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

NYC neighborhoods
Can anyone explain the passage under USPLACE about NYC neighborhoods being named "Neighborhood, Borough"? Is that universal, or only when disambiguation is needed (the text is unclear)? I ask because my move request on Talk:Tribeca is not garnering any support despite the existence of this guidance. Powers T 15:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A look at Category:Neighborhoods in Manhattan suggests that the use of ", Borough" is not mandatory. That surprised me; like you, I thought it was. MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, presumably there was some discussion that led to the inclusion of that clause. I wonder how to find it.  =)  Powers T 14:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I found this section, with this entry at the end: "I added text to the US section to reflect the neighborhood naming standard used for New York City, which has been neighborhood, borough for quite some time, with "borough" being used as a qualifier in almost all cases. Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)" Here's the diff. So no explicit discussion at the time it was added. Later on, Vegaswikian recalled a borough discussion in the 2006-07 timeframe, but couldn't recall where: see this discussion. Haven't been able to find that. Dohn joe (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Chicago, Illinois
This discussion on the name of Chicago categories may be of interest. Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_22. I've proposed that the discussion be moved here as it has impacts far beyond Chicago, but for now please share your thoughts at CFD.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Australia
The section on Australia states:

"Most Australian settlement articles are at Town, State/Territory, irrespective of uniqueness or ambiguity; however, City alone for a large city is acceptable if the context is clear, and Town alone if the name is unique, or if the place-name is the primary topic for that name. In particular, the cities of Perth, Western Australia, and Newcastle, New South Wales, often need to be disambiguated from their namesakes in the UK; editorial judgement is required in international contexts, where Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, may be preferable to Newcastle, New South Wales, and where suburbs of large cities may be rendered in relation to city rather than state (e.g., Dulwich Hill, Sydney, rather than Dulwich Hill, New South Wales). Generally, the larger state capitals, and Canberra, can generally drop their state or territory (Sydney rather than Sydney, New South Wales , and Melbourne rather than Melbourne, Victoria , unless the state/territory is an explicit theme). Where possible, avoid the repetition of Australia in such items as Perth, Western Australia, Australia, by simply omitting the name of the country."

A few issues:


 * Firstly, why might Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, be preferable to Newcastle, New South Wales? There isn't any another New South Wales that we need to disambiguate from.  It's not helpful that this contradicts the example given in the second sentence, either.


 * Secondly, there is an article named Dulwich Hill, New South Wales, not Dulwich Hill, Sydney, directly contradicting the example given. Is it a bad example, a bad rule, or should the article be moved to comply?


 * Thirdly, what does "unless the state/territory is an explicit theme" mean?


 * Fourthly, do we need to explicitly say "avoid the repetition of Australia in such items as Perth, Western Australia, Australia, by simply omitting the name of the country"? Shouldn't the country name be omitted from the title in any case, except to disambiguate (which would almost certainly be unnecessary if the state/territory name is used, and particularly one that includes the word "Australia")?  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 02:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The examples just need to be replaced with ones that do illustrate the principles. The articles are at Newcastle, New South Wales and Dulwich Hill, New South Wales, so those are not good examples, and should be replaced. This is a naming convention, so the words "explicit theme" have little meaning. If we were making a list of towns in Western Australia, when we got to Perth the list is tidier if we keep the Western Australia, but that does not affect the article title. I can see what they were thinking though, here is a list of names, and the theme I am going to use is city, state, or the theme I am going to use is city, country, but we really do not get to name things, we use the names that others use, and document those names. Where we deviate from that is where there would be a conflict. We can not just decide to name the Australian area Newcastle, because of about 30 others of that name around the globe. Apteva (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I felt I was going a bit mad reading it.
 * The only examples using [Place], [City] instead of [Place], [State] I know of are for localities other than suburbs, such as: The Rocks, Sydney (an "urban locality, tourist precinct and historic area"); Bell railway station, Melbourne; St Kilda Road, Melbourne; Royal Park, Melbourne—the entries at List of Sydney suburbs, Category:Suburbs of Sydney (excepting The Rocks) and List of Perth suburbs all use the latter format.
 * How about this:
 * "Most Australian settlement articles are at Town, State/Territory; however, the name of a major city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary topic for that name (e.g., Sydney rather than Sydney, New South Wales ). The cities of Perth, Western Australia, and Newcastle, New South Wales, need to be disambiguated from their namesakes in the UK. Localities other than suburbs and places such as roads, train stations, parks, etc., may be disambiguated, where necessary, by reference to city rather than state (e.g., The Rocks, Sydney, rather than The Rocks, New South Wales ; St Kilda Road, Melbourne, rather than St Kilda Road, Victoria ). State/Territory names should not be abbreviated in article titles."
 * —sroc &#x1F4AC; 10:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC) updated —sroc &#x1F4AC; 11:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Do it. If anyone finds anything else it can be changed then. Our articles dictate our guidelines, not the other way around. As mentioned above, 1000 times as many people read and use our articles than read and use our guidelines (readers outnumber editors by 1000:1). Apteva (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree this is simpler and seems to reflect usage. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should have said 10000, because it is possible that only 10% of our editors read our guidelines. We want people to click edit when they see something to fix, and fix it, we do not want them to have to spend three months learning a set of guidelines before making their first edit. We do not even bother to welcome someone unless they make more than a few edits. But we do hope that long term editors (more than 500 edits) do spend some time reading at least some of our guidelines and policies. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you might consider asking the editors at Australian Wikipedians' notice board for their views? Personally I disagree strongly with the inclusion of the word "major" in the phrase "the name of a major city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary topic for that name" Any town, settlement etc. in Australia should only be disambiguated if it is not unique AND not the primary topic. I would advise looking at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/January/Archives/2011/February and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/March -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Also see Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 36. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Trying to distinguish based on whether a city is "major" or "large" is arbitrary and inherently problematic.  Why unnecessarily disambiguate any city name regardless of size?  --B2C 21:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with leaving out the word major. It was not in there before, and all we said was if it "is unique, or if the place-name is the primary topic for that name." Apteva (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the "if context is clear" phrase refers to with respect to City alone but not Town alone. I've combined the two into one coherent statement.  --B2C 22:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The previous version was vague and inconsistent by saying that the State/Territory is usually included "irrespective of uniqueness or ambiguity" but can be omitted for a "large city" or "Town alone if the name is unique, or if the place-name is the primary topic for that name". Happy to omit the "major" though.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 22:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It has always seemed obvious to me that if a given use of a name is unique then it is the primary topic, but others have disagreed with me, arguing that there has to be a disambiguous situation - two or more uses for a given name - in order for "primary topic" to make sense. So, for clarity, maybe we should leave the "unique or primary topic" language in there? --B2C 23:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Born2cycle: I think "unique" is redundant: if it's unique, it will be the primary topic; if it's a unique place name but some other use is the primary topic, then it can't have that name anyway. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 23:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've pointed here from Australian Wikipedians' notice board to invite further comments, but in the meantime have made the change (without "major") as it's certainly an improvement on the version we had before. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 23:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem including the word unique, even though as pointed out it is awfully hard to have a unique name that is not also the primary topic. The words "primary topic", though, are obscure to Wikipedia, "unique" is easily understood. Apteva (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree it is redundant. But that's per my interpretation.  As I just noted, others have argued that the concept "primary topic" has no meaning in a context where a name has an unambiguous unique use.  For example, they would argue that the city of Whyalla is not the primary topic of "Whyalla" because there are no other uses of that name.  Therefore, to make sure such arguments are not made to defend unnecessarily disambiguating titles like Whyalla, I suggest we include the word unique.  It doesn't hurt, except to propagate the inane notion that a unique use of the name is not the primary topic of that name. Alternately, we could add the clarification to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.    But somebody else needs to do it, because every time I've tried to clarify this at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the past, it has been rejected.    --B2C 23:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried again. If there is no objection/revert, then it's unnecessary to make the redundant clarification here.  --B2C 23:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've come around on this one, I have to say. Last time it was discussed I was on the mandatory disambiguation side, for mostly practical reasons, but I really can't see a reason for it anymore. If it's the only town of that name anywhere, then a mandatory ", state" is pointless. Regarding suburbs, where disambiguation is necessary I would prefer ", state" rather than ", city", since this is how most people would think of it and it's certainly how you would address something to go to that place. Frickeg (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would defer to local usage. Guidelines can be dangerous. Apteva (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My efforts to clarify that the unique use of a term is its primary topic at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC have already been reverted. I started a discussion about it here: --B2C 00:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation

I don't think roads should be included in the scope of this section, nor given as an example, as these are covered by the (relatively new) Naming conventions (Australian roads) – which, by the way, recommends disambiguation by brackets, ie " " rather than ", ". - Evad37 (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, I have reverted (ie, removed) the roads-related aspect of the recent bold edit, pending discussion here (so at least now we don't have two guidelines conflicting with each other) - Evad37 (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good call. This convention does not address roads.  --B2C 01:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed, good pick-up. Wasn't aware of that one.  Shouldn't we link to it from here so people can find it if they come here first (as would seem probable)?  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 03:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea, so I have added a link to it - Evad37 (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably better to put the word "unique" back in. Editors understand unique better than "primary topic". If the name of a city is unique, it does not need to include the state/territory. We certainly did not need to include unique three times ("irrespective of uniqueness or ambiguity; however, City alone for a large city is acceptable if the context is clear, and Town alone if the name is unique"). Apteva (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)