's list of 59 cities is in the right ballpark, but encyclopdia titling is not logically connected to the issue of newspaper datelines. Kauffner (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but Reliable Source usage is. Per WP:Article titles: "This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." --MelanieN (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You realize that published reference works don't do comma-state, or any other kind of disambiguation? If it was possible to have more than one article at the same title, we would not have this problem at all. This issue is all about compensating for a glitch that is specific to our software. Kauffner (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Aside from the 30 U.S. cities, the AP lists 27 cities in other countries. Does anyone think we should follow those lists? Kauffner (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) In re the choice selection above &mdash; how could such an RfC possibly provide a result except by counting noses? Weighing arguments (especially since some will propose different choices).  I think one could make a point for "A. except NYC" or "B. except disambiguate the few examples which are the most common US place, but not necessarily the most common place or usage".  Personally, I think somewhere between those two choices would be optimal.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What I want to know is, Why are U.S. cities treated differently than "Czech, Romanian and Albanian"? The only eastern European city on the AP list is Moscow, so all the rest should be disambiguated. Kauffner (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question, but Europe is much older than the U.S. and many U.S. cities were named after European cities. Speaking from experience, adding France to Paris would not help a lot of Americans - they can not even locate the U.S. on a map of the world, let alone Paris or France. Most are familiar with names of U.S. states, but not with names of European countries. Apteva (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Apteva, I think that's a little harsh. The reason we don't say "Paris, France" (or to use a less prominent city, the reason we don't say "Ulm, Germany" or "Assisi, Italy") is not because we've never heard of France or Germany or Italy. The reason is that the French and Germans and Italians don't do it that way. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Except we do commonly refer to Paris as Paris, France (93,100,000 results), but that's not sufficient reason to have the article at the longer name, Paris, France. Nor is the fact that we sometimes refer to Chula Vista as Chula Vista, California a reason to have that primary topic city at its longer name.   --Born2cycle (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Is avoidance an effective way to resolve a contentious issue?
Mike Cline, above you wrote: "And it is that contention which we should seek to avoid as it is unproductive in the long run.".

We agree the issue is contentious. But avoidance is often not the solution to resolving contention, as was demonstrated in the 8-year-long yogurt/yoghurt case, in the debates about whether TV episode names should always be disambiguated by series name, or only when necessary for disambiguation, and in countless other cases. Often it's best to take a step back, and imagine what would occur if a given proposal was enacted, without regard to its current popularity. My main argument at yogurt/yoghurt was that because the initial use argument applied only to yogurt (the article was created as Yogurt) and not to yoghurt, once the article was moved back to yogurt, it would remain stable there, because there would be no strong argument to move it back to yoghurt. The argument was dismissed for years, favoring those similar to yours here (it doesn't really matter, just leave it alone, etc., etc.). The discussion, debate and contentious situation went on and on and on, sometimes calming down, but always eventually heating up again (sound familiar?) until, finally, the article was moved, and the issue was resolved, finally, as I had argued all along. My argument here is similar. Once we bring USPLACE in better compliance with other titles (disambiguate with state only when the primary topic for the concise common city name is not the city in question), the argument to go back to disambiguating US city articles titles with the state even when the city is the primary topic for the concise common city name would have no strong basis - so the issue will be resolved, finally. If one's goal is genuinely to reduce contention, then bringing US city articles titles in better compliance with how our other articles are titled, in particular with respect to disambiguating with state only when the city is not the primary topic of the plain city name (as objectively and easily determined by whether the plain city name currently redirects to the article about the city), must be the favored position. There is no good reason to believe that any contention about USPLACE will ever be resolved as long as the current guideline remains. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * B2C, I think there are two ideas in play here and from my perspective one giant unanswered question. One idea, yours, is that Primary Topic ought to be in play for US place names.  Another idea here is, mine, that any contentious debate about US place article names based on our naming convention is wasted energy.  And Primary Topic is one title policy that lends itself wholesale to wasted energy.  Since anyone can assert that their favorite place is the Primary Topic, we must find ourselves in endless discussion as to whether or not their favorite city should be at [City], [State] or just at [City].  The one giant question—if from this day forward we didn’t change one US place name, didn’t have another US place name RM and all US Place names ~19,300 stayed exactly as they are today, what would be the detrimental impact to WP.  IMHO, zero, nada, zilch and whatever other expression one might think of.  What is the net benefit to WP in having contentious naming discussions based on Primary Name for US Places?  I seek to avoid contentious RM discussions with a naming convention that is simple and uncontestable.  You seek to foster contentious RM discussions by introducing another variable for US place names that in the end, provides nothing substantively better than what we have today.  We must agree to have different points of view on this. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard not to view this as a disagreement with the very idea of RMs. I can assert, for example, that Michael Dawson (footballer) is the primary topic for "Michael Dawson" because WP:ILIKEIT ("Since anyone can assert that their favorite place is the Primary Topic"), but if I can't present compelling evidence for my position, people will oppose the RM, it will be closed as not moved, and life goes on. Unless a user gets disruptive or pointy with such moves, one editor's "waste of time" RM is another editor's valuable discussion for maximizing encyclopedic accuracy or integrity. If the purpose of USPLACE is to suppress RMs, I'm sure we could come up with all sorts of regimes to do so in other areas. I'd love to see the RM backlog shrink or disappear, but this isn't what I had in mind! --BDD (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Mike, we're going around in circles, as you are again ignoring the point I have made repeatedly: the issue of Primary Topic is resolved for all articles within the USPLACE domain, because for every article, either the plain city name redirects to the city article (and therefore the community has decided that city is the primary topic for that plain city name), or it doesn't (some other article, or a dab page, is at the plain city name).  You keep ignoring this point, and making statements like this: "Since anyone can assert that their favorite place is the Primary Topic, we must find ourselves in endless discussion as to whether or not their favorite city should be at [City], [State] or just at [City]". Well, sure, but that's true with the current situation too, so that's not an argument against the proposal. If you really don't see this, perhaps we should look at an actual example, like Beverly Hills, instead of hand-waving theoretically.  Even though there are many Beverly Hills, the WP community has decided that the one in CA is the Primary Topic, as Beverly Hills redirects to the article about that Beverly Hills.  Now, if we move the article currently at Beverly Hills, California to Beverly Hills, nothing (but the title) changes.  That is, someone who might challenge the Primacy of that topic can do so just the same regardless of whether the Beverly Hills is a redirect to the article (as it is currently), or if the article is at Beverly Hills (as I propose).  Either way, it is and would be the Primary Topic, and that can be challenged just the same.  There is absolutely no change with respect to the Primary Topic situation if the article is moved to the shorter name, since it's already recognized to be the Primary Topic. As to your "big question" - what would be the detrimental impact if nothing changed - this too has been already addressed, and you've ignored that, though that was stated in terms of what the benefits of changing would be (the flip-side of your "big question" coin).  But to answser it again, this time in the terms you're using most recently, the main detriment to not changing is that the contentious situation you say is unproductive would remain unresolved (and unproductive) indefinitely. I also explained that just above, by comparing this to the yogurt/yoghurt situation.  No, they're not exactly the same (most notably, that was one article; this is about hundreds), but the similarities are aplenty, especially with respect to the essence of the arguments on each side.  Both here and at yogurt/yoghurt the main argument in support of status quo is/was the claim that the current situation is "fine", "not detrimental to WP", doesn't require a change, etc., while the main argument in favor of change is that the proposed change will finally resolve a contentious situation that has been going on for years. There are other arguments, too, of course, like consistency with how other city articles are titled.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they're not exactly the same (most notably, that was one article; this is about hundreds) Well, to be more accurate, this is about thousands of articles, affecting hundreds of thousands of Wikipedians - compared to the very small but vocal group who cared about how to spell "yogurt". As I see it, there are two very firm "sides" to this question, which is why it has been so unproductive to even try for consensus. On the one side, you have the "title purists", who insist on the primacy of "concise" and "primary topic," and who won't even acknowledge other equally-valid criteria for titles such as "common name" and "reliable sources". Most of these folks are either non-Americans (so they don't understand how central "states" are to our thinking) or else they are title specialists (who think every title of every article ought to be done exactly the same way). These folks are a small fraction of Wikipedians, but they are well represented in discussions. On the other side you have the USPLACE folks, tens of thousands of them. I suspect that group is entirely American, since Americans understand why we do city names this way. These people are here to improve the encyclopedia, by adding or improving content. They want to be able to link to city names in a way that is convenient and natural to them - namely "city, state", the way we always do it in America. These folks are not title fanatics, they don't care about in-fighting over Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and so they don't watch-list Wikipedia policy pages (which is why, as BDD noted, the discussion on this page tends to be anti-USPLACE) or even Request For Comment pages (half of them don't even know what RFC stands for, they're not into Wikijargon). The USPLACE folks are not here on this page, unless it gets called to their attention somehow; they are out in the weeds, creating content. But when a discussion crops up on an article talk page, they become aware of it and they make their point: "Just leave us alone, let us write city names the way we always do, and spare us all the wikilawyering about 'unnecessary disambiguation'." They may be under-represented in discussions, but as content creators they are very important to the encyclopedia - and they like USPLACE as it is. The USPLACE convention has been in use for a long time, it is clear, it is stable, and there would be no contention if the "title purists" would just leave it alone and move on to something else. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am watching this from the other side of the pond- and try hard not do edits on topics on your side. But to stop this getting too introspective here are few ideas. A link to quoted style guides and city lists would be helpful. Secondly, if I am to do a search for a US city- the autofill throws up suggestion of available articles and a statename confirms for me that it is a US city. An example being Boston, Massachusetts which tells me that I have found the one in the US, rather than the considerable older settlement of Boston, Lincolnshire. Thirdly, personally it is of little importance unless the decision is used in future to impose that style on other countries that have established traditions that are at variance to ones possible in the US, then I could not support a solution that is based on the POV of third party publishers. Grüssli--ClemRutter (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I agree with you that this convention should not be used anyplace where it is not already the norm. Nobody is suggesting that other countries should add the name of the county, départment, province, or other such entity to the names of cities - that wouldn't be right, because the folks who live there don't do it that way. The "state" equivalent is just a political convenience in other countries, not a deep part of your thinking. You might understand how much the states are a part of our thinking here, if you reflect on what the name of our country is. --MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your point about 'unnecessary disambiguation' is interesting. There is a small but growing consensus that titles need to be informative.  To those that oppose 'unnecessary disambiguation' or 'pre disambiguation' this is simply an unacceptable suggestion.  Why should a link not be clear about what it is about?  Why should a read have to sort though three or 4 articles to find out what country they are reading about?  Why do we ignore WP:COMMONSENSE? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree the group of those favoring informative-beyond-most-common-name titles is small. How you ascertain that it's growing, much less that it's anything close to a consensus, I have no idea.  I don't understand your question about links not being clear.  What link is not clear?  As to why a reader should have to sort through 3 or 4 articles to find out what country they are reading about... what are you talking about?  We're talking only about articles for which the primary topic for the short city name in question is the US city.  If there are 3 or 4 articles associated with a given name, then either one is clearly the dominant use in English, and thus the primary topic, or none of them all.  What's the problem?  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are clearly in the camp of avoiding titles you can class as pre disambiguation. WP:COMMONSENSE is not a valid argument to you.  I can understand why you may not be aware of the problems your position causes since your spend most of your time on policy pages and not actually using the encyclopedia. If you need an example, there are thousands of them out there.  Not hard to find if you want to look.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, WP:COMMONSENSE is one reason why I favor using the most common name for any topic as that article's title, whenever reasonably possible. Please do explain your points, with examples, about unclear links and readers having to sort "through 3 or 4 articles to find out what country they are reading about".  I honestly don't know what you're talking about, and, unless you demonstrate otherwise,  you seem not to either.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, WP:COMMONSENSE is one reason why I favor using the most common name for any topic as that article's title, whenever reasonably possible. Please do explain your points, with examples, about unclear links and readers having to sort "through 3 or 4 articles to find out what country they are reading about".  I honestly don't know what you're talking about, and, unless you demonstrate otherwise,  you seem not to either.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Melanie, do you have any evidence for this silent majority of USPLACE fans who don't know what an RFC is? How would we gauge the opinions of such uninformed editors? --BDD (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not "uninformed", thankyouverymuch. They are just not involved with the non-content areas of the wiki (areas like this). When I am writing out in the "real world" of Wikipedia, as opposed to the "insider" areas, I am careful to spell out what I mean rather than the constant lazy repetition of jargon and acronyms. When we sprinkle our posts with BLP, XFD, RFC, DYK, ANI, RFA, and the like, we are unintentionally excluding a lot of people, including many regular editors here. Personally I have been here for 6+ years and have almost 15,000 edits, and yet I often have to look up some of these terms thrown around by Wiki-insiders. --MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean any disrespect, but RFC is one of the more common bits of alphabet soup served around here. An editor who doesn't know what it means is uninformed—not dumb, not ignorant, just not yet informed. But again I ask, what makes you think the large mass of such editors supports USPLACE? It doesn't seem falsifiable; I could just as easily say they're frustrated with unnnecessary disambiguation. But if you have evidence, I'd be glad to hear it. --BDD (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that RFC is one of the most established acronyms in the real world. On the other hand, B2C is completely wrong as to the titling policies relating to USPLACE, also as usual. WP:COMMONNAME actually does suggest City, State in the US, with few exceptions.  (Probably fewer than the AP list, in fact.)  And, although not falsifiable, it is rational to assume that more of those in favor of the status quo are silent than those opposed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you think I have said here that is "completely wrong as to the titling policies relating to USPLACE", Arthur? Policy details and caveats aside, I observe that Wikipedians generally don't disambiguate our titles unless the disambiguation is necessary, but the current USPLACE guideline indicates titles like Cleveland Heights, Ohio (rather than Cleveland Heights) that are contrary to this general convention, and this sets up an inherent conflict that has produced countless conflicts over the last 10 years, and will do so for the next 10 years, unless USPLACE is brought in line with disambiguate [with state] only when necessary (when the city is not the unique use or primary topic of its concise name).  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's an excellent example of why we need to eliminate further change to USPlace Cleveland Heights, Ohio. Regardless of how it got to where it is today, the battle over USPLACE and unnecessary DAB, Primary Topic, Commonname, et al results in contentious behavior and debate. To what end?  Nothing positive for the encyclopedia and its millions of readers ever comes out of these discussion.  They just waste endless voluteer energy on both sides of the discussion as both sides think their side is best for WP and will defend it endlessly. Let's make USPLACE uncontestable and end these types of waste. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That would make it quite a privileged guideline indeed. We could freeze all other naming conventions while we're at it. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL, Mike. The Cleveland Heights, Ohio controversy is occurring under the current guideline!  It exemplifies the very reason we need to change the guideline!  A well-meaning experienced editor moved it back in August to be consistent with how we title articles on WP in general... remove unnecessary disambiguatory information!  Naturally!  Organically!  It is the type of controversy that will  be eliminated when we finally remove the "USA exceptionalism" contrivances of USPLACE and bring it in line with the same disambiguate only when necessary conventions we use for almost all of our titles, including most of our city articles, because that article would be moved to Cleveland Heights, once and for all, and there would be no basis for any disagreement about that ever again. Anyone seriously interested in stopping the waste of volunteer energy on silly debates about USPLACE titles would be looking to bring USPLACE in line with how we title most of our articles on WP.  --Born2cycle (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I had intended to ask that original mover of the article why they happened to do it, and whether it was because someone asked them to (the move required administrator help because a redirect page had to be deleted). However, I see that Born2cycle has already contacted that editor, not just to ask for information, but to solicit them to come to this discussion and support b2c's point of view. Why am I not surprised? --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Does WP:CANVASS really apply to informal discussions? --BDD (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

User:MelanieN offered a theory above on why these conversations are unproductive and see few new participants. Here's another theory: we have two sets of users with very strong opinions, and they don't hesitate to make those opinions known. They voluminously argue with each other for years, making exactly the same points over and over and over. Neither side will drown out the other, but that doesn't stop them from trying.

There's probably a workable compromise out there, but it won't be found when all we do is talk past each other. I suspect that there are many users who haven't weighed in and would like to see this resolved, but are smart enough to stay away from such a toxic atmosphere. Can you blame them? - Eureka Lott 23:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome! I must ask... what is toxic here?  There are very few personal comments of any kind, much less attacks.  There is certainly some talking past each other (I've caught myself missing points in the past, but never intentionally).  It's mostly a reasonable and civil exposition of the arguments on both sides, so far as I can tell.  I'm really curious as to why it seems toxic to you, and, presumably, uninviting.  Thanks!  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Toxic may have been a bit of an overstatement. Polarized is probably more apt. Participants on both sides have dug in their heels to such an extent that compromise seems impossible. The argument goes on, year after year, across who-knows-how-many talk pages, with no sign of getting closer to a resolution. You talk so much that you don't read carefully, and failed to notice that this is my fourth post in this thread. - Eureka Lott 23:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Toxic is perhaps not such an exaggeration. The situation is much as I predicted when we were discussing the first attempt at compromise to use the AP list. I suggested then that this would not satisfy the anti-convention faction. There is little point in attempting to compromise with parties whose ultimate goal is to completely undo the position of the other party. older ≠ wiser 23:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Older/wiser, you said it well, and EurekaLott, you are mistaken in blaming the intransigence on both sides. I and other supporters of USPLACE have expressed a willingness to consider using other Reliable Sources which would provide a longer list of exceptions. But these suggestions get absolutely no response or movement from the blow-it-up faction, so I don't see any likelihood of such a resolution. It would merely be a way for the anti-USPLACE faction to keep moving the center line closer and closer to their ultimate goal, which is a complete elimination of the city, state convention. They are not willing to budge an inch from their absolute opposition to any kind of "unnecessary disambiguation" (in their awkward but beloved phrase), and that is why no resolution is likely. (See "bipartisanship"). --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't supporting the use of city, state whenever disambiguation of city is required still using the city, state convention, and not favoring "complete elimination" of it? Especially considering that probably the majority of US cities have names that require disambiguation?  So, what's wrong with using the city, state convention only when disambiguation of city is required?  Is that not a reasonable compromise proposal?  What's unreasonable about it?  Thanks!  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not a compromise; that amounts to "be reasonable, do it my way." --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, "my way" would be to disambiguate, when necessary, using the standard WP disambiguation form, City (State). Now do you see how disambiguating with a comma is a compromise? Now, will you explain what's unreasonable about  using the city, state convention only when disambiguation of city is required?   Or do you just not like it?   --Born2cycle (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have explained until I am blue in the face, and after all our conversations about this, it is discouraging and a failure of AGF to see you claim that I haven't explained and invoke WP:ILIKEIT. Nutshell version of my reasoning: "City, State" is the standard way that Americans name a city, both in writing and in conversation. We do this automatically, all the time, whether or not the city name is unique. We do it because it is part of our thinking and part of our culture. Thus, the "city, state" formulation is the correct way to title articles here per WP:COMMONNAME. In addition, that format (with certain specified exceptions) is used by Reliable Sources such as the AP and the NYT; thus it is the correct way to title articles here per WP:RS. You don't add any credibility to your arguments here, or shed any luster on yourself, by dismissing all my previous points as if I never made them. As for it being some kind of compromise to use "City, State" instead of "City (State)," that's no compromise. It doesn't address the issue under contention. That issue (from your point of view) is whether to disambiguate, not how to disambiguate. The issue (from my point of view) is not about "ambiguity" at all; it's to use the "full name" of the city just as Americans always do - not because of any ambiguity issue, but because "city, state" is our version of the Common Name. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just me, but when I'm asked why position X is unreasonable, I don't believe I normally respond by stating that I've explained why position Y is reasonable, and do it again, completely ignoring the question asked about position X. Or, are you assuming it's impossible for both position X and position Y to be reasonable? That is, when you say "the "city, state" formulation is the correct way to title articles here per WP:COMMONNAME", are you saying any other way is the incorrect way?  By this reasoning New York City is wrong, and the "correct way" is to title it New York, New York.  Is that your position?  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Unreasonable" was your word, not mine. I'm not going to get entangled in a bunch of semantics, and I don't find it helpful to try to characterize our own and other people's positions as "reasonable" or "common sense" or the reverse. Such self-righteous characterizations simply muddy the water. You know my position on this issue: It's that "city, state" is the natural and standard way to name American cities, with agreed-upon exceptions for some of the largest/best known cities. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So your position is that it's unnatural and non-standard to refer to Sacramento as Sacramento? Chula Vista as Chula Vista? Frellsen as Frellsen?  Maywood Park as Maywood Park? Sugar Land as Sugar Land?  Really?  I suggest people familiar with each of those cities would strongly disagree.  And people unfamiliar with them would not refer to them at all.   --Born2cycle (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of proximity. If someone is in Rome, New York, they refer to Rome, New York simply as "Rome". If they are in California, they would choose between Rome and Rome, New York (or some other state) or Rome, Italy, depending on if they had just been talking about something that would provide context or not. On the Internet within an article there may be a context, but the article title itself inherently provides no hint of context without providing the state. Eleven U.S. states have a place named Rome, according to the disambiguation page. The current method is simple and easy to apply. Apteva (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Except we're not talking about cities like Rome, New York with ambiguous names. We're talking about cities like Chula Vista, which are the primary topics for their names.  If I'm in New York talking to someone familiar with Chula Vista (say anyone from the San Diego area), then I don't qualify it with California.  Even if I'm talking to someone from Manhattan, if from the context of the conversation it's clear I'm talking about a city near San Diego, I won't qualify with California.  ", California" is not part of its name; it's just a convenient and standard way to specify what state it's in, when that's necessary.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * EurekaLott, my failure to notice that this is your fourth post in this thread suggests that I don't read carefully? Sorry!  Nothing personal.  I hope you're not offended. Is it possible that I do read carefully, but I focus much more on what is said, rather than on who is saying it?  Does my commentary not amply demonstrate that it is based on a careful reading of what others are saying?  The polarization is probably a fair assessment, but, to find consensus, shouldn't focus be given to evaluating and questioning the arguments made by both sides, rather than on how entrenched the participants may be?  I remember the suggestion a few years ago about changing USPLACE to go by some population cutoff (though I didn't remember that it was you who made that proposal).  I would favor any proposal that brings treatment of US city titles closer to treatment of other WP article titles, but it seems contrived to me, albeit no more contrived than the current AP list determination.  And isn't the contrivance, or, more generally, treating US city articles differently from other articles, the main cause for all the dispute about USPLACE in general, and in individual USPLACE debates?  If so, then swapping one contrived special treatment for another probably doesn't address the underlying problem, does it? I mean, isn't the main overwhelming reason people favor city for a title over city, state because we generally favor name over name, something in most of our other titles (whenever name is unique or this use is primary), and that people favor city, state over city primarily because USPLACE says so?  I mean, if USPLACE didn't say so, then wouldn't the title of any US city be just city, if its name was unique or that city was primary for that name, just like we title all of our articles? Call it polarized if you want, but isn't the position that the only way to resolve the problem caused by special/inconsistent treatment of US cities is to end the special treatment really just a simple objective observation of the situation?  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't about avoidance; it's about accepting a precedent and moving forward without continually disrupting Wikipedia. The principle of stare decisis (that courts should generally abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters) that is followed in legal systems is a sensible one for Wikipedia, too. This principle avoids the continual disruption that would occur if courts considered each question de novo. If certain people would accept the USPLACE article-naming precedent established in Wikipedia, and stop insisting on de novo consideration of every article name, Wikipedia would be a far more pleasant place. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The same argument, in essence, was made in favor of leaving Yoghurt at Yoghurt for 8 or 9 years, ignoring that it was not the same people who kept bringing up the issue, but new people, time and time again, for the same reasonable reasons. The issue was finally resolved by moving the article to a title that was consistent with other WP guidelines. If you are unable to see that we have the same situation here (times N, where N is the fraction of US cities that are the primary topic for their names), and insist instead on blaming the messengers - those of us who simply point out what should be obvious - I can't help you, just as I couldn't help those who fought so hard to keep Yoghurt at Yoghurt, ironically in the name of "not disturbing settled matters", when the matter could be, and ultimately was, actually and finally settled only when most of them accepted what was always inevitable.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

U.S. counties
Here is something for you "unnecessary disambiguation" folks that might be fixable and uncontroversial: the naming of U.S. counties. Placer County, California; Nassau County, New York; Clackamas County, Oregon; it looks as if every one of them has "comma, state" added to their names, even though that is not a natural or common usage, and even if their name is unique. Was this based on some kind of decision process, or is it just left over from the way Wikipedia was when it started? Are there people who support this usage and would argue against changing it? Personally I can see no point in adding "comma, state" to all county names. Unlike the WP:USPLACE convention for cities, this usage is not supported by the WP:Common name or WP:Reliable source guidelines, or by any other guidelines I can think of. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Since a county is an administrative subdivision that is bound to a particular state, it is useful to specify the state in the article title. That doesn't constitute unnecessary disambiguation, but rather relates to the administrative structure of the states. I would also question the assertion that this usage isn't natural or common. Likewise, specifying the state in which a city exists provides the same basic level of clarity, directly in the title. Both editors and readers are, I feel, aided by a consistent application of this principle. Omnedon (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no mention of counties in USPLACE until August of last year, when it was inserted as a by-product of a looong (but ultimately fruitful) discussion (see here) about what to do with minor civil divisions such as townships. There was no explicit discussion of why or whether we should always include the state in a county article - it was just a recognition that currently, that's what we've done. Dohn joe (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * MelanieN, I was not aware of that, or forgot. I admire the consistent application of your argument.  Of course, I agree with you on this.  Maybe that's something we should work on.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Omnedon, the problem with the "useful" argument is it can be used to advocate for the inclusion of all kinds of "useful" information in article titles, bounded only by people's imaginations, or maybe the entire content of the article lead. So, a line needs to be drawn, and by convention established long ago, we draw the line at the concise most commonly used name for a topic, whenever reasonably possible, adding more information to a title only to the extent it is needed for disambiguation.  The alternative, ultimately, is opening Pandora's Box with respect to what can be added to titles.  That is, no one has ever come up with an alternative equally clear line that can apply in general to all articles.  Drawing the line specially for each group of articles just confuses things and leads to conflicts.   The question -- why should a general rule not apply to articles in some particular group? -- will never go away.    --Born2cycle (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a Pandora's box. Including the state in the title for a county's article is more consistent and easily-defined than including it sometimes but not others. This line, for counties, is perfectly clear. As for trying to apply the exact same principles to all types of articles -- that may not be feasible. Hence this discussion and all its predecessors. Omnedon (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 7 is applying the exact same principles to USPLACE articles as to all other types of articles - and it's clearly feasible (just move every USPLACE article currently at city, state to city, if city currently redirects to city, state - a bot could do it). The fact that it's feasible will never change, as won't the fact that USPLACE articles are being treated different from other types of articles, even though it's feasible to avoid the inconsistency, unless option 7 is adopted.  That unnecessarily creates a situation ripe for conflict, debate and endless discussion.  These are indisputable facts.  Don't shoot the messenger.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your definition of "feasible" ignores all the disagreement about this. If it was feasible, there would be no problem, yet here we are -- it's a problem. Option 7 doesn't make sense in this context. Omnedon (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My definition of "feasible" is "possible to do". If you're ruling out an option as "infeasible" because you don't believe it can muster consensus support, then you're putting the cart before the horse.  Let's have a serious discussion about feasibility (and other considerations) of each option independent of how popular each option might be, then see where consensus lies. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly -- I'm not sure this is possible to do, given this environment. And the Pandora's Box allusion is the slippery-slope fallacy. In any case, I'm not convinced that the same naming conventions can always be applied exactly the same to all types of articles. You refer to inconsistency -- but in my opinion, in the case of geographical articles, the "least disambiguation" principle leads to inconsistency rather than avoiding it. Some degree of flexibility is surely called for with a project that has the kind of scope that Wikipedia has, dealing with all kinds of subjects. Trying to force a round peg into a square hole is possible, but that doesn't mean it's best. Omnedon (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In any case, in my experience, counties do tend to refer to themselves in the "County, State" form. I don't buy that this is not common usage; in fact it seems to be quite common usage. Omnedon (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see nothing to suggest that "County, State" is unnatural. Quite the reverse, actually – it's a form I see and hear pretty frequently.  For instance, I see that the website of my own uniquely-named county uses it prominently; looking around at neighboring counties (,, , etc.) I see the same there too.  Upon what basis, then, is that "not a natural or common usage"?  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  20:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course it's possible. At some point we'll have a completed set of options and associated pro/con arguments, and then someone will have an RfC, and lots of people will comment, and whether there is consensus for any of the options will be determined. How is the slippery-slope argument a fallacy?  You think USPLACE is never used as a precedent to support adding more information to other titles? The round peg in this case is "use the long form consistently even when the short form is not ambiguous", while the square hole is "disambiguate only when necessary".  Sure we can fit that round peg in that square hole, and we've tried for the last 9 years or so, but it's really not a good fit.  Use the long state-enhanced name only when the city is not the primary topic for the short city-only name has been proven to work remarkably well for cities on the AP list.  Why not follow suit for all the others?  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the County, State convention should be a "slippery slope" or a "Pandora's box"; it's been in use for quite some time and I haven't observed it sparking a slide into unnecessarily verbose naming. Also, the convention seems to be in common usage (as posted), and it's also good to point out the guideline of common sense.  In this case I think there are reasonable and sensible bases for the "County, State" naming convention, and would prefer to see it continue.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  00:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The "County, State" convention is itself evidence of the slippery slope. Normally, adding the state to the title would not be warranted, unless it was needed for disambiguation.  But, since we add the state to most city titles, it seems acceptable.  By the way, why not be even more informative and clear by adding ", United States" to the end of each title as well?  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * yourlogicalfallacyis.com --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If anything, County, State shows the absence of a slippery slope. After all, if it is indeed as dangerous as you claim, and given that it's already been the convention used here for many years, we presumably should already have seen a move to County, State, Country or even County, State, Country, Planet; however, that clearly hasn't happened, nor can I recall it ever being seriously considered.  That to me suggests that we're on a reasonably flat plain with good traction. :)  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  11:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there evidence that county articles have been moved a lot, or have been the subject of protracted naming debates? If not, then we clearly have a de-facto naming convention there, of the sort that Born2cycle says that he likes to make and then represent in guidelines. So why is he now talking of going the other direction? As for whether it's support by common usage, I did a survey of one unambiguous county name; seems OK. Dicklyon (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are only a few people moving them around, and nobody is noticing, that's not really a good example of organic consensus building. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon: Agreed; my own quick check also shows common usage of the form. That being the case, I'm not sure what the basis is for the MelanieN's earlier suggestion that "County, State" is an unnatural and uncommon construction.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  00:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * People like Melanie believe that the City, State construct is so common, that it is effectively a common name of the city, and, so, warrants including the state in the title of an article about a city which is the primary topic for City, even though it's not needed for disambiguation. In contrast, the Countyname, State construct is much less common, and so is clearly not the name of the county.  As such, including the state qualifier is justified only if needed for disambiguation.  At least that's how I understand it.  By the way, this is a perfect example of the slippery slope in action.   --Born2cycle (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You claim that County, State is much less common. On what basis?  It seems to be quite common, as has already been pointed out. Omnedon (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If a vote happened right now for the USA county names, " County, " is what I would choose for 100% of the counties. This is where I stand, and I'm not changing my mind on it, so please don't waste your time "comment baiting" me.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  07:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle: Much less common? As I already showed, my own uniquely-named home county uses the County, State convention prominently; many of its neighbors do too.  (See again the links I posted earlier.)  Further, a quick spot-check on Google shows numerous other resources doing the same: US Census Bureau, CityData,StatsIndiana, legal sites, property sites, genealogy sites, local news, etc.  Where is the idea that County, State is "uncommon" coming from?  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  10:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your research; it shows a lot of Reliable Sources using this formulation. I may have been wrong. I based my original comment on the fact that I don't hear people using "county, state" in everyday conversation - unlike they way they do with cities, where they always say "Muleshoe, Texas" or "Gaithersburg, Maryland" at first mention. But then, people probably don't talk about counties much in everyday conversation, except for counties in their own state or locality so the listener would know what is meant. You have demonstrated that there is in fact a basis in Reliable Sources for the "county, state" formulation and I am fine with it being kept. My main point in bringing it up was to wonder why the "don't disambiguate!" faction is so intensely focused on trying to undo the "city, state" system - a system that has a lot of support and a strong basis in Wikipedia policy - while they ignore so many other "unnecessary disambiguations" in titles here. I also thought, erroneously as it turns out, that this would be non-controversial and would let them feel good about having "fixed" something. My mistake. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

About USPLACE
That aforementioned guideline really contradicts numerous other things. First of all, the AP Stylebook is irrelevant regarding an encyclopedia, but relevant for a news service, which Wikipedia is not. Also, if a place of the US is the primary topic for a title, why would it use unnecessary disambiguation when it doesn't need it? Too many people worship USPLACE too much that whenever one opposes the USPLACE-compliant title, a worshipper would oppose the opposer by saying that "per USPLACE.".

Is that what USPLACE is? Hill Crest&#39;s WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. The USPLACE guideline would be simpler, more helpful and more consistent with other guidelines if it followed the near-universal WP naming principle of disambiguate only when necessary.  Right now you can't tell from a given US city title whether it is disambiguated because there are other uses of that name, or it's disambiguated simply because of USPLACE.  For example, Carmel-by-the-Sea, California... why is it not at Carmel-by-the-Sea?  There is no other use of that name, it already redirects to the article about the city... why confuse users into thinking the name is not unique; that there is another use of "Carmel-by-the-Sea"? Creating confusion is not helpful.   The current convention/guideline never achieved broad community consensus support, but was established by a bot in the early days that automatically renamed all titles of US cities to include ", state" whether disambiguation was needed or not.  Getting an exception for the best-known cities (coincidentally those on the AP list) was a difficult multi-year process.  It might be time to revisit this issue.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The current guideline has been used too many times to impose a non-Wikipedia like rigidness in the naming of articles. Even many people who invoke this guideline do so admitting it does not make sense. It is time to update, and use some common sense for this subject. Why should this naming guideline be so counter intuitive, and against the main idea of simpler is better?--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that guidelines are supposed to reflect current practice, and current practice in this area appears to be to disambiguate all articles about incorporated cities in the US with the state, unless they're on the AP list. So it's impossible to find, in practice, evidence supporting a change to the guideline. At the same time many people argue against changing any of these titles solely on the grounds of what the guideline says.  This of course creates a Catch-22 situation that makes it impossible to change either practice or the guideline, even if consensus supports such change.  The only way to fix this is to get several such articles moved despite what USPLACE says by persuasively applying WP:IAR (for good reason) to ignore USPLACE.  Then, when several articles have been so moved, the argument can be made that the guideline should be reflected to support this.  This is why I argued as I did at Talk:Beverly Hills, California/Archives/2012.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My recommendation is to keep the requirement of using the state name if the city is not in the AP style guide. The normal convention in the style guide is practical advice. There are many places in the United states, and most people know all 50 state names, but have trouble knowing where a specific city or town is, and a huge number of US names are taken from European names. For subjects about a city, such as List of mayors of, there as no need to add the state as it just makes the title longer. Apteva (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * AP Style guide is for newspapers, not for encyclopedias. Also, we don't need to disambiguate anything that doesn't need disambiguation. You also contradict yourself, too. If you want to know where the heck a place is, just read the article! Hill Crest&#39;s WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 01:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If only that was true! I have read an article, clicked the link for the place that it was in and then clicked another link to finally find out where a place is.  This is all too common.  Too many articles are poorly written. But is that a naming policy issue?  Only if you think that article names should be informative for everyone. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The current guideline is the right way to do it. WP is not intended just for US readers. I immediately know where Carmel-by-the-Sea is, but a reader from another country may not even recognize it's a place name, rather than, say, the name of a hotel or a golf course. Personally, I consider our failure to disambiguate in general unless there is a conflict to be singularly unhelpful to readers, which should be our primary end. (current Library practice is also to  disambiguate all city names, except for the heading: New York (City). They used to avoid it for major cities, but that was a short cut intended to reduce workload from a time when cataloging was running years behind book production.) DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Focussing on the question
I am perfectly happy to respond to a RFC. It was perfectly clear that the consensus was the status quo- which in the RFC was B. I am fascinated how this was ignored and has become a conversation: and a conversation about an issue that was rejected in the RFC. I have learn alot about obfuscation, changing the wording of the question mid discussion, closing discussions that are inconvenient thus removing from view opposing views, about attempts to claim reasonable argument are personal attacks. I can understand why the original contributors have dropped out of the discussion. I made my opinion known earlier- that hasn't changed- but the later shenanigans has reinforced my view. So to bring it back in focus- can we revert the discussion to the original wording- which according to my reading gave a clear answer- status quo is the consensus. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)