Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/August

Metropolitan/micropolitan areas and the like
Shouldn’t this guideline address how to title articles about areas named after a central city? For example: Which should be used? This page provides no guidance for such titles, and many current titles omit the second appositional comma (Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area—which could be read to mean the Columbus which is inside the “Ohio metropolitan area”). Is this addressed elsewhere? If not, I think we need this for consistency’s sake. —Frungi (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area
 * Columbus, OH metropolitan area
 * Columbus metropolitan area, Ohio
 * Columbus metropolitan area (Ohio)
 * Columbus (Ohio) metropolitan area
 * None of the above. It is Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area. It is written that way because it is the Ohio metropolitan area which contains Columbus. It is too much detail to put this into the guideline. Apteva (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation, but regardless, I should think a single short sentence under WP:USPLACE would suffice: mesomething like, “Articles about an area of a state should be titled X, State metropolitan area .” How is that too much detail?
 * On the semantics: In a web search for this particular subject, I find multiple formats, including ones I gave as examples and simply an unqualified “Columbus metro area”. So I maintain that it’s “(Columbus (Ohio)) metropolitan area”—the metropolitan area surrounding and named for Columbus in Ohio. But if it was referring to an “Ohio metropolitan area” containing Columbus, a comma wouldn’t even be appropriate at all. I would give counter-examples, but at the moment I can’t even think of anything else that’s named after something it contains other than “jelly donut” (not “jelly, donut”). I can think of things named for their leaders (which is arguably the case here), such as “the Obama administration” or “the Ming Dynasty”, but that’s really not the same thing as what you assert. —Frungi (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a recent RFC which concluded that generally, articles on metropolitan areas don't have to include the state name unless disambiguation is necessary. I'd welcome a follow-up RFC asking how titles which do include the state name should be formatted, but I don't have the energy to start it myself. For what it's worth, I prefer the name of the area followed by the disambiguator ("Columbus metropolitan area, Ohio"). DoctorKubla (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As concluded at the recent RFC, the title of this particular metropolitan area should be Columbus metropolitan area, as it currently is - because there is no other Columbus Metropolitan Area. For those few articles that need disambiguation (because there are metropolitan areas for more than one city of that name), I prefer the style Portland, Maine metropolitan area (no comma) as the most natural format - in other words I agree with Apteva. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But… it's not. That's a DAB page. Anyway, I think matching appositional commas are the more natural format, since that's how the language treats states. But if it's such a point of contention, how about, e.g., "Portland metropolitan area (Maine)"? Has this format been discussed? —Frungi (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected about Columbus; thanks for the correction. And I have changed my mind about the second comma; it is needed. Apteva has demonstrated that the format "Portland, Maine metropolitan area" can be misread as meaning it is part of something called the "Maine metropolitan area". The second comma is essential to prevent this misunderstanding. So I now prefer Portland, Maine, metropolitan area, with a redirect from Portland, Maine metropolitan area. --MelanieN (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with the well-intentioned editors here about the need for a second comma after the state in such names. There's a relevant discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Do_article_titles_that_include_proper_names_need_to_follow_standard_grammatical_rules.3F
 * Basically, normally I wouldn't say this about hardly anything on Wikipedia, but I am willing to go to the mat on it being wrong to omit the second comma. It creates confusing and incorrect titles like Rochester, New York metropolitan area – which clearly suggests that Rochester is within the "New York metropolitan area" which is just wrong!  It's an article about the metropolitan area in Rochester, New York, not an article about the New York metropolitan area of Rochester!  English requires a second comma after parenthetical information like state names.  I know tha some people don't like to include the state name, but if it is going to be included it really must have a comma.  I implore all participants to think this through and separate the question of including the state from including a comma after the state when a state is necessary.  I think adding a sentence about this to the main page would be helpful in clearing this up.   AgnosticAphid  talk 16:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Omitting the matching comma is a grammatical error.  On the other hand, at least one guide says this formal requirement is changing in practice; the error is increasingly tolerated, making it not an error for some.  But in WP, in writing for the widest possible audience, we strive to use style in support of clarity.  There's no reason to move away from the formally correct punctuation that most clearly helps the reader to the right parse of the phrase.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, Apteva would be correct in saying to omit the comma if he were correct that "it is the Ohio metropolitan area which contains Columbus". But it's not.  As the article says, "The Columbus Metropolitan Area is the metropolitan area centered on the American city of Columbus, Ohio."  So he's wrong; or she's wrong; either way, it's wrong.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I think the second comma is awkward; it might be needed in a sentence, but this is not a sentence. However I am not going to go to the mat over it and would accept either Portland, Maine metropolitan area or Portland, Maine, metropolitan area. Whichever one is used, the other should be a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the evidence shows that the lack of comma has misled at least one semi-intelligent reader into the wrong interpretation of what the title means. Is there a reason not to use the more clearly correct punctuation?  I suppose the alternative explanation is also supportable (that the reader in question is less than semi-intelligent).  Dicklyon (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to say that the argument's been made, but the most compelling reason I can think of is IDONTLIKEIT. And when that's the most compelling reason… —Frungi (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

In case this is unfamiliar, it might be helpful to note WP:COMMA: "In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element (except at the end of a sentence). Dates in month–day–year format also require a comma after the day and after the year (except at the end of a sentence). In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetic." "Incorrect: On November 24, 1971 Cooper hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft that had taken off from Portland, Oregon and was destined for Seattle, Washington." "Correct: On November 24, 1971, Cooper hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft that had taken off from Portland, Oregon, and was destined for Seattle, Washington." —sroc &#x1F4AC; 02:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason for omitting the second comma is a simple matter of grammar. The metro/micro areas are not within the city named, they are within the state named, so we use Rochester, New York metropolitan area, instead of Rochester, New York, metropolitan area, which would be correct if the metropolitan area was contained within Rochester, but none of these are (and if they are, they should have a second comma). So the unit that we are putting commas around is [state metropolitan area], not [city], [state], [metropolitan area]. Apteva (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's how it works. The term "metropolitan area" is modified by the name of the city. We're not talking about a city in the state's metropolitan area. We're talking about the metropolitan area defined by the city. It's the Rochester metropolitan area (in the state of New York). When the name of the state is inserted, it functions as an appositive. But if you insist that you're correct, then please cite another case where commas are used as you describe, because I don't think English works that way. Also, please see my earlier reply to you at the top of this section. —Frungi (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Frungi. And Apteva, that's not correct. If this is how you are interpreting it (and your reading is definitely logical), then the second comma is needed. There is no such thing as a "New York metropolitan area" or an "Ohio metropolitian area". There is the metropolitan area centered on Rochester, New York - or on Columbus, Ohio. You have just inadvertently convinced me that the second comma is needed after all. --MelanieN (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, please note that many metro areas cross state lines. Thus, for example, the metro area that is named for Cincinnati, Ohio, is not an Ohio metropolitan area, nor is it a metropolitan area "in" Ohio. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. A humorous aside, with apologies: A reminder that commas save lives. --MelanieN (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding, by examples:
 * He lives in the Rochester metropolitan area, which is within New York state.
 * He lives in the Rochester metropolitan area in a small apartment.
 * He lives in the metropolitan area of Rochester, New York, in a small apartment.
 * He lives in a Rochester, New York, apartment.
 * Not He lives in a Rochester, New York apartment.
 * Because this is clunky, I would re-phrase as He lives in an apartment in Rochester, New York.
 * He lives in the Rochester, New York, metropolitan area.
 * Not He lives in the Rochester, New York metropolitan area.
 * I would prefer to re-phrase this, too, like the first example.
 * I don't understand why it would be otherwise, but am keen to learn. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 11:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be correct if the metropolitan area in question was contained within Rochester, which it is not. Someone living in Savannah, New York, in Wayne County, is also within that same metropolitan area, and the only thing that is in common with someone living in Rochester, which is in Monroe County, is that it is in New York. It is not correct to say that they live in the Rochester, New York, metropolitan area, in a big house with a red door, because they do not live in Rochester, New York, and do not even live in the same county as Rochester. It is correct to say that they live in the Rochester, New York metropolitan area, in a big house with a red door. In another thread someone pointed to more detailed rules on commas that show where the second comma is omitted, which includes this case. We can not separate New York from metropolitan area any more than we can separate metropolitan and area with a comma. The four words form a single clause. It is very dangerous for us to try to explain or teach grammar or good writing in the MOS, and all of that advice belongs in our articles and in essays. Often our articles provide better information on a subject than our MOS does, because we have roughly 1000 times as many readers as editors, meaning that 1000 times as many people read and use the article on the subject than do the MOS. Apteva (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Apteva, that's why it is called an AREA. "Area" automatically implies more than just the city limits; if we didn't mean to include a larger area, we would just say the city. If someone lives in the "Rochester statistical area," that does not imply they live in Rochester; it means they live in the Rochester area - an area which is named for its largest city, Rochester, but includes surrounding cities as part of the metropolitan area. Just as we say "the Los Angeles area" which includes cities other than Los Angeles, or "the Boston area" specifically to include a larger area than just Boston. The thing which defines the area is the city around which it centers - not the state in which it lies. It's just that if there is more than one "Rochester statistical area," then we have to add the state name to disambiguate which Rochester we are talking about. The phrase "Ohio metropolitan area" (I'm using Ohio as an example rather than New York because there really is a "New York (city) metropolitan area") is NOT a single clause. In fact this "clause" makes no sense, as a phrase or as a concept, and it is not used by any source anywhere. Your argument to omit the comma because you want this to actually mean it is part of an "Ohio metropolitan area" is way out in left field and not supported by any reliable source. Certainly not by the federal government, which defines these metropolitan statistical areas and names them (usually) after the largest city contained within them. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The word area does not define the extent of the area in question. The words "New York metropolitan" only say where the area is located. Ohio is a better example, because of the confusion between the city and state. Where the state is not needed, we do not place a comma between the city and the words metropolitan area, we say Cincinnati metropolitan area, we do not say Cincinnati, metropolitan area. Why would we include a comma just because we include the state? Doing so would pair the state with the city, which is not correct, as the state is not paired with the city, but with the words metropolitan area, which is why we have the Lima, Ohio metropolitan area, Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area, and Wheeling, West Virginia metropolitan area. Were those editors wrong in choosing those names? Why would we have so many like that if not for it being correct? If we put it at Lima, Ohio, metropolitan area, someone would have pointed out the error and suggested moving it to Lima, Ohio metropolitan area. These sentences, in Lima, Ohio, "As of the 2010 census, the city had a population of 38,771. It is the principal city of and is included in the Lima, Ohio Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is included in the Lima-Van Wert–Wapakoneta, Ohio Combined Statistical Area. Lima was founded in 1831." are not missing two commas. Nor does the US federal government place commas there, instead referring to "Lima, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area", "Mansfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area". Are they wrong, too? Apteva (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I disagree that the omission of the comma is because the writers MEANT to pair the state with the metropolitan area; it is more likely that they simply followed the increasing trend, noted above and often followed but considered sloppy by purists, of omitting the second comma in even when the state is meant to modify the city. We do not say "Cincinnati, metropolitan area" because there is no parenthetical modifier to Cincinnati. If we insert the state name we put it between TWO commas to make it clear that "Ohio" is parenthetical, specifically NOT part of "metropolitan area", just modifying Cincinnati. To follow up on the example above, if someone writes (erroneously according to the strict grammarians) "He lived in a Columbus, Ohio apartment", is Ohio really meant to modify "apartment"? What is an "Ohio apartment" and what makes it a single clause? Isn't "Ohio" rather meant to modify "Columbus", as in "Columbus, Ohio", and so shouldn't the sentence really read "He lived in a Columbus, Ohio, apartment"? I'm sorry, Apteva, but I really don't see where you are coming from here. It seems so clear that the metropolitan area referred to is that of "Columbus, Ohio" and the only question is how to make it clear that we are talking about the metropolitan area around Columbus, Ohio, rather than that of Columbus, Georgia, or Columbus, Mississippi. This whole concept of an "Ohio metropolitan area" is your invention and makes no sense at all to me. And the whole point of this discussion is to say that expressions like "Lima, Ohio metropolitan area" really should be changed to "Lima, Ohio, metropolitan area" to avoid exactly this kind of confusion. (BTW if there really is such a thing as an Ohio metropolitan area, why is Ohio omitted from Cincinnati? Why isn't every metro article titled "Cincinnati, Ohio metropolitan area"?) --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Our choices are we can follow the convention used on this isolated site, or the choice used by the federal government. I recommend we follow the choice used by the federal government. A web search reveals almost no exceptions. There are two reasons that Ohio is not included in the Cincinnati metropolitan area, one, because it is not needed, but more importantly because Cincinnati is in the AP Stylebook as not needing the state. The 2013 AP Stylebook is now in print and needs to be checked against the list at WP:USPLACE for any changes. Apteva (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But the state WOULD be needed, wouldn't it, if these cities were part of an "Ohio metropolitan area" as you claim? Why do we have Akron metropolitan area and Dayton metropolitan area (which incidentally DO need the state added to the title of the article, per the AP stylebook, but that's a side issue)? Aren't Akron and Dayton part of this supposed "Ohio metropolitan area", and if they are not, why is Columbus? Sorry; the bottom line is that you really destroyed your argument by bringing up these other cities that do not include "Ohio". If "Ohio metropolitan area" is the actual entity, then every metropolitan area in the state should include it. These articles should have been titled Akron, Ohio metropolitan area and Dayton, Ohio metropolitan area. The fact that they are not so titled proves that "Ohio" is merely a disambiguator (requiring parenthetical commas), and not an essential part of the name of metropolitan areas in Ohio. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No changes in the new AP Stylebook. Anyone wishing a second comma can take it up with the US census bureau. Until their usage changes, I recommend doing what everyone else does; omit the second comma. Apteva (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Now you're talking about disambiguation - a separate issue. Could you please address the issue of why "Ohio metropolitan area" is not included in the names all metropolitan areas in Ohio - if as you say it is a single clause?


 * Comment BTW I wish to apologize to User:Frungi, User:AgnosticAphid, User:Dicklyon and anyone else I initially disagreed with here; you were right and I was wrong. My discussion with User:Apteva has convinced me that the second comma is an essential part of the name of these metropolitan areas and should be added whenever they are disambiguated by the state name. Commas may not actually save lives, but they certainly prevent misunderstandings! --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@Apteva: This is not about whether "Cincinnati" requires "Ohio". This is about following a basic punctuation style, followed by "most style manuals, including The Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook", which requires a comma before and after parenthetical remarks such as a state following a city. This is not unlike the year in an MDY-format date like July 23, 2013, for example where the second comma is required but sadly often neglected.

In an earlier comment, you mentioned "another thread [where] someone pointed to more detailed rules on commas that show where the second comma is omitted, which includes this case." It would be really helpful if you could actually link to it so we could all read and benefit from it, given the tide of disagreement against you on this. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 22:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It would help me too, and in an hour or two of searching I can probably find it, but is not essential to this conversation, which is not about grammar, but usage. Stick to reliable sources, which universally omit the second comma. Apteva (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That source also uses the ZIP code appreviation rather than the name of the state. Are you suggesting we should do that? --MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but we do sometimes. Apteva (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Many such articles were created using the weird styling of the Census, and have yet to be fixed for WP style. I fixed that one for you.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * By taking out the states? Who benefits from that? Certainly no one that I can think of. The census style is not weird, because everyone else uses only one comma. The point is, and was, that we sometimes use the zip code abbreviation instead of spelling out the state. In that case it was likely done because no one wanted a title that was 75 characters long. There are other examples or at least one that I have seen that use the abbreviation for the state. Wikipedia certainly does other things that are weird and do not reflect common usage, but those are abominations, not goals. Apteva (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "reliable sources, which universally omit the second comma". "everyone else uses only one comma". Who else, for example? The census page is not really comparable to our article titles because of their use of ZIP code abbreveations; can you show us other sources that omit the comma after the state in the names of metropolitan areas? --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The states are often omitted from multi-city areas, as you can confirm by searching for sources. Many sources do just use the census bureau's styling, but of those that don't (ie. that don't copy the postal codes), omitting the states altogether is most common.  The mutiple cities make the name completely unambiguous already, and unlike standalone city names, there's no lack of clarity on what the topic is.  A recent RFC decided that the state is not needed in such cases.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It helps to include the states because even though Youngstown, Warren, and Boardman are all in Ohio, the MSA includes Mercer County, Pennsylvania. This though is not a discussion of that article title, and moving it was really just WP:Pointy. The White House, Forbes, a law office, a school (Lima ... is the principal city of and is included in the Lima, Ohio Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is included in the Lima-Van WertWapakoneta, Ohio Combined Statistical Area)., payscale, places of America, hiker central, a real estate service, Missouri Census Data Center (a sponsored program of the Missouri State Library) It is the exceptions that are hard to find, not the ones with one comma. So far in adding these I have found none that follow a two comma format. Apteva (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If I understand User:Apteva’s position correctly (and please correct me if I’m wrong), the belief here is that terms like “metropolitan area” are in fact abbreviations of “[State] metropolitan area”. That is, the belief is that “[City] metropolitan area” is actually shorthand for “[City] [State] metropolitan area”, and a comma’s thrown in there just ’cause. I believe this is completely fallacious, firstly because the use of any commas in this case makes no sense grammatically, and secondly because it’s begging the question—it seems that this explanation was thought up in an attempt to make sense of the grammatical error of the missing closing comma, and now it’s being cited as fact in support of that error. I’m not saying here that any other arguments for “[City], [State] metropolitan area” are necessarily invalid, but this one needs to stop being used. (I haven’t read everything between my last post and this one, so if it has stopped being used, please disregard this.) —Frungi (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do with lame arguments supported by nobody but Apteva is to simply ignore them. But that's hard.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Anyone participating in a discussion should be afforded the same opportunity as anyone else to be productive, in this case by having faulty, preconceived notions challenged. If those notions are simply ignored, then that individual may never get free of them and meaningfully contribute to the conversation, and that’s just a stupid reason for that potential loss. —Frungi (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, but after a lame idea has been refuted, and the person pushing it keeps pushing it, it is better to ignore it than to keep giving it air.  This is pretty much always the case with Apteva, which is why he has gotten dozens of editors so annoyed that they topic banned him from style-related move discussions (or maybe something not quite broad enough to keep him away from discussions like this one?).  Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to offer an "outside view" on this as someone who doesn't live in the USA (and finds the practice of adding the name of a state to a city that doesn't need disambiguating somewhat bemusing). Of the forms discussed so far, the only one that makes sense to me and describes what you're trying to do is [City] metropolitan area, [State]. I think this is correct because: As discussed above, Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area looks like the article is about Columbus in the Ohio metropolitan area. And to an outsider Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area just looks weird and convoluted. I think the thing to grasp here is the name of the city is Columbus not Columbus, Ohio - Ohio is a disambiguation term so should appear after the title of the article's subject.  W a g g e r s  TALK  07:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * the name of the area is [City] metropolitan area - it doesn't seem to make any sense to insert a comma-separated disambiguation term in the middle of it, any more than we would use the form John, mathematician, Smith.
 * this keeps it more consistent with areas that don't need disambiguation - so it's either [City] metropolitan area (no disambiguation) or [City] metropolitan area, [State].
 * it also keeps it more consistent with the general disambiguation practice of [Title], [disambiguation term(s)].
 * I agree that this would be the most natural title, plus we wouldn't have the missing-comma question. I have made a similar suggestion more than once in this and the related WT:AT discussion (in the form of “[City] metropolitan area ([State])”), and unless I missed something (which is entirely possible), no one has reacted to it at all. I would love to know if there are any reasons against it. —Frungi (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That would get into the area of WP:OR. Wikipedia does not make things up, and instead uses what reliable sources use, in this case, the format [City], [State metropolitan area]. No one has had any trouble finding or using that format. There are four articles that are in the process of being moved that deviate from that, but all the rest follow that format. I have not counted the number of articles we have, but there are 939 of these metropolitan and micropolitan areas in the U.S. in the link above. The census bureau includes the state in the names of all 939, but by convention and common practice in reliable sources, we omit the state for many of these. Apteva (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not WP:OR to follow a style which is endorsed by the major style guides and explicitly by the MOS, namely, that any combination of [City]+comma+[State] is always followed by another comma (unless superseded by other punctuation). You've not pointed to any style guides that make an exception for [City]+comma+[State]+"metropolitan area"; instead, you have only referred to other sources that deviate from the accepted style.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 10:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The rules on commas go on to explain the situations where the second comma is omitted, in this case because it would indicate a different the meaning. Williamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area, and Williamsport, PA, Metropolitan Statistical Area have two different meanings. One is a metropolitan area centered on Williamsport, the other would be one contained within Williamsport. In the first case the state is attached to the words MSA, in the second case the state is a means of identifying Williamsport from all of the other Williamsport's. Does anyone really think that no one in the U.S. federal government knows how to use commas properly, and that we need to "correct" their grammar? How many other things is the whole world wrong about that we need to "correct"? We report, we do not make things up. Changes come not from our pages, but are reported in our articles after they have changed. Apteva (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I must say I still have no idea where you’re getting this. If you consider “Metropolitan Statistical Area” to be synonymous with “PA Metropolitan Statistical Area” in this context, then a preceding comma indicates membership within that area: “Williamsport, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area” refers to a Williamsport that is located within the PA MSA (which is not a thing that exists), just as “Williamsport, Pennsylvania” refers to the Williamsport that is located within Pennsylvania. As I’ve asked before, please show another case where commas are used as you imagine they are here (“[descriptor], [noun]”), because I’m pretty sure this does not happen in English (see jelly doughnut, Obama administration, Roman Empire, etc.—“[descriptor] [noun]”). —Frungi (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not an OR issue. This is a grammar issue, and it’s entirely within the jurisdiction of our MOS (which I should hope is based on authoritative guides). These aren’t names. “Portland” is a name; “Oregon” is a name; “Portland, Oregon” is a name. These areas don’t have names, but descriptive titles, and we have every reason to follow basic rules of English with them. —Frungi (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * MSA's have names that are assigned by the census bureau, or actually, the Office of Management and Budget, and they regularly change those names. Most people use those names and do not make up new ones to suit their own fancy. I found one example where someone was not aware that there is no comma after the state, but everyone else uses the name and formatting of that name that the census bureau uses, with the exception that some spell out the state and some abbreviate the state or leave it out. The name of an MSA is just as specific as the name of a city or a state, although they are simpler, because they do not include any flowery words that no one uses, like for Rhode Island, which is actually "The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations". FYI, MSA's are proper nouns and are capitalized, but we ignore that trivia, as do many RS's. Apteva (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Apteva, your Reliable Source argument, which you supported above by many citations, is powerful evidence that the name is usually given as "Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area". And I would have supported that formulation - DID support that formulation - until you started insisting that this format referred to something called an "Ohio metropolitan area." This error is so egregious - yet so logical if the lack of a second comma is taken literally - that I realized the second comma is necessary to avoid misunderstanding. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Curious. And calling it a metropolitan statistical area in Ohio makes it in another state other than in Ohio? What I said was that what it says is that it is in Ohio, and not contained within the city which is used to name it, such as Dayton, which would be implied if the second comma was included, nothing else. I did not say that the name of the statistical area is "Ohio metropolitan area", which would really be a big metropolitan area. Apteva (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My recommendation to everyone reading this thread is ignore everything I have said if it confuses or even annoys them, go to this website, and use whatever names are there. Apteva (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The second comma implies that the name of the state is parenthetical. This is called apposition, and it’s a very common use of commas. And as has been explained before, the “San Diego metropolitan area” is not a metropolitan area inside of San Diego, just as the “Roman Empire” was not inside Rome, or a “jelly doughnut” is not a doughnut inside jelly. The city is used to identify the area because it’s the most important or prominent part of the area. That is, the “Dayton, Ohio, metropolitan area” is the metropolitan area of which Dayton, Ohio, is the most prominent part.
 * I hope this clears things up for you. If not, I’ll be blunt: If you cannot prove that this belief of yours is true, whether by showing an explicit rule of grammar or by showing other examples of this use, then stop giving it more weight than you would something that you simply made up. It just confuses the whole matter, and if there are valid reasons to avoid the second comma, they’re obscured by your misinformation. —Frungi (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion of commas indicates that when the state is used in a parenthetical or possessive form the second comma is omitted. I can only guess that is what the census bureau is doing. The bottom line, is that none of us are going to change the census bureau or the rest of the world no matter how many commas we use, and per WP:OR, our job is to look for reliable sources and find out what they use. Why they use them is not particularly important. English has a lot of idiosyncrasies that just do not make any sense. Since all the MSA's are created by the OMB, we really have no choice other than to use whatever they give us. Apteva (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We do have choices about how WP:MOS is applied to styling titles. But your topic ban (see ) seems to say that your opinions on the application of the MOS to titling decisions is out of bounds for you.  So why not just back off and stop hammering us with your lame theories about what the punctuation means here?  Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. That page indicates that when the possessive form of a city’s name is used (“Hartford’s investment”), or the city name is part of a compound phrase (“a Hartford-based company”), and the state’s name is included immediately after the city’s, the second comma is omitted. An alternate interpretation is that the second comma is overridden or superseded by another punctuation mark (an apostrophe or a hyphen). There is nothing on that page that implies that the comma may be omitted when there is no other punctuation following the state.
 * You would have a point about OR if we were talking about areas with proper names rather than descriptive titles, but, again, that’s debatable at best (I’m still leaning toward the latter, especially since “metropolitan area” usually isn’t capitalized). And what of “metropolitan areas” that are distinct from MSAs? And what of areas where the terms are used interchangeably? —Frungi (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To be correct, it is capitalized, as we do for Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area. When we say Dayton metropolitan area, it is not capitalized, because we are not referring to a specific MSA, but are referring to both the MSA and the CSA, and are just generally referring to the metropolitan area which includes Dayton. Dayton metropolitan area is not a proper noun because it is missing a word, "statistical". To be correct it would also need the state, but no one is going to say that Dayton Metropolitan Statistical Area is not a proper noun just because the state is missing from the name, just as no one would say that William Clinton was not a proper noun because it was missing the word "Jefferson". There are many reliable sources that do not capitalize metropolitan statistical area, so I would not quibble over whether we do or do not capitalize each, or care if we standardized them or not. Apteva (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * “There are many reliable sources that do not capitalize metropolitan statistical area”—then wouldn’t that mean that there are many reliable sources that don’t consider it a proper name? Because otherwise they’d capitalize it. Anyway, I strongly oppose breaking basic rules of grammar for descriptive names like these (in no small part due to the confusion that you yourself have demonstrated it can cause), and I think formatting them as “Akron Metropolitan Statistical Area (Ohio)” should be acceptable to both sides. —Frungi (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not breaking any rules of grammar, nor is the census bureau breaking any rules of grammar. I do not see any reason for not using the same names that everyone else uses. Apteva (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The rules of grammar pertaining to apposition, which require a comma on either side of the appositional phrase (in this case, the state’s name). This has been explained multiple times. —Frungi (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Per this link, provided by the above editor, it is non-controversial for the OMB or anyone else to omit the second comma when the state is abbreviated. What I am finding though, is it is more common to not put it in when the state is not abbreviated (see above examples). Apteva (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I got it from User:Dicklyon over at the related WT:AT discussion. To your latter point, I think it’s been said both here and there that while it may be increasingly accepted (or less unaccepted) o omit the comma after an appositional phrase, it’s best to limit the potential for confusion, especially in article titles—and with respect, you’ve demonstrated that danger very convincingly. —Frungi (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I got it from User:Dicklyon over at the related WT:AT discussion. To your latter point, I think it’s been said both here and there that while it may be increasingly accepted (or less unaccepted) o omit the comma after an appositional phrase, it’s best to limit the potential for confusion, especially in article titles—and with respect, you’ve demonstrated that danger very convincingly. —Frungi (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: this discussion has been continued below, where BDD has weighed in with a "do not move" opinion and I have changed my own opinion back to "do not move". --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: A formal survey on the "one comma" vs. "two commas" question has now been added below. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"America"
I could have sworn there was guidance on usage of this term somewhere, but have not had much luck turning it up. While the average citizen of the U.S. will treat it as the common name for that country, others will use it collectively for the North and South American continents. No doubt there is an impact from wp:ENGVAR, but it seems an obvious thing to spell out. Am I looking in the wrong place? LeadSongDog come howl!  19:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I once looked for guidance, and could not find anything other than the DAB page at America. There should be something here.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I’ve always understood “America” to mean the United States thereof, and “the Americas” to mean the two continents. Does anyone refer to the continents in English as simply “America”? —Frungi (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a major discussion currently going on at Talk:America on this very subject, where some are saying "America" should redirect to "United States" as primary meaning, and others are claiming that they do in fact say "America" when they mean the North and South American continents. Go figure. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, then I guess I take it back. Learn something new every day. Of course, my experience is biased by living in the US.—Frungi (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting move discussion. There is a difference, however, between where America should redirect and guidance as to its appropriate usage here on Wikipedia.  The move discussion seems to me to show that given how much confusion and disagreement there is over the use of the term, the meaning of the term America is not necessarily obvious to most readers.  Thoughts? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Las Vegas (Amtrak station)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)

Name changes and the Mumbai example
Currently the page says this:
 * "Another example is Mumbai, which officially changed its name from Bombay in 1995. Our choice of name does not automatically follow the official one, however, but depends on two claims: that usage in English by locals (and now wider English usage as well) has changed to commonly use Mumbai, although many local institutions do not, and that Indian English, as an official language, should be followed, in accordance with our guidelines on National varieties of English."

I haven't dug up the history of this section but the two cited criteria here seem to strike against both general WP practice elsewhere and real-world actuality. First, why prioritise "usage by locals"? Surely what matters, per WP:COMMONNAME is the latter point, ie "wider English usage"? Secondly, I would dispute that this is a national variety issue. It's not as if we are talking about situations where, say, "Indian English" uses name X universally and "American English" and all other varieties uses name Y universally. The switches in these cases tend to happen publication by publication and usage remains mixed within each variety. Not only is it not a national variety issue but precisely because of that you're never going to find evidence to support any claim as to what "Indian English" calls for; but we're offering people the opportunity to misread that as favouring "what the official name is in India", which of course is not the same thing.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

My view on this and all other related topics is that we are wasting our time attempting to use this page as a way of enforcing guidelines on those who use them and that ideally it would be where we inform one another of changes proposed by editors working on those topics so that, where possible, the guidelines can achieve consistency. If you can return with a statement that begins something like "Having discussed this topic at WikiProject India our proposal is that this guideline be amended to...." in my view that would be preferable. I know little about the usage of Indian place names and would be happy to support such a proposal unless it blatantly contradicted other policy or over-arching guidelines. Given that this talk page has long since turned into a forum for those fascinated by the use of commas in US place names it seems to me unlikely that many Indian experts are bothering to watch it. Ben  Mac  Dui  08:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My point was really that we are already in breach of broader principles and, indeed, are muddying the waters here by talking about "local usage" or "Indian English". The basic principle is pretty clear: WP uses the common name as most usually found across all serious English-language sources referring to the modern place; not the "local" name or the "official" name or anything else. I'm not a member of any Wikiproject and in fact think it would be a very bad idea to let individual Wikiprojects establish a local consensus about such general principles which is then simply posted here, if that's what you mean.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:BURO. To a large extent, anyone may propose anything (or fix anything, or point out problems with anything) at any time, without a Wikiproject discussion forming a group proposal. That freedom can be a source of headaches, but it's also part of the beauty of the project. —Frungi (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes of course anyone can do anything - but why would anyone wish to make a significant change to something important without even taking the trouble to inform those it affects? This isn't beauty, its anarchy. Besides, what is to prevent Wikiprojects developing their own ideas if "anyone can do anything" - indeed many do. And no, that is not what I mean, and indeed is not what I wrote. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like I must have misinterpreted your original reply. Sorry. But I’m still not sure what you meant, since this isn’t about Mumbai itself or anything specific to India, but general Wikipedia policy and practice. I’m also not sure why you seemed to lump this in with the “change policy so we can move X” debates above. —Frungi (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And also of course, @Ben MacDui, by opening this thread, I am raising the issue before doing anything and, indeed, doing so in the appropriate and broadest forum. As noted, this is not about India specifically – Mumbai is simply being used here as an example in respect of a wider principle. And even if it was, there's no reason we necessarily have to defer to the India Wikiproject or any other interested Wikiproject. As for what you meant in your initial response, it seemed you were suggesting that any changes should first come from individual Wikiprojects and they would in effect have a veto on any change. That's why I asked for clarification – ie "if that's what you mean" – rather than leaping to conclusions about whether that could be more or less as a fait accompli or more by way of an opening proposal; and whether that could come from any individual country project, as well as from the cities Wikiproject or anyone else. Thank you for clarifying. Sort of.  N-HH   talk / edits  21:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In that spirit, I would, like to propose changing the above quoted paragraph to simply say something like:
 * "Another example is Mumbai, which officially changed its name from Bombay in 1995. Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. That can be assessed by reviewing up-to-date references to the place – in a modern context – in reliable, authoritative sources such as news media, other encyclopedias, atlases and academic publications as well as the official publications of major English-speaking countries, for example the CIA World Factbook."
 * That seems to offer detailed advice without including policy-defeating and confusing criteria, as I would argue we have now.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS:COMMONALITY states that "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms", which supports this change. A more widely used name would be more recognisable and therefore accessible to readers. CMD (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS:COMMONALITY refers to types of things not to names the way I read it. We do usually follow local language in local articles. US articles tend to follow US usage, European articles follow British usage and Indian articles follow Indian usagem while Australian articles follow Australien usage. Nevertheless WP:COMMONNAME applies but will take local English usage into consideration when establishing the article title. Personally I think we should try to be as up-to-date as possible Agathoclea (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Commonality clearly refers to the names of objects, if not proper names, but either way I think the spirit, of making it understandable to more people, applies. The common name is one that is going to be understood by more people. If locals of a town start calling it something else this doesn't mean we change the article title to that name. N-HH's idea of following other reliable authoritative sources seems easier to verify and more consistent, and more likely to help a greater number of readers (who presumably read other sources as well). As N-HH said, English isn't a regulated language, so official names shouldn't be automatically equated with national varieties. CMD (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to Agathoclea, I'd also repeat/stress the point that I think it is misleading to talk about Indian English or usage in this context and would argue that saying we "follow local language" is a slight mis-statement of WP:ENGVAR, which is primarily about spelling. The city names issue and the variance in usage that is found, in all countries, as the new term is gradually adapted, is not equivalent to the fixed and acknowledged spelling issues, say, that differentiate US and British English.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ps: I'd add that this is very definitely not a bid to stall or reverse any switches to more modern names in India and elsewhere. In fact global media and other appropriate sources are pretty quick these days at adapting to the new names when the official ones are changed. But the point is surely, under general principles of policy, that WP should not and does not go any quicker than that and simply switch to the "new" name as soon as it is declared officially, if it remains minority use among English-language speakers taken as a whole.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ENGVAR is not "primarily about spelling". The introduction makes it clear that there are differences "in vocabulary, spelling, date formatting and occasionally grammar". Ben   Mac  Dui  19:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, in practical terms, I would argue it is primarily about spelling in the sense that spelling differences are the most common and noted differences that come up – I never said it was only about spelling. Of course there are other differences too, but my point is that placename changes – in respect of Indian cities or anywhere else – do not strictly fall within them, in WP terms or in common-sense real world terms. Unless anyone can show, for example, that "Mumbai/Kolkata" is correct in Indian English and definitively incorrect in British English while "Bombay/Calcutta" is definitively correct in British English and definitively incorrect in Indian English then ENGVAR or wider variation principles are not relevant considerations when it comes to such issues. Instead we should be looking, as I am suggesting we should be clearer about, at overall usage in English-language sources as a whole.  N-HH   talk / edits  21:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support this change, and I would like to see it made as soon as the page is de-protected. It seems to me a vast improvement, and it may even satisfy the concerns behind the subject of the immediately preceding discussion. —Frungi (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the change proposed should be made. COMMONALITY is, as suggested above, an important principle which the current wording fails to account for (BTW there is nothing in COMMONALITY to suggest it is intended only to cover "objects" - I'm not sure where that idea comes from). We should avoid excluding engvar constituencies wherever reasonably possible. Plus, the whole idea of following local usage as a general rule will only make sense once the whole world speaks English. Formerip (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't support this proposed change at present. A question - are you proposing that the article Mumbai be moved to Bombay and/or is that a possible implication? Two comments. Firstly, the problem with COMMONNAME is that the idea emerged long before it became clear that we are now a part of the process. Our choice of article name will influence its common name and we can't realistically pretend to stand apart from this process. Secondly the idea is generally a force for anglocentric conservatism - it takes years, even decades for some sources to catch up with modern common use. I think the existing language is clumsy but the sentiment is one I generally support, per ENGVAR. Ben   Mac  Dui  07:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In answer to your question: If the city is still referred to as “Bombay” over “Mumbai” in “up-to-date references to the place – in a modern context – in reliable, authoritative sources such as news media, other encyclopedias, atlases and academic publications as well as the official publications of major English-speaking countries, for example the CIA World Factbook”—yes. But I doubt this is the case. —Frungi (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No to both parts of Ben MacDui's question. My ps above should have made clear that this was not was this is about (I actually opposed a proposed move back to Calcutta at Kolkata a while back, on the basis of the COMMONNAME evidence). Also, again, this is not an ENGVAR issue and you have failed to explain why it is but instead simply keep asserting it as a given despite all the explanations as to why it is not. The fact that the Guardian, New York Times and AP all use "Kolkata" for example while the, er, Calcutta Telegraph prefers "Calcutta" should be enough to demonstrate that, as it should be enough to demonstrate that this is not a gift to "anglocentric conservatism", intentionally or otherwise. It could also suggest that, if we take using "local" usage as literally as we might – India is a big place after all – we should in fact go back to Calcutta. Finally, if your real beef is with COMMONNAME as a whole then you need to address that issue directly, not attempt to bar clearer application and explanation of it here or anywhere else.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose change - I see no reason why WP:ENGVAR should not apply to article titles as well as spelling and other stylistic issues. It is a testament to the en-Wikipedia community that we manage to combine several quite different varieties of English into one whole wiki without great numbers of disputes. And one of the central planks of that harmony is the fact that the rules allow clear demarcations for national topics to follow their own local dialects. India is part of the English speaking community and this is their Wikipedia just as much as ours. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how ENGVAR applies here? One of the key points running through the discussion above, and one of the fundamental reasons why the current wording needs to be changed, is that this is not about whether to apply or not apply ENGVAR but about whether it makes sense to even cite ENGVAR in the first place when usage varies not between different varieties of English but within them. To repeat a question asked above, for the sake of clarity: are you saying, for example, that "Kolkata" is correct in Indian English but wrong in British English while "Calcutta" is correct on British English but wrong in Indian English?  N-HH   talk / edits  10:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My main issue was with the sentiment implied by the change, that "wider English usage" (whatever that means) trumps the usage in a sizeable majority of reliable sources using the local dialect or usage. Articles on Indian topics should use Indian English naming conventions and Indian English spelling and grammar. On the specific question of Mumbai and Kolkata, I think those are poor examples to illustrate that point. From what I can gather, usage in Indian English sources has only gradually switched over, arguably at an even slower rate than international sources, but I wouldn't want to use that confusion as an excuse to bring in wording that appear to argue against WP:ENGVAR. Rather just remove the reference to Mumbai if that's what's at the heart of this debate. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I agree about using Indian English spelling and grammar, which would indeed be covered by ENGVAR, although I am not clear precisely what that would consist of in practice that would be substantially different, in formal usage at least, from British English – I am genuinely willing to be enlightened on that. As for dialect per se, especially if we mean slang localisms, actually we do not allow local variation of that sort and nor, in my view, should we (which is not an anglocentric/western bias; we wouldn't usually use "Cockney English" or any other regional western dialect either). Localised "naming conventions" I am less clear about, and it seems to be an open door to confusing "Indian English" and "official use by Indian authorities". The latter is a different thing and is something COMMONNAME and WP practice is very explicit against – again, not because they're Indian or anything else, but because they are official names; it applies just as much to official British or American names. We use what English-language sources use, which includes every decent English language source, not just local or official ones (which is what I mean by "wider" use – a more difficult question is what is in fact meant by "local". How local do you go? Does it mean national, regional, municipal?) Invariably, that will end up being the local and/or official name, but we shouldn't go there simply on that basis. And that's what policy currently tells us. All my suggestion does is make this guideline both clearer and less divergent from that established policy. Again, it's not arguing against proper application of ENGVAR or for some kind of exemption in this case, it's saying ENGVAR doesn't even come into it.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My complaint is not with COMMONNAME as a general rule, but there are some circumstances in which I think ENGVAR should trump it. If a country or city (and yes, there are grey areas with the latter) has a formal and official name my preference would be to use that name unless there is a very good reason to do otherwise. The more general point is well made by Amakuru above. Ben   Mac  Dui  17:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes but as explained above "formal and official name" – which WP policy absolutely does not endorse using anyway – is a very different point from ENGVAR (which is only a guideline anyway). I keep pointing this out and keep asking whether anyone can explain why they are not different, and how ENGVAR can possibly be said to apply when usage is mixed not only across but within national sources, and no one has come up with a clear explanation. Not you, and not Amakuru. Indeed, in the post you recommend, Amakuru seems to be pushing the frankly bizarre argument that something might be "Indian English", and hence rate priority under ENGVAR, even if Indian English sources use the term less often than international sources. Repeated assertion does not equal argument, let alone proof. I'm open to being convinced but you need to actually explain and justify the point.  N-HH   talk / edits  18:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ps: and of course your comments about COMMONNAME were in fact quite a bit more fundamental and "general" than you are now suggesting.  N-HH   talk / edits  19:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay replying to this. If Indian English sources use the term less often than international sources, then clearly that isn't a contender for "Indian English" usage. However, if all English sources in India say one thing, and all English sources in the USA and elsewhere say another thing, then for former qualifies for "Indian English". And in that situation, in my opinion, the Indian version should trump the USA version regarding articles on Indian topics, per WP:ENGVAR. As I've already said, this clearly doesn't apply to the Mumbai and Kolkata examples, and I'm not familiar enough with the Indian situation to come up with a version that it does apply to. It just worried me that wording that could apply indiscriminately to other more clear cut situations would be inserted onto this page against the spirit of ENGVAR. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The reality is, surely, that you're never going to get a clear-cut case, equivalent, say, to color in US English and colour in UK English, where every source in one variety of English consistently uses one name and every source in certain other varieties uses a different one. On top of that, arguably you'd also need that situation to exist, fixed and unchanged, for decades and need some evidence that grammar/language authorities made explicit assertions that the difference was one understood as being down to variety of English. You have that with color vs colour but I can't see it ever happening with cities, in India or elsewhere, as we are talking about both proper names and a process of transition where, ultimately, everyone is likely to fall into line anyway relatively quickly.

As an even more general point, and especially when we don't have any such clarity anyway, I'm not sure we should be doing even more to encourage WP topics to be divvied up into nationalist/linguistic ghettoes but should be looking at reflecting overall real-world usage for a world-wide readership here. That's what WP:COMMONALITY is about, separately from WP:COMMONNAME. We're stuck with genuine and fixed differences of spelling and grammar, hence WP:ENGVAR. We shouldn't be inventing even more distinctions and then, in turn, extending special rules to accommodate them.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In the main, I agree with you, but for me there are still exceptions to the general rule, per my above comment. Ben   Mac  Dui  18:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken in your assumption above, Ben, that the proposal will promote "Anglo-centric conservatism". If you take the Bombay/Mumbai example, and assuming you think "Bombay" is the conservative option, it has to be said that the previous wording, with its focus on local usage, would be more likely to yield "Bombay" as a result. Apologies if I'm understanding you wrongly. Formerip (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * FormerIP, you say that as if using "Bombay" would be automatically wrong under any circumstances. But actually that is the nub of the matter. If a large majority of Indian sources continued to use Bombay (which they don't, but hypothetically speaking), while international sources mostly used Mumbai, then we could say that Bombay is now "Indian English" usage and therefore would be the correct form to use. I don't think that is the case, so it's a moot point, but it sounds like you're automatically ruling out Bombay for reasons other than just usage within India. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm making a guess than Ben is worried that the proposal might be part of a stealth attempt to get Mumbai pagemoved to Bombay. I'm pointing out that the proposal could not have this effect. I don't have a strong view of my own on Mumbai/Bombay other than "follow policy". Formerip (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Königsberg to Kaliningrad - should a historic name retain a wikipedia article?
Kaliningrad Proposed merger - Königsberg to Kaliningrad -There seems to be a content fork here created in 2006. Claims that Kaliningrad was built "on the site of" Königsberg were used to deny the simple truth that they are simply two names for the same Russian city, as these two definitions support. Ka·li·nin·grad (k-lnn-grd, -gräd, -ly-nn-grät) A city of extreme western Russia on the Baltic Sea near the Polish border. It was founded in 1255 by the Teutonic Knights and joined the Hanseatic League in 1340. Called Königsberg, it was an important Prussian city and the birthplace of Immanuel Kant (1724). Transferred to the USSR in 1945, it was renamed Kaliningrad in 1946. Population: 426,000. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Kaliningrad (Russian) [kəlininˈgrat] n (Placename) a port in W Russia, on the Pregolya River: severely damaged in World War II as the chief German naval base on the Baltic; ceded to the Soviet Union in 1945 and is now Russia's chief Baltic naval base. Pop.: 427 200 (1999 est.) Former name (until 1946) Königsberg Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged. 5.28.89.25 (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, but this discussion should be kept in one place, such as Talk:Kaliningrad where it currently is ongoing. -- Jayron  32  02:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Soviet Union vs. USSR
In this edit I was informed that "Soviet Union" is preferred to "USSR" in category titles. Could someone please point me to where this convention is documented, and also let me know whether it's applicable to anything other than category titles? —Psychonaut (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Category titles should use the same terms articles use (it's actually one of the criteria for speedily renaming the categories: see C2D here). Since the main article is titled "Soviet Union", that's the term which is preferred in category names as well. Criterion C2C also applies here, since existing categories use "Soviet Union", not "USSR". For general guidelines on category names, see Category names. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 21, 2013; 17:17 (UTC)
 * It does; thank you. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)