Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)

Archives (Index)

2008/November 2008/December 2009/March 2009/April 2009/May 2009/June 2009/July 2009/August 2009/September 2009/October 2009/November 2009/December 2010/March 2010/April 2010/May 2010/June 2010/July 2010/August 2010/September 2010/October 2010/November 2010/December 2011/January 2011/February 2011/January/Archives/2011/February 2011/March 2011/April 2011/May 2011/June 2011/July 2011/August 2011/September 2011/October 2011/November 2012/January 2012/March 2012/April 2012/May 2012/June 2012/July 2012/August 2012/September 2012/October 2012/November 2012/December 2013/January 2013/February 2013/March 2013/April 2013/May 2013/June 2013/July 2013/August 2013/September 2013/October

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Archive

Archive to 1 Dec 2006 • Archive to Nov 2008 • Naming conventions (settlements) (Decision to use the AP Stylebook for major US cities (October 2008)) • Naming conventions (places)

Bibliography and place-names

Recently some difficulty has come up regarding the use of place-names in bibliographical listings. At Translations of Through the Looking-Glass, some editors, citing the Naming Conventions on geographic names, have changed a bibliographic citation from [[Westport, County Mayo|Cathair na Mart]] to [[Westport, County Mayo]]. Now I agree with the usual MoS naming convention: articles and general citations about Westport should be listed under that name and not under Cathair na Mart. But in a bibliography, the correct thing to do is to give the publication place as it is given in the book itself. Why? Because that is how it will be catalogued by libraries, in particular OCLC, the Library of Congress, and the British Library. In those editions of Looking-Glass the name "Westport" doesn't even occur. The point of a bibliographical entry is to help a person identify and find a book, and to do so, the information as presented in the book should have priority over a secondary translation by a Wikipedia editor. I propose that the MoS adopt a rule that in bibliographies, the place-name be given as it appears in the book (subject to script transliteration) and that it be pipe-linked to the article whose name should be the common name in English. -- Evertype·✆ 11:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I've written the text of this policy in the article. I hope the policy will be accepted, or modified with discussion and consensus. -- Evertype·✆ 12:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Since I was reverted, the phrase Wikipedia editor does not belong in there. It implies that translations by our editors are inferior to other forms of translation. Either we want to use translations in this case or we prefer not too. The source is not the issue and should not be raised. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. My view is that while translation is not really original research, in the context of changing the citation form that appears in a bibliography, it is bad practice to change Cathair na Mart to Westport in particular if the latter term does not appear in the book. Piping here is the appropriate place for the translation activity of an editor; but the editor should not be taking it upon himself or herself to essentially change the bibliographic information itself. -- Evertype·✆ 00:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Evertype has a WP:COI on this subject as his printing company use this style themselves. Oppose making exceptions to conform to outside manual of style. I have removed the BOLD entry, inserted in accordance with WP:BRD, removed inaccordance with this and to allow further discussion here. Murry1975 (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD Discuss when reverted Micheal. To say there is no COI yet your example is conforming this MOS to the MOS used by your publishing company is a COI. Murry1975 (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Accusing me of having a conflict of interest does not mean I have one. This is about bibliographic accuracy, and is not limited to the 150 books I have published: it is relevant to books published by all publishers, worldwide. If a book is published in Denmark, the bibliography should state København as written on the book, and pipe to the article Copenhagen. There is nothing unusual or strange about this: In library bibliographies from the British Library to the Library of Congress, the place of publication is normally given as it is stated on the book. Wikipedia practice should reflect this good and accurate biblographic practice. And I don't know what you mean about "my printing company" (I do not own a printing company) "use this style". My books say Cathair na Mart because my address is in Irish. Books printed in Denmark say København because their addresses are in Danish. In either case, it is inappropriate for editors to alter the bibliographic information as stated on the book, just as it would be imappropriate for them to translate the book titles or other bibliographic information. The proper way to deal with this is to give the information about the publishing city as it is on the book, and if a link to an article about that city is relevant, it should be piped. This is a sensible and serious proposal, and it was made in June. There has been no opposition to it, apart from yours, and in fact your opposition does not address the points raised, about bibliographical accuracy, which is the reason for "making an exception". in this matter. I have restored the paragraph. (You have deleted it again, without warrant.) I welcome further discussion, but having that paragraph and its text available for scrutiny is more appropriate than deleting it. -- Evertype·✆ 13:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"To say there is no COI yet your example is conforming this MOS to the MOS used by your publishing company is a COI." This is nonsense. My company does not use a manual of style. My company has an address, which is in the Irish language, and so that address appears on my books. That is not an MOS. Books published in Denmark do not have a MOS either. They have addresses in the Danish language, and so that address appears on their books. This is not about me, and there is no COI. -- Evertype·✆ 13:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Exceptions in bibliographies While the use of English names should be followed in titles and articles, an exception should be made in bibliographical citations, because bibliographical references are typically given (and catalogued by libraries) using the name of publication as it appears on the book itself. Since the point of a bibliographical entry is to help a person identify and find a book, the information as presented in the book should have priority over what is essentially a secondary translation by an editor. For example, if a book published in Ireland states Cathair na Mart on its title and/or copyright page, this name should be retained, though piped to the article name, which should be in English, thus: [[Westport, County Mayo|Cathair na Mart]]. A bibliographical listing may be given in romanization ([[St. Petersburg|Leningrad]]) or as it appears in the book ([[St. Petersburg|Ленинград]]), depending on the style chosen in the article.

So that the text can be discussed, since Murry1975 has removed it (again, needlessly). -- Evertype·✆ 13:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Needlessly re-added :) by yourself with prior discussion as pper your bold edit. No it shouldnt be in non-English just because outside parties use that form. It should be in English, as this allows the reader, who in all likely hood, would not know the native name of a place. Wikipedia is about communicating to the ability of many levels of understanding and knowledge. It is one of the aims of Wikipedia, allowing all to garner information which they can understand.

It needs to be addressed but conform to the MOS we already have. Baile Áṫa Cliaṫ and Baile Átha Cliath are just Dublin, yet to a person reading the article they could read as two seperate places. As for Westport, not many Irish people know its Irish name, I honestly cant see an average reader gaining any information from reading Cathair na Mairt without having to follow the link, this is in itself unencyclopdic. Murry1975 (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A bibliographical entry is a form of citation, and it is not appropriate to change the relevant data of a citation. I do not care whether Cathair na Mart or København is in the text in the MOS (evidently you are not continuing to accuse me of COI), but your saying "it should be in English" is simply re-stating your view, and is not addressing the issue. The issue is that good bibliographic practice worldwide lists the data of a book as it appears in the book. It is wonderful that Wikipedia can pipe to an article about the place; it is nevertheless inappropriate for the bibliographic data to be changed by an editor. The MOS is a guideline, and in general it is a good one. It should not be applied to bibliographical data. You say "It needs to be addressed". Yes, it does. I have addressed it. If we give the bibliographic data as it appears in the book, and pipe to the English-language name of the article about the place-name, we are "addressing" the issue. If we change the bibliographical data, we are engaging in paraphrasing, not in citation, and a bibliographical entry is a citation and should be treated as such. -- Evertype·✆ 13:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I think that if we refer directly to a place name (or author, or publisher, etc.) that appears in a certain form in the work itself, we should reproduce that form on WP, a la MOS:QUOTE. However, 1) I don't think we need to add to the guidance here for this very specific issue - use MOS:QUOTE if it comes up again; and 2) I question the need for wikilinking to places of publication in the first place. See WP:OVERLINK. What value to the reader is served by linking to Paris in a list of Translations of Through the Looking Glass? I would de-link all of those. Dohn joe (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dohn joe, but MOS:QOUTE says it should be translated into English, which is my original point. Murry1975 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

"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#Requested move 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)

Metropolitan/micropolitan areas and the like

Shouldn’t this guideline address how to title articles about areas named after a central city? For example:

• Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area
• Columbus, OH metropolitan area
• Columbus metropolitan area, Ohio
• Columbus metropolitan area (Ohio)
• Columbus (Ohio) metropolitan area

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)

• 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 💬 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:

1. He lives in the Rochester metropolitan area, which is within New York state.
2. He lives in the Rochester metropolitan area in a small apartment.
3. He lives in the metropolitan area of Rochester, New York, in a small apartment.
4. 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.
5. 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 💬 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",[1] "Mansfield, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area".[2] 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[3], 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,[4] 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 💬 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.[5] 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[6], Forbes[7], a law office[8], 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).[9], payscale[10], places of America[11], hiker central[12], a real estate service[13], Missouri Census Data Center (a sponsored program of the Missouri State Library)[14] 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:

• 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)].

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. WaggersTALK 07:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

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 💬 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,[15] 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.[16] 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 [17]) 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,[18] 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)

• 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)#Survey. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 4 August 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 💬 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 💬 10:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC) updated —sroc 💬 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 MacDui 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 Wikipedia: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#Current discussions? and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/March#Current discussions? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Also see Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 36#RM -- moving forward. -- 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[19]. --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 💬 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?[20] --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 💬 23:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've pointed here from Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Geographic names in article titles 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 💬 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[21], it has been rejected[22]. --B2C 23:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried again[23]. 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[24]. I started a discussion about it here:

• Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#What_is_the_primary_topic_for_.22Oprah_Winfrey.22.3F

--B2C 00:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

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 "<road> (<city>)" rather than "<road>, <city>". - 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 💬 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)

Chicago, Illinois

This discussion on the name of Chicago categories may be of interest. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_22#Category:Chicago.2C_Illinois. 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)

Commas in metro areas

Recently our guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) was edited to state that when the city and state is given followed by something else, such as Dublin, Georgia micropolitan area, a comma is used after the state. Should there be a comma there, yes or no? There are dozens if not hundreds of articles and categories affected by this decision. Apteva (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

...and that revision was reverted since the discussion at the Talk Page had not reached any conclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

On just the question of whether one comma or two commas are preferred when a state name is used parenthetically as in "Rochester, New York metropolitan area" versus "Rochester, New York, metropolitan area", in a title or in a sentence, please make a brief numbered signed entry, with optionally up to 50 words of explanation, in one of these subsections. Keep responses and discussion in subsequent sections (neither of these choices is to be interpreted as a preference to not change to a construct that avoids the parenthetical state).

(this survey started late; we have notified editors who expressed an opinion before; note that nom has explicitly stated that he takes no position on the question)

One comma

1. Oxford and Chicago find the second comma awkward; I agree. Dohn joe (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
2. It's true that the second comma is required from a strictly grammatical viewpoint. But Reliable Sources often omit it, and titles here are supposed to be based on usage by Reliable Sources (that's per WP:AT which is policy). Since Reliable Sources are split, the argument for adding the second comma is not strong enough to change all those stable titles (that's also per WP:AT). --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Since this isn't a full sentence, it's not clear that the appositive rules should apply here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Titles are not sentences. I don't think any reasonable reader would mistake the meaning of "Rochester, Minnesota metropolitan area", and adding the second comma introduces different problems already noted. Omnedon (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Per the rationales advanced by Dohn joe, MelanieN, BDD, et al. (and the reasons elaborated in the discussions below), a single comma in the title is preferable. Adding a second seems necessary only to satisfy what I consider questionable grammatical pedantry – an insufficient basis for changing a large number of stable article titles, particularly given the reasonable counter considerations voiced by various other editors. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Omnedon has summed it up best here. It's disheartening to see how absurd some editors' priorities are around here. --BDD (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
7. "Cleveland, Utah" does not contain an appositive. It's the name of a town. That's the standard way we write the names of populated places in the United States. There is rarely any use for a second comma after the state. The metropolitan area centered on a particular city shouldn't be any exception to this. Ntsimp (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Two commas

1. per overwhelming consensus of guides to grammar, including our MOS, if we're going to have the state in the middle it should be set off by matching punctuation of some sort, whether parens, brackets, dashes, or commas. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Per style guides on proper construction of parenthetical clauses; better yet, avoid the construction altogether (e.g., "Rochester metropolitan area, New York"—which would also need to been followed by a comma if used in continuing text—or "Rochester metropolitan area (New York)" or "Rochester (New York) metropolitan area"). —sroc 💬 05:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

   Moving my !vote to the newer proposal for "[City] metropolitan area, [State]" below as my preferred choice to avoid the awkward construction as suggested in my original comment. Leaving my original comment here (struck out) since others have referred to it subsequently. —sroc 💬 23:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

   Unstruck my !vote since it was pointed out that favouring "[City] metropolitan area, [State]" need not rule out counting for "One comma" or "Two comma" (for some reason). Thanks, Dicklyon! —sroc 💬 23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

3. Per obvious grammatical resons. WP:Copyedit has a few examples, which, in my opinion, needs to be expanded further. I'll use a similar example: He was born in Vilnius, Lithuania, in 1955. The appositive Lithuania calls for a closing comma. With less geographical precision, that sentence could read: He was born in Lithuania in 1955. No appositive, no comma. Thus, the only reason for the comma was the appositive. But there can be more than one reason for a comma. If there are, it doesn't mean that you put two commas there. Example: He was born in Vilnius, Lithuania, but moved to Poland with his family in his teen years (lots of creative writing here). With less precision: He was born in Lithuania, but moved to Poland with his family in his teen years. The phraseology calls for a comma between the two parts of the sentence. Thus, there were two reasons for the comma here. I think Dohn joe didn't realize this when he said "That comma serves a completely different function than the proposed one. It serves to set off two clauses, as opposed to setting off an appositive" on Talk:Rochester, New York metropolitan area. My response is that a single comma can serve both purposes. Regarding the "Awkward?" section below, it's the same thing with dates: The minister of finance said in a June 10, 2011, interview .... It's an awkward construct, but it doesn't get any better by adding a grammatical error to it. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Good grammar requires two commas. If this construction is awkward, then find a way to re-word to avoid the need to use this form. older ≠ wiser 12:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Definitely two commas. Even if there were no confusion, the state name is parenthetical, which requires that it be set off by two punctuation marks, whether they are commas or parentheses. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
6. This is longstanding grammatical practice and improves clarity for everyone. Powers ^T 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
7. Per standard English grammar and MOS:COMMA which advocates the same. On top of the precision concerns voiced by others, as an encyclopedia, we should adhere to the rules of the language and strive for professionalism, rather than preferring what several guides call an “informal” practice. Preferably, though, these titles should be written to require no commas whatsoever, which would avoid many of the problems pointed out by both sides. —Frungi (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
8. Yeah, per Arthur Rubin and Bkonrad. Avoiding potential ambiguities is best done by an unerring application of the second comma, even though I sometimes find it a bit bumpy. Tony (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
9. It's both wrong and confusing to omit the second comma. Is the "Rochester, New York metropolitan area" article referring to the part of the "New York metropolitan area" called Rochester? Clearly not, but I only know that because I'm familiar with New York geography; ordinarily, on Wikipedia an article titled "A, B" is talking about location A within area B. This is the most egregiously confusing example, but it illustrates what's wrong with this misbegotten proposal. AgnosticAphid talk 17:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
10. In an encyclopedia, clarity should always take precedence over avoiding simple awkwardness. However, it is even better to reword and preserve clarity while avoiding awkward constructions, as suggested above. Reify-tech (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
11. Two commas means that Rochester isgives its name to the metropolitan area; one comma would mean that New York is the metropolitan area. Therefore two commas are needed if commas are to be used at all. Those of us not in the US can't be expected to know which it is, so the one-comma fudge increases systemic bias. (I prefer the clearer phrasing of the option below, though.) (I overlooked that supporting the rephrase option doesn't preclude supporting here, too. Thanks to sroc and Dicklyon.) --Stfg (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
12. Two commas are necessary to change the title from "Rochester, in the New York metropolitan area" to "Rochester (New York) metropolitan area". This is especially significant since there is also a New York metropolitan area, and we're not writing an article about some Rochester in that metro area. Dworjan (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
13. My absolute disgust of this rule being broken aside, there should be two commas plainly because it is proper grammar in the English language, and it allows for more clarity. TCN7JM 02:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
14. Two commas looks odd in this context, but it's the grammatically correct form. Furthermore, the need for the second comma is supported by evidence in these discussions that a few users have misconstrued the meaning of the single-comma form. --Orlady (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Rename "[City] metropolitan area, [State]"

Feel free to also support this option, whether or not you have registered one way or the other on the main question.

1. I absolutely detest the comma overload, just like with US style (mdy) dates, but I can see the necessity to separate with that construction. so I would prefer to avoid this. We should rename it, per sroc. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 22:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
2. This, or a variant using parentheses, is by far the best option, in my opinion. In many cases, the state isn't included when such an area is referenced (the Detroit metropolitan area), so it makes sense to separate the state from it. —Frungi (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
3. My opinion is exactly as expressed by User:Agnosticaphid, but the 2-comma form is clunky and hard to parse, while the 1-comma form is misleading. Better this of or one of the other forms suggested by User:sroc above. --Stfg (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Moving my vote here, now that this is being considered as a separate option, since this would be my preference to avoid the awkward construction. —sroc 💬 23:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Per my earlier comments - this makes much more sense, especially to English speakers outside of the USA. WaggersTALK 08:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
6. I wanted to offer a comment of my own, but gave up after I read this one by Waggers, because I can sign every word of it. Both of the alternatives above stretch the grammar rules (and plain English) to an extreme (phrases containing appositions should not be used attributively), and are quite confusing, especially for readers less familiar with U.S. practices. No such user (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
7. I'm going to go ahead and support this, too. It is less awkward than sticking the state in the middle. And recasting an awkward title in a grammatically correct way is much better than leaving the articles at the current title, which are wrong and make wikipedia look bad. I kind of feel like this is a slippery slope to get rid of the "comma convention" in WP:USPLACE, which I am not really completely on board with, but that being said the recast title is a stylistic improvement. AgnosticAphid talk 15:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
8. This is unequivocally the most congenial conclusion in my mind. It is a much more unambiguous and clear cut option than slapping on more commas. Ronan McGurrin (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
9. Best option. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
10. Of course. It's the city that names the metro area, not the state, so why separate the two parts of the metro area's name? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
11. This form seems preferable, it gets rid of arguments over one or two commas by displacing the whole state. Alternately, "City (State) metropolitan area" also works form me; Or Metropolitan area of City, State -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
12. Definitely not; this completely fails the WP:COMMONNAME test. Everyone speaks of metro areas in one of three ways: "Metropolitan area nickname" (e.g. Chicagoland), "City metropolitan area", "City, State metropolitan area". Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC) (Comment: Note that this is an "oppose" comment although it is listed and tallied here as if it was support. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC))
13. This is the most logical option as the state name is a disambiguator, i.e. it is used to distinguish between other metropolitan areas of the same name but in different states. 71.21.81.61 (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Off-topic discussion of Apteva's bizarre theory
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Arguments in favor of a comma. Rules of grammar require a comma there. Arguments in favor of not having a comma there. These are statistical areas, and the census department abbreviates the state name. Rules of grammar dictate that when the state is abbreviated, it is not followed by a second comma, for example in Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area. It is argued that "OH MSA" abbreviated or not forms a token that is not to be broken up with a comma. Reliable sources are divided on the issue. --Apteva (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC) “OH MSA” is not a “token”. “Akron, OH” is the token, an attributive noun that modifies “MSA”. —Frungi (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I was going to ask "who changed that convention, inserting the "use a comma" rule, when the issue was still being debated at the talk page?" But I see that it was YOU who changed it, without any consensus or closure of the debate - until somebody quite properly reverted your change a few hours later. Apteva, this was out of line. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Apologies, I misread the history. It was Frungi who made the change, you merely modified it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC) It took me by surprise, but I follow all guidelines, so we either need to change almost all of our articles or remove it. I did not even know it had been changed. I just added what to do if the state is abbreviated. A formal RfC is needed because we have editors who disagree with the change. Apteva (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I am going to remove it from the guidelines until the discussion is formally closed. IMO it is by no means clear what the consensus was. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I’m sorry, I thought we had reached consensus (the last comment was made a week ago). Apteva had seemed to be the only one opposing, and that under a misunderstanding of the grammar involved. —Frungi (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I agree with Frungi; I thought we were pretty much all in agreement, except for Apteva, who didn't understand the intended parse. MelanieM, what is your concern? Furthermore, Apteva's special case for titles with postal codes in them is pretty irrelevant, since our guidelines say not to abbreviate states that way. Yes, there are still some things to fix about that. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I didn't and don't find it clearcut; the discussion ranged all over the map, with no bolded !votes and some people taking more than one position. But going through it carefully right now I think this is the tally: In favor of the second comma are Frungi (who also supported "Cityname metropolitan area, state"), MelanieN (who initially wanted to leave out the second comma per Reliable Source usage, and still would except that Apteva convinced me it could be confusing without the second comma), sroc, Agnostic Aphic, and Dicklyon. Against the second comma: Apteva, offering several different arguments, including the "state metropolitan area" interpretation which no one else accepted. Favoring a third option "Cityname metropolitan area, State": Waggers, Doctor Kubla and Frungi. Am I summarizing it correctly? Maybe we can figure out the result even without a formal close. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC) We will also need to contact the editors who created these articles, instead of just telling them that all of them are wrong (so far 80/82 use one comma). Apteva (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC) MelanieN: I believe so, yes. The alternatives I proposed were in case “City, State, area” was deemed completely unacceptable, but this seems to be unnecessary. Apteva: Why can’t we just silently correct them like we often do with other grammatical and typographic errors? —Frungi (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC) There are currently 939 MSA's, most of which we do not have articles on, but we do have a lot. It is not particularly diplomatic to tell someone else what they are doing is wrong without asking their opinion on what the correct title is. I personally do not care, I never do, I just want us to make the right decision, as always. However, I recommend that we specifically state that the categories that were created with one comma do not need to be moved if we decide to add a comma to the articles. Each category has multiple articles, so we are dealing not with hundreds of edits, but thousands. Categories do not get moved, a new one gets created and populated by editing each article in that category. While I have no problem with moving 100 articles, or whatever the count is, I can categorically say that it would be easier for all of us to decide that there actually should be one comma instead of two. Apteva (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I agree about not changing the categories (provided you don't try to claim they actually mean something else); changing categories creates a big mess. OTOH if we do end up adding the comma in the article titles, there is absolutely no need to notify the creators of the articles. We should simply move them, with an edit summary that links to the discussion (once it is closed). --MelanieN (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Notify them of this discussion, not the decision. They might have information that would be useful. People do not look at categories to decide how to title articles, they look at the articles in those categories. Apteva (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC) We can’t just “decide” to change the rules of written English… —Frungi (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC) No argument there, nor do we do any original research. We look to see what others use and report on that. English is both an evolving language and a complex language that even the best experts have disagreements on. All we can do is the best we can. The crux of the interpretation seems to be on the parsing of the state and the description. If we say the state goes with MSA there is no comma, if we say it goes with the city, there is. I am not expressing an opinion on which is correct, I am just summarizing the arguments. The editors who created the articles may have better information that will help us. Apteva (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I’m sorry, but unless I missed something, you are the only one in the discussions here and at WT:AT who has argued that the state name “goes with” the area label, and in fact the only one I’ve ever heard make that claim anywhere. I ask that you stop framing that misinterpretation as a valid argument, but I’d still very much like to know where you got that idea if not from the very lack of that comma. —Frungi (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC) See Talk:Rochester, New York metropolitan area. Apteva (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC) At that page again, you were the one to introduce the misinterpretation as valid (and the correct interpretation as a misinterpretation). There’s no mention on that page of where you originally got it from. Was it your own conclusion from seeing the missing comma? Was it something you read somewhere? What was the source of this misinformation? —Frungi (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I was aware that most of our articles used the one comma format, I was not aware that there were 100 of them but I knew there were a lot of them. I did quite a bit of searching for information about how commas are used and how these titles were presented in reliable sources. In most cases the articles are local and do not include the state at all, but where the state was included, it seemed to use only one comma quite a bit more often than two. That was the source of my recommendation – do whatever everyone else does. Apteva (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I’m sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear… I was asking you where the idea came from that a second comma means that the area is inside the city, or that “[City] area” means an area inside the city. If it was something you read on Wikipedia, whether in an article or in guidance, that desperately needs to be corrected. This is why I’m asking. —Frungi (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Oh that. Well if it was inside the city, there would obviously be no issue, the second comma would be required to indicate that the city, state were to be paired. When the region involved is not within the city is where it gets muddy, as the region involved is within the state, but not within the city. Some of the MSA's also cross state lines. Apteva (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Then allow me to clarify: The name of the city is an attributive noun that modifies “metropolitan/micropolitan area”, because the city is the identifying characteristic of the area. I’ve drawn this comparison before, but this is the same construction as “jelly doughnut”, where “jelly” is an attributive noun that modifies “doughnut”—it is a doughnut whose identifying characteristic is that contains jelly, not a jelly that contains doughnuts. There is never a comma between an attributive noun (the city) and the noun that it modifies (“… area”)—even if you’re under the impression that the “area” phrase has a state name in it (which is why the insistence that a single comma is grammatically correct is so baffling). As I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this page, when a city is clarified with its state, that’s called apposition, and it’s set off with a comma on both sides. To omit the second comma is to include “… area” as part of the appositional phrase, which it most certainly is not. —Frungi (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Or to put it even more clearly: commas used in apposition serve exactly the same purpose grammatically as a pair of parentheses. "Rochester, Minnesota, metropolitan area" has exactly the same meaning as "Rochester (Minnesota) metropolitan area." Omitting the second comma is as wrong grammatically as "Rochester (Minnesota metropolitan area" (without a second parenthesis) would be. Without that second comma or second parenthesis, it is apparently possible for literalists like Apteva to think it refers to some nonexistent concept called a "Minnesota metropolitan area" - in other words, that the way to correct "Rochester (Minnesota metropolitan area" is not "Rochester (Minnesota) metropolitan area" but "Rochester (Minnesota metropolitan area)". It is to avoid that misunderstanding that we must include the second comma (or second parenthesis). Most reliable sources omit the second comma, because they think it will be obvious to everybody that the meaning is "Rochester (Minnesota) metropolitan area". But since that is not obvious to Apteva, we must add the second comma to make it clear. The name without the second comma is ambiguous if the punctuation is taken literally. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Commas, of course, are not always paired. Minnesota has two metropolitan areas that are partly in Wisconsin, two that are only in Minnesota, and 17 micropolitan areas. All are Minnesota statistical areas, which is the argument for calling the state attributive. If the statistical area was contained within the city, though, it would be descriptive of the city. In this case the state is descriptive of the statistical area. For the two that are partly in Wisconsin, Wisconsin is not at all a part of the city, Duluth. So the state or states go with the statistical area, the city or cities are the identifier. Apteva (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• No As I said at a recent RM, "I think it's frankly absurd to suggest the presence or absence of that second comma is going to do anything for readers. And the highly pedantic justifications offered in support of the move fall apart upon investigation. The topic is either [for example] the metropolitan area of Rochester, New York, or the New York metropolitan area centered around Rochester. New York has several metropolitan areas, including Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. Let this be. There are probably hundreds of articles which would need to be changed, all for a very unclear benefit." Don't assume our readers are idiots. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, BDD. (See, folks, I TOLD you this wasn't settled!) I used to agree with you. I think it is perfectly obvious that "Rochester, Minnesota metropolitan area" means "Rochester (Minnesota) metropolitan area." I would like to be persuaded that this change isn't necessary, but is Apteva really the only reader who is ever going to make this mistake? --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Which mistake, this one? (Rochester (Minnesota)), (Minnesota metropolitan area)? Minnesota has 17 of these. Rochester has one. With or without a comma does not move the boundaries of the statistical area, as only the OMB can do that. Apteva (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Does Apteva really get confused about these titles based on the presence or absence of that second comma? Apteva, aren't you just trying to settle the inconsistency? --BDD (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, he actually argued strongly - in the discussion above - that the lack of a second comma was correct precisely because the relevant entity was "Minnesota metropolitan area". At least I think he did; he appeared to shift away from it later. I found it so hard to believe he could actually think this, I think I didn't respond until his third repetition of it. His insistence on that is the ONLY reason I shifted my opinion toward requiring the second comma. @Apteva, if you will assure me you do understand that "Rochester, Minnesota metropolitan area" means the metropolitan area centered around "Rochester, Minnesota," I will change my opinion back to "no second comma". --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This has never been in contention. I have always held that it was centered on Rochester, Minnesota. Yes I have been trying to find a logical reason why all of our articles were created using a one comma format. The most telling one that I could see is that the census bureau abbreviates the state, which requires not using a comma, and when people spell out the state they just leave the commas unchanged. Apteva (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, ok. So this is only an issue because someone's making a semantic fuss? Why not just leave it alone? --BDD (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm changing my opinion back to Don't move. Thank you, BDD, for bringing me to my senses. It was crazy[25] for me to change my opinion based on the confused interpretations of one person - and it was crazy for me to suggest that hundreds of titles should be changed to avoid the mere possibility of such interpretations. To those who are arguing grammatical correctness, I apologize; you are correct and I agree with you in principle, but I think grammatical correctness is more than countered here by the policies of Reliable Source usage ("This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources") and Title Stability ("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.") Reliable sources (not counting the US government, which uses state abbreviations) are split: in a search for half a dozen MSAs where disambiguation is needed, I found that the comma is usually added in formal or legal situations ("Portland, Oregon, Metropolitan Statistical Area"), but omitted in newspapers and general usage ("Portland, Oregon Metropolitan Statistical Area"). Title stability is firmly on the side of not changing the titles. Grammatical correctness is not enough of a "good reason," in my revised opinion, to change all these titles - if you ignore (as I should have) the peculiar theories of one person. --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• One comma only. Ultimately, this comes down to a simple rule: more commas = less readability. Commas disrupt the flow of text, and should only be used where necessary. In this case, we have a proper noun, "Rochester, New York", that is functioning as an adjective, modifying "metropolitan area". While an argument can be made that "Rochester" and "New York" are separate nouns, connected appositively, I think that given the universally recognized "city, state" construct, the appositive reading is vestigial at best. The one-comma approach is also supported because there is no such usage as "(City), (State metro area)", and so there is no ambiguity to resolve with a second comma. No one lives in "Rochester, New York metropolitan area"; that's just not usage, anywhere. I'll also repost my contribution to the RM: "Grammatically, the second comma is not necessary, because "Rochester, New York" constitutes a single lexical unit. Just as we wouldn't insert a comma if we were writing about the "Rochester metropolitan area", neither do we need one for the "Rochester, New York metropolitan area". The confusion or misinterpretation of other editors is not pertinent to that. Adding the second comma would cause more confusion that omitting it. The second comma may satisfy some pedants, but it actually conveys the meaning of the phrase less naturally." Dohn joe (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• One comma. In this case, the subject of an article is a metropolitan area. Which metropolitan area? The metropolitan area of Rochester, Minnesota (for example). Given that the city is indeed Rochester, Minnesota (with no trailing comma), I personally see that as being the modifier – rather than seeing Rochester as the modifier, which itself is further modified by the disambiguator of Minnesota. To me, this makes Rochester, Minnesota metropolitan area seem the more natural and less awkward choice – though I do understand the reasons advanced on the other side.

  As for the assertion made above that commas in this case work as parentheses do, I disagree. For instance, one could title the article on the Minnesota city of Rochester as Rochester (Minnesota) (with parentheses surrounding the state), but one would not title it as Rochester, Minnesota, (with commas surrounding the state). To surround the state on both sides with commas is not always necessary when using commas, whereas to surround it on both sides with parentheses is necessary when using parentheses.

  Also, regarding literalists: if I wanted to be obtusely literal, I could misread the two-comma form and interpret it as "Rochester, Minnesota, a metropolitan area" – as if a metropolitan area is all that Rochester is. I don't honestly think readers would make such an error... but nor do I think they'd make the kinds of pedantic errors that others suggest. Satisfying a minority of literalists would seem an inappropriate basis for changing the punctuation, and I don't see benefits emerging from changing the current form that would outweigh the awkwardness of a second comma – one that I don't see as necessary in accurately conveying the subject of the article. Per BDD, I think it's best to leave well enough alone. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@Huwmanbeing: To surround the state on both sides with commas is not always necessary when using commas, whereas to surround it on both sides with parentheses is necessary when using parentheses. Have you read WP:COMMA and WP:COPYEDIT#Parenthetical comma? —sroc 💬 15:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have. The sentence you quote is correct. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The sentence I quoted was you. It is contradicted by:

• 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)."
• WP:COPYEDIT#Parenthetical comma: "Location constructions such as Vilnius, Lithuania require a comma after the second element, e.g., He was born in Vilnius, Lithuania, after the country had gained independence."

How do you reconcile your statement with the above? —sroc 💬 01:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If I might be so bold, I think I get his point well enough to provide that answer: (except at the end of a sentence), among other situational exceptions. Hence, not always. Nitpicky. —Frungi (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My point is that Huwmanbeing is lobbying for one comma despite the fact that this situation would not fall under one of the exceptions in running text (e.g., The statistics were drawn from census data from the Rochester, Minnesota, metropolitan area or The statistics were drawn from census data from the Rochester metropolitan area in Minnesota; not The statistics were drawn from census data from the Rochester, Minnesota metropolitan area). —sroc 💬 02:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sroc: Again yes, the sentence you quoted was from me, and it's correct. It states that the two kinds of enclosing punctuation – commas and parentheses – close according to different rules, and they do. For instance:

• Rochester (Minnesota: no closing parenthesis and invalid.
• Rochester, Minnesota: no closing comma and valid.

That there's a difference seems clear, though I'm still not sure why that concerns you. Do you feel that the two are always treated the same (the example above notwithstanding)? I guess I'm just not sure what point you're trying to make by focusing on that one particular sentence.

As for what I favor, it's an approach to titling that considers more than merely the demands of grammatical pedantry, which as far as I can determine is about the only point in favor of injecting a second comma into the titles – and stands against the varied and legitimate concerns of awkwardness, misapplication of sentence rules to other areas, diminished use in reliable sources, being unnecessary to convey meaning that's already clearly conveyed in the current title, etc., etc. You are correct that the single-comma form does not match the examples sentences you cite... because (again) titles are not sentences. They're titles. ╠╣uw [talk] 23:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what "grammatical pendantry" means. Or why you'd want titles to be different from the same phrase in text. Or how you can say mean is conveyed clearly in the construct missing the comma. That only works for people who already know what it means, and would not work if the city and state were, for example, replaced by unfamiliar place names. Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Pedantry means giving undue attention to rules, details, etc.; grammatical pedantry would be giving undue weight to grammatical rules – in this case the enclosing-comma convention. I say undue because it seems that the intention here is to apply additional commas to titles simply because there's a rule (one that seems very much geared toward prose), and not because there's any other compelling need for it. If there is some further compelling need to now add commas to so many titles that have been stable for so long, it has yet to be demonstrated. (As for titles differing from what appears in the text, that happens frequently – most notably with parenthetical disambiguation – so I don't personally consider that problematic.) ╠╣uw [talk] 10:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Back to basics? It's really sad that this discussion has been driven so far off the point by Apteva's bizarre theories. The result has included about three cycles of flip-flopping by MelanieN, and lots of ink wasted on the distraction of Aptevas confusion. He should never have gotten involved, and should certainly not have started this latest RFC even while being sanctioned for his disruptions. But now at least we have a comment or two from people with an opinion based on readability, which is roughly back where we started. Dohn Joe says "more commas = less readability". I don't agree, but it's something we can discuss. BDD says "I think it's frankly absurd to suggest the presence or absence of that second comma is going to do anything for readers." Again, I don't agree, but at least it's a point we can discuss. As I mentioned in previous related discussions, guides do differ a bit, but they mostly say that, in formal writing (an encyclopedia is kinda formal, no?), the second comma is generally preferred. It seems to me that the second comma clarifies the intended grammatical structure, in a way that will help, more than harm, readability. I hope we can talk about that, and not be further distracted by nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: about three cycles of flip-flopping by MelanieN: Feel free to WP:TROUT me; I deserve it. But at least my new (and original) position of "no second comma" is based on policies, namely Reliable Sources and Title Stability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Consider yourself trouted. I'm not sure where you found policy on title stability, other than B2C's user page; can you link it please? And I'm not sure I see your point on sources; if you search books for "statename metropolitan area", for most states you see mostly comma after the state, it looks like to me. Of course lot of books are wiki mirrors, so you see a lot of missing commas for Georgia, New York, Florida, and some of those others you can find in the list below. Try it. Also, the guides mostly require the second comma (I can post a long list later; does anyone have one that advising against?), and the gov't bureau of labor statistics uses it, even if the census doesn't, so I'd like to see a deeper look at sources. And how do you interpret WP:RS policy as having anything to say about grammar, punctuation, or title styling? Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I, too, wonder what reliable sources we're talking about. It's not the census bureau, because then the articles would be titled like Rochester, NY Metro Area. That's a proper noun that refers to a specific definition that our articles may or may not precisely follow. Our articles are titled (quite properly) as generic nouns -- that is, we don't have articles on all of the proper statistical areas that the census bureau has defined, but rather we have articles on the generic concept of metropolitan areas centered around certain cities. Generic descriptive titles such as these should be formatted using our Manual of Style, with no need to reference any sources. Powers ^T 01:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) @Dicklyon: The Article Stability quote is not from B2C, and in fact I often use it to mean the opposite of whatever he is arguing for. It is from WT:Article titles#Considering title changes, which is a POLICY page. It says "Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. 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." As far as Reliable Sources, I searched for about 20 minutes using half a dozen different city names. What I found was the second comma is commonly used in legal or official use, such as the name of a legislative action or a term in a lawsuit. On the other hand here's the EPA: "Portland, Oregon metropolitan area"[26] But I also found that professional journalists find ways to write around it - not to use the actual phrase "Portland, Oregon statistical area" but rather things like "the statistical area of Portland, Oregon" - but when they do use the phrase "Portland, Oregon statistical area" they generally omit the second comma. Example "Portland–South Portland–Biddeford, Maine Metropolitan Statistical Area"[27]. "greater Portland, Oregon metropolitan area"[28] On the other hand here's CNN: " the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area"[29] Many of my best examples are dead links or behind paywalls. The more I look, the more I find no pattern at all; some Reliable Sources use the second comma, some don't. The search is complicated by the fact that the official name of the MSA often includes multiple cities rather than just the main city, but our Wikipedia article may be named only for the main city. Legal sources and mainstream newspapers are both Reliable Sources, so I considered that a wash on RS. --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that one. I see that it came from this edit way back in 2007, without discussion (followed by this). It's awesome how much damage this guy did before he was banned. Anyway, that's fine, since the current discussion is not about controversial titles, nor about changes for no reason, but simply about trying to make titles more grammatically correct and explicitly parsable. As I mentioned before, we don't usually ape the styling and punctuation of sources; and if we punctuate these right, that doesn't interfere with any efforts to change to alternative less awkward titles wherever there's good reason to do so. One way we do so is by omitting states sometimes, especially where multiple city names makes it very unambiguous. I'm not opposed to such things when they help, but basically have a state set off by commas is so common and formally correct that there's no real reason to be avoiding it except in otherwise too-long titles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@Powers: That's not what it says at WP:Article titles. The nutshell summary says "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." See anything in there about MOS overriding Reliable Sources? I don't. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say the MOS overrode reliable sources, I'm saying that we're not using reliable sources to title these articles. We do that sometimes, such as for the reasons at WP:NDESC. Note there where it says "In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title ... . These are often invented specifically for articles..." While the passage is speaking mainly of cases where sourced terms have POV issues, it's very common for us to invent a descriptive title in cases where no "official" title is available. That's the case here, as our metro-area articles do not always strictly follow the census bureau definitions. We can tell this is true by the fact that our metro-area titles are not the proper nouns that the census bureau uses. Powers ^T 21:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Note that the vast majority of metropolitan areas should not have any state name in their title. State names are needed only for ambiguous metro-area names (like Portland and Rochester, each of which is the name of at least two metro areas) and for metro areas whose principal cities have non-unique names and are smaller than the usual census threshold for a metropolitan principal city (like Morristown, Tennessee, and Brunswick, Georgia). --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Aren't we here due to a discussion about standardizing the naming of metro and micro areas of the US? If that's the case, then the decision to include the state would not have received consensuses if those commenting on on that discussion where aware of the fallout. If I'm right, then the decision to include the state should be reconsidered. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  No, we are not here to standardize the naming of metro and micro areas. It was previously established that we can omit the state when there's no ambiguity. We're here to talk about how to fix the agrammatical constuctions like "Rochester, New York metropolitan area" with the missing comma. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) § Rename "%5BCity%5D metropolitan area, %5BState%5D"

 – Frungi (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• At first glance this seems very nice, but on further thought it has a major limitation - many metropolitan areas straddle two or more states, and as such this form becomes inaccurate. For example "Kansas City metropolitan area, Missouri" is wrong because that metro area is half in Missouri and half in Kansas. "Kansas City, Missouri(,) metropolitan area" is OK though because it then becomes clear that it's the metro area centred on the city of Kansas City, Missouri.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: Easy: "Kansas City metropolitan area, Kansas and Missouri". This is expressly provided for in WP:USPLACE, giving the example of Glenrio, New Mexico and Texas. —sroc 💬 23:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  Even easier: Kansas City metropolitan area. Nothing’s wrong with this current name (unless there are multiple Kansas Citys of which I’m unaware), and it avoids this problem entirely. Do we have any titles that do span multiple states? How are they currently handled? —Frungi (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  Ahem. Glenrio, New Mexico and Texas. —sroc 💬 04:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  That, along with Ray, Freedom, and similar pages, are completely different. These are individual unincorporated communities that span state lines, not metro areas: they need the state names because they're part of the community name, not for disambiguation purposes. See Columbus, Georgia metropolitan area for a better comparison: it's the metro area centered around Columbus, Georgia, but it includes areas in Alabama too. "Columbus metropolitan area" isn't an option because there are several Columbuses with metro areas, "Columbus, Alabama and Georgia [comma or no comma] metropolitan area" and "Columbus metropolitan area, Alabama and Georgia" both obscure the fact that this is centered around Columbus, Georgia, and "Columbus metropolitan area, Georgia" makes it sound as if it's only in Georgia. Nyttend (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

  Frungi has it. Cities which are sizable enough to have a metropolitan area named for them are likely to meet WP:PTOPIC, so disambiguation will seldom be necessary. "Rochester metropolitan area" is adequate. When WP:PTOPIC isn't satisfied, the single comma looks more natural to me. The disambiguation could be enclosed in parentheses as is done for other kinds of Wikipedia articles: "London metropolitan area (Ontario)". —rybec 03:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

  It was previously established that this is one of those disambiguation is needed. See Rochester, Minnesota metropolitan area, which will obviously get whichever fix we come up with for this one. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

What do sources say?

Many good grammar and style guides are not available online, so let us know if you find info in some you have.

Some online guides that recommend or mandate matching commas around states (I think it's fair to read "phrase" where they say "sentence"):

• Place a comma between a city and state and after the state.
• Use a comma to separate the city from the state and after the state in a document.
• If the sentence continues after the state name, place a comma after the state. I lived in Dallas, Texas, but I moved two years ago.
• Always use a comma to separate a city from a state; if the city and state appear in the middle of a sentence, use a comma after the state as well.
• Use a comma to separate a city from the state and after the state.
• Use a comma after the state name in a sentence whether you would normally pause there or not: Near Bel Air, Maryland, we passed a convoy of tanks on the highway.
• Use commas to separate city and state or city and country, items in dates, and every three numerals 1,000 and above: I used to work in Rockford, Illinois, until I was transferred to Paris, France. Note: A comma goes after the state or country if followed by other words.
• Does it surprise you to learn that a comma is required after the state name when a city and state are written together? If so, you are not alone; the following mistake is common: Incorrect: Atlanta, Georgia is a great city to start a new business.
• Also, when you include a city and a state in the middle of a sentence, use commas before and after the state name.
• When an address that includes commas does not fall at the end of a sentence, place a comma after the state or country.
• A comma separates a city and state. lf a sentence continues, also put a comma after the state.
• If the sentence continues after the state name, place acomma after the state. Jellibelle Tumtum lives in Bellyjelly, New York, but she is thinking of ...
• Note: Also use a comma after the state or country in a sentence.
• * after the state within a sentence
• If the two names come in the middle of a sentence, use another comma after the state or country.
• In a sentence, add another comma after the state.

Or generally in pairs around parenthetical items:

• Use commas in pairs to set off parenthetical elements in a sentence.
• Commas in pairs, dashes in pairs, and round hrackets (parentheses) are used to separate words or phrases that, for what they might he worth, are not part of the sentence per se hut rather are in opposition, are explanations, or are comments ...
• To set off parenthetic words, phrases, or clauses (commas in pairs have the force of weak parentheses): There is, my friend, no alternative.
• When the interruption to the sentence comes at the beginning or at the end, the grammatical rule of commas-in-pairs still applies, even if you can only see one of them.
• ... the sentences would be even worse punctuated, for there are many contexts that demand the use of commas in pairs, as a mild form of brackets, ...

And those that don't like commas around states, or allow the second to be omitted:

• Formal usage still dictates that you use a comma to separate the city from the state and use another after the state; however, it's becoming standard practice to eliminate the comma after the state.
• The practice of using as adjectives place names having two or more words is generally to be resisted. But it is becoming increasingly common. Although California home and Austin jury are perfectly acceptable, Sacramento, California home and Austin, Texas jury are not. To make matters worse, some writers place a second comma after the state. Thus, using a city plus the state as an adjective disrupts the flow of the sentence.

Dicklyon - thank you for that thorough search of style guides. I had done a similar search, with a slight variation: looking only for guidance where "City, State" was being used as an adjective, as it is in our metro area articles. As you can see, the only guidance that explicitly addresses that situation (your last excerpt) advises against it generally - but finds the two-comma construction even worse than the one-comma kind. ([30] This excerpt uses the construction, but without addressing it explicitly.) So while it may be more proper (albeit increasingly less common) to include the second comma when "City, State" is used as a noun, I think we're on solid ground if we decline to do so when it's used as an adjective. Dohn joe (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Plus I would hate to move 100 articles, along with all of the many more edits that entails just to decide in a year or two that it was "standard practice to eliminate the comma", and take them all out again. Apteva (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's true that it's hard to find anything that specifically addresses the use as adjective, but the principle would seem to apply equally well to either context (my search was hardly thorough, though). If you have guides that talk about that case, I'd like to see them. In the mean time, look at what people actually do when not copying from wikipedia articles (section below). Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, here's one: 11.7 City and state act as an adjective. When a city and state precede a noun and help to describe it, no hyphens are used. Also, make sure a comma (,) follows the name of the state..

That's a nice find. The Chicago Manual of Style seems to follow Oxford/Garner in recommending avoidance of commaed placename adjectives. I can only see the snippet online, but it says "A place-name containing a comma ... should generally not be used as an adjective because a second comma may be deemed obligatory," and the second comma "is awkward." So I'm not the only one who finds it awkward. But as long as we don't deem it obligatory, we can avoid that awkwardness. Dohn joe (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Though sources do say that a comma should be placed after the state, and give sentence examples like "I arrived in Glens Falls, New York, at three o'clock," that's not always so — for instance, our article on Glens Falls is not titled Glens Falls, New York, (with a second comma). In this way, a comma is different from, say, a set of parentheses, where one would always have to supply a closing parenthesis when using them to note the state. That said, I entirely agree that the convention should be applied in normal writing; I'm just not entirely sure that it is (or should be) applicable in brief article titles. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

But the sources clearly cover that case, saying "when the sentence continues" and such. The "pair" concept is explicitly discussed as having such begin and end cases in this one that I quoted above. The fact that we don't put a spurious comma at the end of title like in Glens Falls, New York, in no way bears on the present discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand; I was just noting that it's not contrary to the broader guideline for there to be exceptions in which the final comma does not appear. Your point that the guideline applies "when the sentence continues" is also reasonable to consider, since titles are not sentences. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be beyond odd to use the comma in the lead sentence, and then omit it in the title just because it's not a sentence. As I noted already, I think it is fair to read "sentence" as "phrase" in all of these. I've seen no suggestion anywhere that those would ever be treated differently. Am I'm not sure what would motivate "exceptions" to the formally correct grammar in our context. Are metropolitan areas special in some way? Dicklyon (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should be consistent between the title and the body of the article. But I don't think that we would be creating an "exception" here. We'd simply be choosing between two perfectly acceptable - and correct - options, both of which are sanctioned by outside guides, and both of which are used in reliable sources. Dohn joe (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Style and usage guides overwhelmingly advocate the second comma. I should hope that an encyclopedia, of all things, would use proper English and strive to be grammatically correct. I would be more than happy to see the state name done away with entirely wherever “City metropolitan area” would be unambiguous, and as I’ve suggested previously, “City metropolitan area (State)” could be done for disambiguation with nary a comma. —Frungi (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur. —sroc 💬 02:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Except that it would be a completely artificial construct, one that is virtually never used by Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

We don’t consult reliable sources for how to title articles for disambiguation. Do correct me if I’m wrong, but no reliable source uses the terms “Jumper (film)”, “Jumper (novel)”, “jumper (dress)”, “jumper (computing)”, etc. We have our own conventions for that, and I see no reason that they shouldn’t apply to ambiguous X-politan area names as well. —Frungi (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Dicklyon: If I understand you correctly, you're saying you see no reason why a phrase or other isolated set of words would "ever be treated differently" from a sentence when it comes to rules of punctuation. This seems odd: we treat the two differently all the time. To take one obvious example, any well-formed sentence should end with a punctuation mark like a period, a question mark, or an exclamation point – that's a clear rule of punctuation, but we would never apply such a rule to titles, because they're titles and not sentences. Should the specific "enclosing comma" punctuation rule under consideration here apply to titles? Perhaps, perhaps not. I can see both sides, and I do appreciate the desire to apply all rules consistently (since it's one I normally share), but in this particular case I'm just not convinced it's necessary or adds any benefit for the reader. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

An article title clearly is not a sentence (they usually lack verbs, for example) and we make exceptions for some rules (style guides generally do not require sentence-terminating punctuation) but we don't just disregard all punctuation rules in the case of headings. No comma should come at the end of a heading that ends in a parenthetical remark, just as it wouldn't in a sentence. —sroc 💬 02:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

H, as you twisted my words "ever be treated differently" into a stupid context, you put stupid words into my mouth. Don't do that. We routinely punctuation sentence endings differently from phrase endings in captions, titles, headings, etc. Nobody would dispute that. So what's your point? Mine was that there's not a different rule for parenthetical state names in phrases from in sentences. If I'm wrong about that, show me something relevant. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you so politely ask what point I'm trying to make with my "stupid words", it's this: not all rules that apply in the context of a sentence should be made to apply in the context of a title, and I feel that the particular rule in question is one, for various reasons already given. That's all. ╠╣uw [talk] 08:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Dohn Joe is laying a lot on two guides that don't quite agree with the rest. Let's look at them.

On the Oxford/Garner/American guide: Garner has a personal take on style that I usually like. I like his suggestion "The practice of using as adjectives place names having two or more words is generally to be resisted." However, I'm not sure why he states that using two commas is "even worse" than one for such things. It's OK that he has that opinion, but no other guides agree. No other Oxford guide, as far as I can tell, has anything but requirements that the commas be used in pairs for setting off a parenthetical state or such. For example, New Hart's Rules says "Ensure that a parenthetical phrase is enclosed in a pair of commas; do not use one unmatched comma: Poppy, the baker's wife, makes wonderful spinach and feta pies". The old Hart's Rules has nothing about parentheticals set off by commas; it has very little on commas.

And Chicago echos the sentiment, as Dohn Joe notes. They recommend avoiding the parenthetical interruption, because when it's used, "a second comma may be deemed obligatory". They seem to be admitting what almost all guides call for, even while admitting that they don't like the awkwardness of too many commas. Like Garner, an OK opinion, but not something that gets one away from the fact that in English grammar, the matching comma is "obligatory" in formal contexts. But I don't have this one handy; my 14th has nothing like that, but calls for commas "to set off the individual elements in addresses", and has examples with tons of commas consistent with the advice of all the other guides. The 14th does introduce a dropping of commas around years, but only when the day number precedes the month: "On 6 October 1924 Long arrived in Bologna." and "On October 6, 1924, Longo arrived in Bologna." Seems OK. But no evidence of any dropping of commas after states, and no opinion that they're awkward or to be avoided.

My impression is that the dropping of commas that we find in some sources is just an informality, not based on any reason to think it's better (as no such reason can be found in guides). It leaves the parse open to misinterpretation, especially by people not from the US that don't know that a metropolitan area is often designated by one city name, or one city name disambiguated with its state, as in "San Jose, California, metropolitan area". Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, please see my discussion with sroc and Powers, below, about English being a dynamic language. (I originally replied to you here, but these are discussions about the same point and should be in one place. --MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand all that, but for the benefit of our diverse readers, we usually strive to use best practices as detailed in guides. When the language changes enough that new ways of writing are being taught, then we should follow. Until then, we should follow what people all over the world are taught, to keep the text as standard, clear, and unambiguous as possible. Dicklyon (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

But it's debatable whether adding further commas to a small set of words like a title actually does make the title clearer to a reader – particularly when no data has been presented that the current and highly stable article titles have been causing any problem for the readership. Further, a number of editors – notably even including several who favor the rule – have voiced their opinion that the two-comma form is "awkward", which I think quite clearly begs the question of whether the change is really in the best interests of the average reader. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

What would California say?

Try more searches like this one on states not over-represented in the list below: [31]. Do you see many that omit the comma after the state? Any? Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Or pick a city not listed below, like Albany, New York. Let us know what you find. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Good illustration of my off-the-cuff opinion that the comma usually IS added in formal or legal situations - which virtually all of these examples are of that type. But try a similar search at Google News instead of Google and you will get quite a different result. [32] [33] --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

In the Rochester RM, I had found several sources that omit the second comma: see [34] [35] as examples. I can look for more, but I think we can all agree that usage is mixed. Dohn joe (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'm not suggesting that it's not done. It's becoming more acceptable to depart from the formal standard as one of the guides points out. But they're not so common as to be compelling, and for some states, for some reason, they're really quite rare. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Awkward?

Chicago is quoted above saying, "A place-name containing a comma ... should generally not be used as an adjective because a second comma may be deemed obligatory," and the second comma "is awkward."

Oxford/Garner say, "The practice of using as adjectives place names having two or more words is generally to be resisted." for similar reasons; the flow of the sentence is interrupted by the comma-separated state, whether with one comma or two.

They don't recommend using one comma; they recommend avoiding the construct altogether. We can do that, too. But when we have the awkward construct with the intervening state, is there any reason to not punctuate it in the way it is punctuated in documents designed to help the unfamiliar reader understand the intended meaning, namely formal and legal and such documents? Are we not an encyclopedia for the masses, trying to help the unfamiliar read things correctly? Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what's awkward about it anyway. It's no worse than "The July 15, 2012, trial ended in a hung jury." Powers ^T 21:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That's an identical construction, and I would be surprised to hear anyone say that one is awkward and the other is not. —Frungi (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that one is awkward too. And a lot of Reliable Sources are leaving it out in that formulation as well. I just did a survey of recent (within the last month) Google News stories using a similar formulation. I found that while some publications (including the New York Times) still do use the second comma...

• "the aftermath of the July 7, 2005, bombings in London" [36]
• "In this Friday, June, 28, 2013, file photo," [37] (interesting, that one includes a punctuation error - the stray comma after June - so not a good source for a punctuation lesson)
• "Smith was on trial for the June 24, 2011, robbery of" [38]

many others do not.

• "free on bond as he awaits trial for the April 21, 2013 murder of his wife" [39]
• "The court’s July 17, 2013 settlement order states " [40]
• "Simpson was booked Wednesday July 24, 2013 for allegedly making threats" [41]
• "ordered up a March 17, 2014 date for a trial " [42]
• "potentially face the death penalty for the June 20, 2008 attack" [43]

In other words, as I keep saying, Reliable Sources are split.--MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

And it always bugs me when they don’t include it, just as it bugs me when they misspell a word or do a comma splice. But anyway, do we have a WP-namespace page that says to consult reliable sources (and not major style guides) for questions of grammar? —Frungi (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Me, too. I'm with you on this, Frungi. My reading of WP:AT is that we should consider reliable sources for what a topic is most commonly known as (e.g., Bill Clinton not William Jefferson Clinton or William Jefferson Blythe III) but we adopt our own style for how that title is presented in the article title (e.g., we have our own rules for when to use dashes and hyphens which apply equally in titles regardless of whether reliable sources follow the same style). —sroc 💬 23:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

MelanieN: Thanks for the sources; I spot-checked some as well and found similar inconsistency. Also agree on the awkwardness. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree the construction is awkward because it is an exceptional case where a comma comes between the adjective and the noun it qualifies (the red balloon, not the red, balloon); but it is required because the adjectival phrase itself contains a parenthetical phrase which requires a comma (the September 11, 2001, attacks, not the September 11, 2001 attacks). The elegant solution is to avoid the awkward construction in such cases (the September 11 attacks or the attacks of September 11, 2001, … or the 11 September 2001 attacks or the 9/11 attacks). There are many ways to avoid the awkward construction; contradicting style guides is not a good one. —sroc 💬 23:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sroc: Other considerations go into the formation of the small set of isolated words used to form a title than go into regular body sentences – that in part is why we have separate guidelines for article titles. For instance: we widely use parenthetical disambiguators in titles; however, WP:COMMA seems to favor comma delimiters instead on the grounds that they "interrupt the sentence less". Does that mean it'd be reasonable to deprecate parenthetical disambiguation in titles in order to interrupt the title less? That would seem unlikely. Why? Because it's understood that guidelines for punctuation in sentences aren't always appropriate in titles – and titles are not sentences. Other considerations come into play.

That said, I certainly don't suggest that no rules of punctuation apply in titles – many do and should – but in this case there are good reasons articulated by various editors for why the current, long-standing, and stable titles are preferable and should persist... and seemingly little beyond what I would consider the over-broad application of a single grammatical rule arguing for why they should not. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I must admit that I fail to see the logic in removing the comma just because it's not a full sentence. If you have the sentence NN worked in the World Trade Center, and was one of the victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks, and remove the "NN worked in the World Trade Center, and was one of the victims of" bit, why on earth go on and also remove a single comma a bit further down the string? HandsomeFella (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation is not a good guide: disambiguation does not occur in normal prose, e.g., one would not say ...he played alongside Tom Jones (footballer born 1964) at..., but we have to make a special exception due to technical limitations that require disambiguation between unique articles titles. Titles do not have full stops because they are not sentences per se, and this is generally followed by style guides; that does not make a blanket exclusion to burn the style guide when it comes to titles. There is no particular justification to exclude titles from the application of MOS:COMMA, except you don't like it. —sroc 💬 11:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize my position. I entirely agree we should not "burn the style guide," and have never suggested otherwise. (Perhaps you missed the part above when I said very specifically that I was not asserting that.) I'm simply noting that there are special considerations in article titles that don't necessarily apply in normal prose, and vice versa. It sounds like we both agree that Wikipedia accepts such differences, so the idea that everything in the non-title sections of the MOS must apply equally to titles as well as body sentences can, I think, be safely set aside.

Now, in this particular case the question is whether the enclosing-comma convention is one of those rules that must apply equally to titles as well as sentences. The relevant guidance in the MOS only gives sentences as examples, and provides as justification the notion that commas "interrupt the sentence" less than parentheses, so I think the question is an open one. I understand you favor applying the convention to titles in the interests of absolute grammatical consistency; I don't favor it on various other grounds as elaborated both by myself and others such as MelanieN, Dohn joe, etc., including the fact that insertion of further commas into an already very brief set of words produces what I consider an unnecessarily awkward result that hasn't been shown to serve the readers (and for which the alternative has not been shown to harm them). Put simply, there's a bar of justification that must be reached for us to legitimately change a large number of article titles that have been stable since their inception... and disputed grammatical pedantry by itself is not (in my opinion) sufficient to get us over that bar.

PS: Disambiguation occurs all the time in prose. An English teacher (the one I had in high school) taught me that. :) ╠╣uw [talk] 15:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that you felt I was mischaracterising your position. I didn't mean to suggest that you thought we should "burn the style guide". What I meant was that there may be exceptions but I have not seen a valid justification for this particular exception which seems, to me, to be arbitrary.

I think we understand each other now. Your view is that "the enclosing-comma convention" (as you call it) does not need to be applied to titles and should not be changed in this case. My view is that the convention always applies, should be applied consistently, and the fact that there are many mistakes that do not follow the convention is no reason to continue or endorse the mistakes rather than correct them.

I might add that I find a flaw in your argument: "The relevant guidance in the MOS only gives sentences as examples, and provides as justification the notion that commas 'interrupt the sentence' less than parentheses, so I think the question is an open one." What MOS:COMMA actually says is: "Pairs of commas are often used to delimit parenthetic material, forming a parenthetical remark. This interrupts the sentence less than a parenthetical remark in (round) brackets or dashes." (It is really an explanation of the rule, not a "justification".) This indicates nothing to suggest that commas can be used in this way other than in pairs, but rather that commas can be used for parenthetical remarks in place of matching parentheses, e.g.: Rochester (New York) metropolitan area is equivalent to Rochester, New York, metropolitan area; but it does not support Rochester, New York metropolitan area as the guide explicitly refers to "pairs of commas". —sroc 💬 23:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we're getting quite a ways into the weeds here, but I'll try to stay with you for now:

First: Regarding the MOS's guidance on the parenthetical use of commas, you say there's "nothing to suggest that commas can be used in this way other than in pairs"... but I gave clear examples in the discussion above showing how commas are used in that way without having to be paired. If you're saying that a parenthetical comma must always close with a comma (just like a parenthesis must always close with a parenthesis), then I'm afraid that's simply not so. I learned that from an English teacher, the one I had in high school. (That sentence is an example.)

As for WP:COMMA (which we both quote): again, it repeatedly and explicitly puts its guidance in the context of sentences. Just from its five brief bullet points:

• "This interrupts the sentence less than..."
• "There are usually ways to simplify a sentence..."
• "Before a quotation embedded within a sentence..."

And, as already noted, every example is a sentence. To be clear, I don't mean to nitpick this or to say that we can't apply a rule just because it doesn't say "titles too"; however, I think it's incumbent upon those seeking to change many years' of stable article titles (which quite consistently do not apply this rule) to say why the rule must now apply to titles – despite the fact that titles are not sentences, and that they frequently follow their own conventions that differ from rules of normal sentence prose. As yet, I just don't see sufficient justification for that. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Aside from usually having an initial capital (and occasionally a parenthetical disambiguation that isn't really part of the title), Wikipedia's article titles are always written as they would be in running prose. I'm pretty sure that I'm not wrong here, but I expect counterexamples. —Frungi (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Huw/Huwmanbeing, and your example "'I learned that from an English teacher, the one I had in high school."

You're forgetting the "a comma separates each element and follows the last element (except at the end of a sentence)" in WP:COMMA. You don't need a comma before the end of the sentence (that would look awkward, if anything). Why don't you need it? Because comma as a disambiguator works differently than other disambiguators, such as parentheses. The difference is that comma disambiguations implicitly end at the end of sentences (or when other punctuation appears). This is why the title is "Rochester, New York", not "Rochester, New York,". As soon as it is clear that it is not the end of a sentence or an expression, there should be a comma. That is undeniably what WP:COMMA says. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Titles are not sentences. You've added "or an expression", but the rule refers to sentences. Omnedon (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

What Huw said was a sentence, so he was obviously wrong. It's pretty obvious that the same rule goes for the end of expressions, or else we would have "Rochester, New York,", with the comma at the end of the title, because – as you've said several times over now – it is not a sentence. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here -- he clearly makes the distinction between titles and sentences. You are applying the WP:COMMA rule and quoted a portion of it which specifically addresses itself to sentences. Omnedon (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure he does (as do we all), but when he denied that commas come in pairs, using that sentence, it seems he forgot the exception clearly stated in WP:COMMA.

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

HandsomeFella: When did I ever "deny that commas come in pairs"? Sometimes they do, of course. What I said was that they don't always have to come in pairs, whereas parentheses do. I also didn't forget about sentence endings, so I think you may be misreading parts of this thread. To clarify:

I entirely agree with you that there are cases where you don't need a closing comma (like at the end of a sentence), which is what I said to begin with; however, there is not a corresponding case where you don't need a closing parenthesis. That's all I said in the sentence that Sroc for some reason quoted, and which he seemed (confusingly) to be challenging.

I also agree that WP:COMMA presents that rule; I merely question the appropriateness of using it to change a large number of very stable article titles that have never used nor needed the two-comma construction before – particularly when so many editors (even including a number who otherwise favor the rule) are conceding that the two-comma construction is "awkward". In what way does making a title awkward serve the reader? It may serve to satisfy grammarians, but per WP:TITLE we should not form titles to satisfy specialists – and deliberately introducing an admittedly awkward construction into a large number of titles simply to meet a rule seems like something done more to satisfy specialists than readers. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Huw, we seem to agree on the grammatics issue. I probably misread you somehow. Sloppy reading on my part, and not the first time, I'm afraid (not even on this page). Still, you're asking why we should include the comma in titles, and wonder in what way it serves the reader. I say it should be included because it's correct, and it serves the reader by being correct.

I put it to you that people who are not "interested" (for lack of a better word) in punctuation, or don't care much about it, will not complain on correct punctuation, just like people who are not "interested" in spelling, or care much about it, will not complain on a correctly spelled word. We don't misspell words here just because people commonly misspell it.

I instead ask you: in what way does incorrect punctuation serve the reader?

About the title stability argument: it is far more likely that we will have stable article titles if we spell and punctuate them correctly. Incorrect spelling and punctuation will provoke challenges to titles foever.

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems my point has been conveniently ignored rather than refuted, so I’ll say it again: Wikipedia titles are written as they would be in running text. If I am mistaken, please provide counterexamples; if not, please stop claiming a substantial difference. I don’t recall any policy or guideline that advocates the use of informal language (or grammar); rather, Wikipedia should present itself professionally. —Frungi (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

In case clarification is needed: I totally agree with you. An interesting thing was pointed out in a discussion I started on WT:MOS#Clarification needed in WP:COMMA; a logical error by those who use the "a title is not a (full) sentence" argument, pointed out by User:Trovatore. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

HandsomeFella: Thanks for answering my question about why this is needed; your answer ("because it's correct") affirms what I'd assumed elsewhere in the discussion – that really this is simply about applying a grammatical rule. As for your question to me: I don't say that incorrect punctuation serves the reader. But what constitutes incorrect punctuation in a title? Is a title incorrectly punctuated if it does not follows every rule that a sentence follows? I don't believe that's so. Titles in Wikipedia exist for a different purpose than does the prose in the body of the article; they're of a different form and must satisfy different criteria and considerations. That being the case, I'm afraid I still don't consider (disputed) grammatical correctness a sufficient basis for changing extremely stable article titles to a form both sides concede is awkward.

As for stability, I agree that better titles tend to be more stable titles. In this case, these titles have already been remarkably stable, and applying the additional commas would in the great majority of cases change titles that have never been changed before, so on both counts I'd have to say that stability favors the status quo.

At this point I think we seem to understand each other (even if we don't agree with each other) and should probably just agree to disagree. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@Huwmanbeing: To be clear:

• We agree that commas are not always paired. In particular, a final comma is not required at the end of a sentence, as specified at MOS:COMMA. A comma is also not required when followed by other punctuation such as a dash or closing parenthesis; and when followed by a remark in parenthesis, the comma is moved to after the parenthesis—these exceptions are not specified at MOS:COMMA, but they could be added if necessary. None of these exceptions apply to the case in point, however. In this case, the comma would be paired in a running sentence.
• We agree that some rules of grammar/style that apply to sentences do not apply to titles. In particular, titles do not end in full stops and do not require verbs as sentences do. The fact that there are these exceptions does not justify making exceptions to other rules of grammar/style at will. In my view, there is no justification to except matching commas in titles.
• Just because sections of the MOS give examples as sentences does not mean that it they do not apply to titles unless they expressly say so or it is a necessary implication from the context. There is no reason to conclude that here, since the use of commas in titles or sentence fragments is not materially different from use in sentences.
• Your view, as I understand it, is that title stability justifies making the exception for matching commas. I disagree. The justifications for making the change are, in no particular order: (a) to comply with the MOS, which reflects grammar/style set out in the pre-eminent style guides; (b) for consistency with use in prose; (c) for the sake of clarity (even where individual cases may not necessarily cause ambiguity either way, consistent use avoids confusion across the board). I do not see any real justification not to make the change save that it's a nuisance.

—sroc 💬 11:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding exceptions, it's good for titles to be discussed/considered by interested editors (as we're doing here), and to be formed based not just on an automatic application of certain rules but also on what the community determines to be most appropriate for certain classes of articles. This seems more likely to yield titles that better satisfy all the requirements of WP:TITLE, including the requirement that they meet the needs of users ahead of the needs of specialists (like grammarians). A title construction that's agreed to be "awkward" and "clunky", even by those favoring it, to me seems not to meet that requirement.

I also don't say that stability by itself justifies retaining the current titles; I do say it's questionable to argue for changing titles which in almost all cases have been extremely stable for years on the grounds of improved stability. In the case of metro area, most have been perfectly stable and unchanged since their creation, so my point is simply that changing them around now can't really be said to serve the purpose of improving stability. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to suggest that only a group of "specialists (like grammarians)" have an interest in using English correctly; all English speakers have an interest in it, even if it's only a certain breed that will go to the effort of defending it. This encyclopedia is written in English and should use it properly. The use of two commas is correct, even if it is "awkward", but that doesn't justify doing something that's incorrect just to avoid awkwardness; there are ways to be both correct and not awkward simultaneously.

As for stability, if we can reach consensus on an appropriate format that is at once accurate, grammatically/stylistically correct, and not awkward, then that will inherently promote stability—especially once it is established as a precedent (appropriate revisions to MOS guidelines may help, too). Sticking with the current format which is incorrect just because it's the status quo and it's been like that for ages is only likely to engender these wearisome debates. —sroc 💬 13:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sure, "Rochester, New York(,) metropolitan area" is a title and not a sentence. So New York is not at the end of a sentence, therefore it requires the comma. WP:COMMA does not say that the comma rule applies only in sentences; it just says that the comma is omitted at the end of sentences. --Stfg (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles and categories affected

Question: what is the point of this section? --MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it serves multiple purposes: it will be a useful guide to anyone who wants to help update titles after this discussion settles out; and it occupies Apteva's time. I think the intent, however, was to scare people about the scope of the work needed to actually bring titles into uniform alignment with what we agree is normal English punctuation. It will take literally hours to fix. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

My expectation was that all of these were going to be moved, and I was simply making a list for that purpose. Of course, not putting in a second comma means that instead of moving 100 articles (after removing duplicates), only 3 need to be moved. All articles affected were listed, not just ones that were of one or the other format. Apteva (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Other examples of incorrect usage

Place names

• Graniteville, South Carolina train crash
• Meldrim, Georgia trestle disaster
• Newton, Massachusetts train collision
  • Compare with Newton (South Lanarkshire) rail accident
• Waverly, Tennessee tank car explosion
• Weyauwega, Wisconsin derailment
• 1996 Silver Spring, Maryland train collision
• 1999 Bourbonnais, Illinois train accident

Dates

• May 8th 1995 Louisiana flood (N.B.: Does not use this title in the lead)
• April 10–11, 2001 tornado outbreak
• April 6–8, 2006 tornado outbreak
• May 1–2, 2008 tornado outbreak
• April 4–5, 2011 derecho and tornado outbreak
• April 14–16, 2011 tornado outbreak
• April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak
• July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike

Template:Multicol-end In spite of these examples (which set a precedent for others to follow in folly), I maintain that there cases are incorrect and should also be corrected to follow MOS:COMMA. —sroc 💬 11:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

But these seem to be entirely clear. For titling purposes, the second comma wouldn't really serve a purpose. Omnedon (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Except for being grammatically correct, you mean. Powers ^T 13:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that. These are titles, not sentences. See above. Omnedon (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Why shouldn't titles follow rules of grammar and style? We still put adjectives before nouns. We still capitalise proper nouns. We still use en dashes for date ranges (even in the above examples). We still have matching parentheses. Why should the use of commas consistent with our own style guide (MOS:COMMA) be excepted? —sroc 💬 13:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This has all been gone through above. Not all rules of grammar for sentences apply to titles. Parentheses must match for reasons beyond grammar; commas are not the same. Omnedon (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@sroc and @Powers, English is a dynamic language. Grammar rules change over time through usage, and that is what we see happening here. How many people do you know who still say "It is I" or "That was he"? Is it still illegal to split an infinitive, or end a sentence with a preposition? Those were iron-clad rules 100 years ago, but they are rarely observed now except as examples of pedantry. The dual-comma requirement, although it makes sense logically, is clearly destined for the same ash-heap of grammatical history - as demonstrated by many, many Reliable Source examples that have been cited here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Strawman argument ... even if some people incorrectly express themselves that way, that's no reason for Wikipedia to do it (unless in direct citation). If and when English evolves into that, Wikipedia would probably evolve with it, but as it currently isn't viewed as correct English, it will not find its way here. Btw, why do you keep capitalizing "Reliable Sources"? It's not a proper noun. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I found myself having the same discussion above with Dicklyon (where he dismissed Dohn Joe's citations from grammar guides as "just an informality"). I decided to bring my comments here since both discussions are about the same thing, namely "grammatical correctness". What Dicklyon called "just an informality" is actually an English grammar rule in the process of changing. The textbooks are always slow to catch up to usage, and some die-hards will fight kicking and screaming against the changes, but eventually they have to give way to changing usage (and of course I mean usage by educated people, thought leaders, and Reliable Sources). When usage changes, grammar must follow. You say it "currently isn't viewed as correct English," but that is also changing. In Dohn Joe's examples you actually can see the grammarians beginning to acknowledge the change. The reason I capitalize Reliable Sources is that the term has a specific meaning here on Wikipedia, and I wish to indicate that I am referring to that specific meaning. I do the same thing with Notability, Verifiability, etc. Finally, please look up the definition of "straw man", because it does not apply here. I did not accuse them of arguing against split infinitives; I gave it as an example of a grammar rule that has changed.--MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. ...and why do you italicize "incorrectly"? Do you think that makes it truer? --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You are confused. My "just an informality" referred to usage in sources. No guides recommend dropping the second comma; one says they're required in formal writing but are increasingly dropped in other usage, or something to that effect; I am agreeing. Everything I have said about the guides respects the opinions therein. Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Italicization is frequently used to signify emphasis in written text. Powers ^T 14:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Everybody knows that. I just wondered why he felt compelled to emphasize it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I did it for emphasis of course, as it is in fact not correct English, not now, and not in the foreseeable future. I guess it could be common in daily parlance, but that probably depends on the company, and I doubt that it's more common than correct English. Having said that, Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

We are not talking about "common parlance" (which in fact is impossible; "parlance" means spoken language, which does not include commas). We are talking about written usage by educated people, thought leaders, and Reliable Sources. You and other here have made it abundantly clear that you regard this as a matter of "correctness", as if those grammar rules had come down from on high; does emphasizing it like this (aka shouting) make it even more true? --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I was referring to the "It is I" and "That was he"? expressions you put forth as being more and more common (your claim), as support of the argument for removing a grammatically correct comma. I assume you agree that those expressions can be spoken language. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

OMG - you mean you actually meant to defend the old rules about "It is he" and split infinitives and prepositions at the end of sentences? I would not have insulted you by implying such; I assumed you would accept those as examples of "rules" that are no longer rules. If you still believe in those things as well as the commas, we are going to have trouble communicating. As Winston Churchill may or may not have said to a copy editor who altered one of his sentences in a manuscript, "This is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I shall not put." --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My mistake – "it was I" who misunderstood you, not the other way around. I totally misread what you had written. For some reason (a temporary bout of dyslexia?), I thought you had written something like "I is", "you is", expressions I've only heard coloured people utter (often in films or tv series). I'm sure you understand why I doubted that was coming into common use. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, if this discussion is about whether the encyclopedia should get ahead of the curve on this apparently changing rule, then it's WP:COMMA that would need to change. Here, all we should be talking about is whether WP:COMMA applies to article titles. Powers ^T 15:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. Since the discussion at WT:Article titles#Do article titles that include proper names need to follow standard grammatical rules? is currently unresolved, there is NO way we should impose any such change here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That discussion concluded with a consensus to use the second comma in titles. It's unclear why Apteva opened this repeat, but it seems to also be showing that at least a majority respect the idea of using good grammar, in titles as well as in text. Dicklyon (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing the position of those that disagree with you; please don't do that. I am all in favor of using good grammar, and I believe that's true of everyone here. I am not convinced this is a grammar issue. Omnedon (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I admit to thinking of it as a gramma/style issue (that is, WP style is to use "best practices" grammar), and don't really understand what the alternative POV on it is. Perhaps you can explain. Dicklyon (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You say "grammar/style". Which is it? As has been stated several times by several contributors here, titles are not sentences. Not all rules for sentences necessarily apply to non-sentences. Omnedon (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

True, but those rules tend to specifically address the nature and structure of a sentence. The rule in question has nothing to do with sentences specifically, so there's no reason it wouldn't apply. Powers ^T 14:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation

This comment made me think:

Two commas means that Rochester is the metropolitan area; one comma would mean that New York is the metropolitan area.
— User:Stfg 18:47, 8 August 2013

Actually, I think that:

• Rochester, New York, metropolitan area doesn't mean that either Rochester or New York are a metropolitan area, but rather that Rochester, New York, is an adjective describing the metropolitan area—that is, the metropolitan area may be located in or centred around Rochester, which is in New York, but the metropolitan area is not synonymous with Rochester. (In this respect, I disagree with Stfg's comment above.)
• Rochester, New York metropolitan area refers to Rochester, which is in the New York metropolitan area. (In this respect, I agree with Stfg's comment above.)

—sroc 💬 12:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the first bullet, you draw a distinction I had overlooked, and you're right. I should have said that two commas means that the New York Rochester gives its name to the metropolitan area. Quite similar to the fact that the phrase Sydney opera house doesn't mean that Sydney is an opera house :) --Stfg (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I continue to be stymied by the claims of ambiguity caused by using one comma. I just don't see it, in any sort of practical way. Could someone from the two-comma camp please explain to me how the following sentence can have more than one plausible reading: "The Rochester, New York metropolitan area is known for its friendly inhabitants." How does having one versus two commas affect the meaning of that sentence? Dohn joe (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the perfect example of the ambiguity. Because besides there being a Rochester metropolitan area, there is also a New York metropolitan area (for New York City). Without the second comma, we are referring to a Rochester that is within the New York metropolitan area. Not the Rochester metropolitan area that is within the state of New York. Contrast an article title like "Rochester, New York, metropolitan area" with something like "Jamaica Bay, New York metropolitan area". Since the second one refers to the Jamaica Bay neighborhood in Queens, it is within the New York metropolitan area, not its own metropolitan area in New York. If the state is going to be included, it is a parenthetical, and needs to be set off as such with two commas. Dworjan (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

But no - if you read it as "New York metropolitan area", that means you begin the sentence with "The Rochester", which makes no sense. Which means you cannot read it as "New York metropolitan area" if you want the sentence to mean anything. Right? Dohn joe (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, maybe you're right that if you're an astute reader you could figure out that something like, "The Rochester, New York metropolitan area is awesome!" probably doesn't refer to a neighborhood in the NY metro area, based on the presence of the word "the." But really, we're talking about article titles here, not complete sentences. Nobody is proposing to call the article "The Rochester, New York metropolitan area". AgnosticAphid talk 21:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

But if the second comma isn't necessary in a sentence, why would we include it in the title? Dohn joe (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In the context of that sentence, it is obvious what the meaning is, absent the second comma. The thing is though, in the article title, the reader does not have that same context to determine the meaning. That is why we need to be more grammatically strict with the article title than the inline grammar, because those commas are the only way to interpret the meaning. Dworjan (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that that sentence has one obvious meaning with one comma. As for titling, again, while I understand the logical position, I don't see any practical ambiguity - i.e., how an actual reader would be confused. There is a longstanding, ingrained convention to use "Placename, State" with U.S. settlements (see any debate on WP:USPLACE for confirmation). There is essentially zero usage of the type "Placename, State metropolitan area" referring to a place within a metro area. A search for your earlier term, "Jamaica Bay, New York metropolitan area" has no results, for example. So again, there is no practical ambiguity to worry about, even in the title. Anyone reading the title will read it as "(City, State) (metropolitan area)" - and if they are confused, the article itself will soon enough explain the scope of the article. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of the sentence is clear only because of the context of the sentence, not because the second comma is or isn't there. I've already highlighed how a reader could be confused; there is a New York metropolitan area. One which is far more well known than the Rochester metropolitan area. My earlier term wasn't to state that it was also used that way, but to point out that it is a valid way to describe a place, because of the absence of the second comma. And we also have a convention on wikipedia to use "placename, New York city borough". I go back to my earlier point. Regardless of whether the second comma is always necessary, it should be there for clarity. You may be right that most readers won't be confused by the title with one comma, but the fact is that no readers would be confused by the title with two commas. No reader should have to start reading the article to figure out the scope of it, when a simple second comma in the title could solve that problem.

Grammatically, the second comma should be there. So arguments that state it is pretty much just as easy to understand without the second comma don't make sense. If we agree that either way is equally easy to understand (which I don't agree to, but bear with me), then the grammatically correct way should be the way to title the articles. In short, I see no advantage to the titles only having one comma. The only argument I see is that the titles are 'just as good' with one comma. If someone would like to present an opinion that the titles are better without the second comma then they should, because the grammatically correct form should be the default, unless the second comma should be dropped to make it more readable. Dworjan (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Your last sentence is, in fact, the argument of most of the one-comma supporters, if you check out the survey and the discussion just below it. The second comma is awkward and disrupts the flow of the phrase/sentence, and otherwise is "just as good" as two commas for understanding and conveying of meaning. So one comma is more readable. Dohn joe (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The second comma is supposed to 'disrupt the flow'. If we're going to have "CityX metropolitan area" that need to have the state name inserted as parenthetical it needs to be set off with commas (or parenthesis, if we really want to go whole hog) in order to be clear. Proper grammar calls for the second comma; being explicitly clear on meaning calls for the second comma; it's both grammatically and technically correct. That the second comma gives some editors the willies because it is "awkward" is poor reason to abandon the rules of grammar and have improperly written titles that have different meaning than what it should. Dworjan (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

See my response to Stfg below. Dohn joe (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

@Dohn joe, much of the discussion has been about the title "Rochester, New York metropolitan area" rather than about how to refer to it in a sentence of running text. The sentence "The Rochester, New York metropolitan area is known for its friendly inhabitants" isn't so much ambiguous as ungrammatical. In that sentence, because it's referring to the Rochester metropolitan area, correct grammar requires a comma after New York. On the other hand, the sentence "Jamaica Bay, New York metropolitan area is known for its friendly inhabitants", also requires a further comma, but because it's referring to the New York metropolitan area, the comma needs to be placed like this: "Jamaica Bay, New York metropolitan area, is known for its friendly inhabitants".

Perhaps the best way to figure this is to replace the commas with parentheses, thus: Rochester (New York) metropolitan area versus Jamaica Bay (New York metropolitan area). Then you can replace both parenteses with commas, except that you omit the second comma if (a) it is followed immediately by other punctuation, or (b) if it's at the very end of something like a title, caption, list entry or table entry. --Stfg (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Stfg - I appreciate the thoughtful explanation. Like I indicated above, though, I do understand the logical underpinnings of the two-comma argument. "New York" is in apposition to "Rochester", and apposition (at least nonrestrictive apposition) requires paired commas. Generally speaking, I agree with that rule. What I'm saying, though, is that in this situation, where you have a placename that includes a comma by convention and is used as a modifier, the second comma is superfluous, which makes following that rule unnecessary. Because no one uses the "Jamaica Bay, New York metropolitan area"-type construction, there is only theoretical ambiguity to contend with. But resolving that theoretical ambiguity creates actual issues of readability and distraction. Because there are actual benefits to using one comma, using two simply because "that's the rule" is pedantic and ultimately unhelpful to our readers. I hope that makes sense. Dohn joe (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see, thanks. But I don't agree that there are significant benefits there, except not having to bother to correct the error, and that's just lazy. OTOH, I think that having ungrammatical titles etc looks crass and amateurish. Sorry to be so blunt, but I do. --Stfg (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how properly applying the rules of English grammar (especially since there are so few actual rules in English) is being pedantic, and I've absolutely no idea how it is unhelpful to our readers. You agree that the correct way is to write the title with two commas, but then contend that that creates issues of readability? I've no idea how properly applying the rules of grammar is a bad thing. I don't think anyone of functional intelligence is getting distracted by a comma in a phrase or is unable to read that phrase because of the second comma. And it is only a theoretical example because I didn't take the time to find an actual example. But it highlights that it is an ambiguity.

I am completely confused as to how this is possibly a debate. Someone noticed a grammatically incorrect structure to article titles and pointed it out. It has been further explained that that grammatically incorrect structure leads to an improper reading of the phrase without some background knowledge. That should be all it takes to get this fixed.Dworjan (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Addition to WP:MODERNPLACENAME

On what grounds was my recent addition to WP:MODERNPLACENAME undone? Too WP:BOLD? Chrisrus (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the undoing edit’s summary answers that. I tend to agree. —Frungi (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Was it not a constructive edit? What was wrong with it? Chrisrus (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn’t unconstructive, but it was asserting a source preference (maps) that may not have consensus. (I think that was the objectionable bit.) So, discuss that, and if no one objects, feel free to re-add it. —Frungi (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I object. Chrisrus has been obsessed with the naming of Tenedos for about a year now [44], and phrasing WP:MODERNPLACENAME this way favors his position. It's just a pretty transparent attempt at "laying the groundwork", so to speak, before making yet another move request, seeing how the last one failed. First he tries to unilaterally move the article anyway [45], now this. This smacks of desperation, and disruption as well. Athenean (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Surely an edit should be judged on it's merits alone in terms of page improvement and not on the motivations of the person making the edit. Please try to depersonalize this conversation and concentrate on the merits of this addition alone, without regard as to who is making it and why.

Now, please, why would that edit not constitute improvement to this page? Suppose there is a modern place name in dispute at a Wikipedia article. They will look to this guideline for help. We want this guideline to be as helpful as possible, and that is the purpose of this guideline, to help people in such a situation. So for the guideline to say, in encyclopedic terms, "Check the appropriate (explain what "appropriate" means) maps. If they agree, you have found your answer." That would be completely reasonable, help resolve disputes, simplify the process, and ensure that, when the name of a place changes we stay up with the latest, best maps? This is in line with the spirit and purpose of WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Please address these relevant points and talk about me only in appropriate venues for such discussions. Chrisrus (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Very simple. Maps are but one of many types of sources. There is no reason why we should use them exclusively, at the expense of other types of sources. I also can't help but find it very strange that you unilaterally tried to move Tenedos, and then made that change to WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Let's not pretend shall we, we both know what's going on here. Athenean (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about that. If all the (appropriate) maps agree, it's not reasonable or realistic to worry that those other sources won't also be be changing in a timely manner. The thing is, it's just not reasonably necessary to keep looking for your car keys after you've found them, so to speak, to force the debate to try Google Book searches and such containing many less up-to-date references and swayed by the fact that, every time a place changes it's name from Xton to Yburg many references to it contain both terms for some time and you have to go wading through tons of other sources looking to see how which is used in a primary way and they start making tables and it turns into an unnecessary entmoot that drags on and on needlessly when it could all have been solved so simply by just checking the appropriate maps and trusting that they all can't be wrong at once. And if the maps don't all agree, they still are encouraged to go look at other sources, so you've mischaracterized the edit by saying that "exclusively". Please be reasonable; this is a perfectly reasonable addition to the guidelines. Chrisrus (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First, reverts without reasonable explanation are inexcusable and should be reverted themselves. And, "I don't see consensus for this" is not a reasonable explanation. See WP:REVEXP.

Second, Chrisrus is totally correct that edits should be judged on their merits alone and not on the motivations of the person making them. In fact, who makes the edit should not be a consideration at all.

Now, the edit itself seems totally consistent with policy and widespread practice, and I see no substantive objection warranting its revert. Unless and until someone can express such objection, it should be restored. --B2C 07:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's why I think that it's at least debatable whether this is a reasonable addition to (clarification of?) the rules. Why should there be such a preference for maps? The way this rule is written, what happens in a situation where a bunch of english-language maps say one thing about the name of a place, but all the academic or popular literature (or whatever sources) says something else is the name? Why would the maps necessarily be the correct choice for determining the common name? If this is not expressing a map preference but instead just saying, "if all the maps say one thing and nothing else says anything else, then go with the maps," then surely it is so obvious as to not be a worthy addition to the guideline. AgnosticAphid talk 07:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

To B2C:

1. I don't see that claim anywhere in that essay. Anyway, I gave that reason for reverting your revert because your revert claimed that there was consensus, and the fact that it was reverted in the first place, for one, kind of demonstrates that there wasn't.
2. I mostly agree. See WP:Assume good faith.
3. I disagree per Athenean. Why prefer the spellings used in maps? Why should maps be our standard as opposed to any other class of sources? But if others say that yes, we should prefer maps, I won't argue.

—Frungi (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about the other sources using one modern place name while absolutely all the (appropriate) maps universally use another. It's not going to happen. By the time all the modern big-name maps change from, say, Peking to Beijing or Bombay to Mombai, all the newspapers and such do the same. In fact, part of the reason the maps change is because those other sources change. So your concern is understandable but if you think about it not really a realistic problem. We don't want to let our article names get out of date with the modern place names. Chrisrus (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

So in other words, there is no reason to prefer maps over other sources. So what's the point of this addition if the only situations where it would apply are so clear-cut anyway? —Frungi (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I broadly accept the principle behind the edit but also agree to some extent with the point that, however important they are for place names, we don't necessarily want to give maps the last word. Also, if we're going to recommend maps as a source – which I think we should – they should surely be included here at the Widely accepted name section rather than in the modern name section. Btw, it ill behoves Athenean to take the moral high ground here and swing in, immediately revert the addition and accuse Chrisrus of making this edit to bolster the case for moving Tenedos to Bozcaada – which is actually pretty incontrovertible anyway with or without this change here. Athenean is one of a small group of editors who have consistently vetoed that move, not least by quietly side-stepping the point that every serious modern map, and every other serious modern source, uses Bozcaada as the modern name for the island in question. (ps: I would disclose that I have also been involved in the Tenedos issue and that Chrisrus asked for my support here). N-HH talk/edits 08:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Think about it this way: Say you wanted to know the name of a place that may have changed. You’d probably check a modern big-name map. Then a teammate says he thinks that’s wrong, the name has not changed. You show him more of the latest maps, in fact pretty much all the big name map companies and societies and such, and they all agree.

If, having done that, your colleague says, “I’m still not satisfied. All those maps might not reflect usage in newspapers and books and so on. I will not be satisfied until we do all this tedious extra research.” Would that be reasonable way for him to be? There is no need for that. Surely you would begin to wonder is he being reasonable to demand such proof after having seen all the newest big name maps that the name has changed. (You might even question his motivations!)

What are the chances, realistically, that you are going to find that the news media won’t also be going along with the same name change as well as all the major maps? Has there ever been such a case where the maps make a modern place name change and the news media and such don’t also do so? If the maps all change to calling it, for example, Beijing not Peking anymore, the news media and such will be also be calling it that, too rest assured. Chrisrus (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no interest in the Tenedos/Bozcaada issue and this is certainly not the right place to discuss that. But there is no reason whatsoever why the format of a reliable source (map/book/official website/journal article/etc) should lead to it taking precedence over other reliable sources. Whatever the motives behind the edit, there is no consensus or established convention that supports the assertion that maps are somehow more authoritative than other formats. In fact many maps are downright unreliable - with the advent of Google Map Maker, Google Maps is now essentially a wiki of original research, as is OpenStreetMap; maps very rarely cite sources for the information they contain so assessing their validity is difficult, whereas written sources can usually be cross-checked and validated far more readily and can be more easily attributed to specific authors or organisations. To be clear I am not against using maps as sources but I am strongly against the assertion that they are inherently more reliable. WaggersTALK 08:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

To Chrisrus: Again, why maps? Why should maps specifically be our go-to, rather than e.g. the news media, or indeed all up-tp-date sources? I don't think you've answered that basic question yet. All you've really argued for is that we should use modern sources, which kind of goes without saying for the section in question. —Frungi (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Because bringing ALL modern media sources is huge and totally unnecessary and it doesn't work out in practice and not reasonable. This way is simple and fool-proof and reasonable and logical. When you want to know the modern name of a place, a map is the logical place to look and people have maps and can check them. People who want to know the names of islands and such look at maps. If there is some doubt, you can check more maps. If all the maps agree, continued discussion of what the modern name of a place is not reasonable. Why would anyone not be convinced by universal cartographic agreement? What kind of advice is it to continue looking for all kinds of modern references you could possibly come up with under the sun? What's the point, if the maps agree? Why should this guideline send the people off needlessly on searches for terms in books and newspapers and such and then having to go through each one of them to discuss the precise context to see which name is used in a primary way and or in a historical way and on and on and it's a big mess and horrible and what's the point? The maps can't all be simultaneously wrong, so you've had your answer long ago. You aren't going to find any difference anyway, the news media and such on the one hand will use the same name as the maps if all the maps agree. What's the point in continuing to look for the answer to a question if the answer is in front of you? It's not reasonable to doubt all the big name maps if they agree. It's asking too much to have them search through all other sources for no reason. It's asking for trouble and headache and heartache and hands to those who don't want the name to change a way to drag out the discussion long, long after it should have ended. It'd be so much better for the people to give them a reasonable and easy way to settle the matter if all the maps agree. Chrisrus (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) In reply to Waggers, obviously we would be talking about serious atlases, such as say the Times Atlas of the World. While I wouldn't go as far as Chrisrus has done, and would also question whether maps should be given primacy, I don't see what we couldn't add something to the WIAN section to the effect that they are something that should be looked at, just as we currently say there, "1.Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta ...". As for Frungi's comment about modern sources, obviously we should rely on those, and the guidelines already make that clear. The problem is that with Tenedos, large numbers of sources written in modern times refer to the island in antiquity or medieval times, and their preponderance in Google Books numbers were – however spuriously – cited as defence for using the old name for the entry here. That would lead me to suggest that we should perhaps be even more explicit about what is already, one would have thought, pretty obvious at point 2 at WIAN about Google searches and "in relation to the period in question". N-HH talk/edits 09:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No one here is suggesting that the search should continue if all maps agree. Please stop this sort of straw-man arguing. Now, you assert that if maps agree, then all up-to-date sources agree. So the question remains: Why should we look specifically at maps rather than at up-to-date sources overall? Why does the format matter? If what you say holds true, then it truly makes no difference whether we look at maps in particular or reliable sources in general. —Frungi (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Waggers, your objection could be taken care of by more specifically defining what "appropriate" maps are. If Google Maps is not an authoritative enough, we can specifically dis-recommend it. As for the rest of what you say, you are right, sometimes maps are wrong. But you haven't said that they can all be wrong about the same thing at the same time anymore nowadays. You just said that a map can be wrong about this or that, but not all of them simultaneously. That's not a realistic possibility. But we can also say, if we must, words to the effect of "barring some extraordinary evidence that all the major map companies got the same thing wrong at the same time...." Chrisrus (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Frungi, that seems reasonable, on the face of it, but in practice it's just so much harder and not practical. With maps, you just check them and see what they say and there's a handy index and such. How are the people supposed to determine universal agreement in, say, all the big name media or whatever? It's asking for Google searches that have to be checked by hand and not every place in the world is discussed in every newspaper in a recent way and there are all kinds of other problems with establishing that and it's not necessary when there is an easier way. We want these guidelines to be as simple as they can and no more difficult than they need to be. Chrisrus (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside the contradictions you're now introducing (you've said multiple times that sources like newspapers invariably reflect a map consensus), how is it "harder" to have editors check any reasonably recent source that they may have access to than to have them check maps and nothing else? —Frungi (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Chrisrus: Your answer to the question "why maps" seems to be that maps are more readily accessible than other sources. I'm afraid that simply isn't true. If I wanted to know the official mordern name for a place I'd be far more likely to look at the official government / tourist board website for that location if they exist and look up local newspapers online than head off to my local library to borrow an atlas and consult it. Your argument isn't one in favour of maps, but in favour of readily available reliable sources. Sure, if I look at the first 10 reliable sources I come across and they all say the same thing, there's probably no need to look for an eleventh. The currency of those sources is worth considering - if they're all 50 years old but the 11th, 12th and 13th sources I find are all newer and say something different, there would be a case for using the latter sources rather than the first ten. But the point remains that the format of those sources - whether they're maps, newspapers, journal articles, etc. - is totally irrelevant, isn't it? WaggersTALK 09:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it may take a trip to the library, but at least that's doable. But as it stands, there's no way out as people can just keep searching all kinds of other sources one after another ad nauseum and it's never definitive and it never ends. It's this horrible black hole from which there's no escape and the people come here looking for a way out. At least this map way is a way out, of finding a definitive answer that should satisfy everyone who is being reasonable. Chrisrus (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

But why maps? Why not newspapers? Why not official websites? Why not journal articles? If you're going to pick a format for which reliable sources you include and exclude completely arbitrarily, you may as well have a policy that says "Look at reliable sources beginning with A first, and only if they disagree look at those beginning with B, and so on." We're trying to build an encyclopaedia that's based on something a bit more reliable than arbitrary choices like that. Yes that means prolonged discussion, yes it means repeating the same argument every so often, and yes it means the decision might not go the way you want it to every time. But the end result is a credible product that we can justify, not one that's based on random, arbitrary choices. WaggersTALK 10:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the burden of proof has to lie with the proposer, in regard to their claim that one source is more authoritative than the other, map or not, and it has to be recognised that in some cases there may not be any clear authority regarding a single "correct" choice of name from those in common usage. -- The Anome (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Online maps can very easily be fed from Wikipedia or other non-relable sources itself. There are far more authoritative sources out there. If all we got is maps we are on thin territory anyway. I think the proposed addition should not be accepted. Maps do not trump other sources. Also we should never have a rule that elevates lower quality sources above higher quality ones. Agathoclea (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, we can easily dis-recommend any such online maps you describe. It just means we have to define what "appropriate maps" means clearly.

Second, if all the appropriate maps say the name of a place has changed from Littleton to Smallville, it's not reasonable to tell them that's not good enough, because it should be definitive enough for anyone. We shouldn't advise that, in cases when all the (appropriate) maps agree, they should keep looking, because it's not necessary and causes unnecessary problems. Looking through all newspapers, all magazines, and so on and so on, it's much harder because you have to scour each for usage in context, such as modernity and primacy. It's not necessary in such cases where the maps agree. To continue looking after twelve major map companies have already told you the answer is not reasonable. No one ever continues looking for their car keys once they have found them. It's about what to do when all the (appropriate) maps agree.

@Wagghat that may sound reasonable, but it turns out it is not. You see, not all newspapers and journal articles talk about all places. Some places are rarely discussed, and some not at all. That's not the case with maps. Over a certain size, every place is on all listed on appropriate maps, so when the implicit question is "How should we determine modern place names?", checking maps is good advice, because if they agree, there you have it.

Also, agreement among all the (appropriate) maps is a reasonable predictor that the papers and journals will as well, so it's not necessary in cases in which all the maps agree. The danger that all the (appropriate) maps will contradict journals and newspapers is not a reasonable worry.

Furthermore, there are so many millions of newspapers and journals, and a small number of appropriate maps should convince any objective party quickly. If you've found the same answer in multiple appropriate maps, you're done already. Run with it.

This is anything but "arbitrary". Imagine your job is to evaluate advice given by reference librarians. Someone comes in with coordinates for an island and asks her advice to how to find its modern place name. She directs him to the atlas collection and ensures that he finds the right ones. Has the she given him good, practical advice? Is there better advice for her to have given? What if together they find that all the appropriate maps agree, and she advises that he continue searching, and directs him to the LexisNexis or some such? How would you evaluate her performance in that case? Surely the trip to the atlas stand should suffice as a definitive answer.

Users of this guideline likely need help definitively finding the modern names of places. It's our job to give them good, practicable advice. In cases where it has already been established that all the major maps agree, we should suggest they accept that answer, and not suggest they check all the newspapers and journals and all other possible authoritative sources.

@Anome, I didn't say a survey of all the major maps was more authoritative than newspapers. I said it should be plenty authoritative enough, rendering the latter unnecessary given the existence of the former, at least for reasonable people. Why start a survey of all newspapers and such, which is much more complicated, when you've already done one of atlases and such? You are not helping the people resolve their problem but rather opening a needless can of worms.

@Everyone. Please. If the modern name of a place is in question by Wikipedians, we can suggest they check the appropriate maps and advise them that, if all the (appropriate) maps agree, there is no need to keep checking, to go endless searching in all conceivable authoritative sources, and inspect them all for such things as primacy and modernness in context, tabulate each, compensate for levels of authoritativeness we're supposed to determine, how about creating tables and charts and combine them all somehow and to get their final answer that way some day. That is just not reasonable in cases in which it has already been established that all the appropriate maps agree. In cases where all the maps agree, please let's suggest they accept that answer as that answer should be enough for any reasonable person. This is a sorely needed and greatly helpful addition for the people who are most in need of the guideline WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Chrisrus (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I’ve asked you before to please stop using straw man arguments that no one here is suggesting. Rather than the false choice you present, the choice I see is to require editors to go out and obtain maps while making sure they’re up-to-date, because maps are more authoritative than any other class of source for some unexplainable reason; or to allow editors to check whatever up-to-date sources may be available to them, which you’ve many times assured us would agree with the maps. —Frungi (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit was exactly the kind of step that B2C's "article title stability by algorithmic naming" program (User:Born2cycle#A goal: naming stability at Wikipedia) likes: algorithmatizing the titling process, instead of encouraging editors to consider relevant sources and principles. It essentially says WP "must follow maps"; it's not clear what problem this solves, or why editors need to have their discretion limited this way. Dicklyon (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

His logic for putting it back in is also completely backwards: "Now, the edit itself seems totally consistent with policy and widespread practice, and I see no substantive objection warranting its revert. Unless and until someone can express such objection, it should be restored." Now, we don't add arbitrary extra advice and constraints just because you believe it "seems totally consistent with policy and widespread practice". That's just WP:CREEPY. And if you "see no substantive objection warranting its revert", you're just not listening. Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Imagine someone came to you wanting to determine the atomic weight of carbon. Suggesting consulting a periodic table of elements is good advice. You also might advise that, having checked the periodic table, there's no need to keep looking, because that's the answer, so there you have it. Is there anything else I can help you with? To say this to such a person is not tantamount to saying that the periodic table is the only possible way to find this out, or that there are no equally valid ways of arriving at that information, or that the periodic table is more authoritative than any other presentation of this information. Far from it: it is saying it's plenty authoritative enough. And a very good place to look, to find your answer, if you happen to have one. It is also irrational to keep looking elsewhere after having checked the periodic table for the atomic number of carbon. (Of course, you should check your table was published by a reputable organization). You could reassure the person that, having done so, there is no rational reason to bother looking elsewhere. If the periodic table says that the atomic number of carbon is twelve, there you have your answer - 12. Would you ask them to nevertheless continue searching maybe scholarly papers and such, for the atomic number of carbon? Why? No! There is no reason; you already have your answer from a source that is plenty authoritative enough. Now, is this the same as saying that the periodic table is more authoritative than a scholarly journal that might also be used to determine that it is 12? Of course not. It's just a good, logical, reasonable place to find that information definitively and relatively quickly and easily. The scholarly journal can be safely assumed to agree that the atomic number of carbon is twelve, just leave it alone, you are not going to find any disagreement there even if you looked.

In the same way, by saying that the modern place name can be definitively determined by looking at the appropriate maps, if they all agree, that is not the same as saying that maps are somehow more authoritative than any other equally authoritative way of determining modern place name. Such maps are, however, assuming they agree, a very good way of finding your answer. They are just a very good way that may be available to people that we should definitely recommend, because if there seems to be no disagreement about it among an appropriately wide survey of appropriate maps, there's no need to look any further, and we will have helped the people determine the modern name of a place to a degree that is plenty authoritative enough.

Again NOT more authoritative simply authoritative enough to arrive at a final answer once and for all, pity the poor user who just wants to find the answer, and let us let them move on to the next thing. In this way the addition constitutes improvement to this page.

So please, let's have no more of this stuff about "elevating the maps to a status above all other forms of information" and "limiting the users to just one form of information". This is to mischaracterize and overdramatize the meaning of the addition.

And remember, please, the purpose is to help the people trying determine the modern names of places in a definitive way, if possible. We are trying to help the people get to the answer for once and for all and move on. We shouldn't mystify the process or make it any harder than it has to be. Chrisrus (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a false analogy, as the atomic weight of an element, like any other scientific or mathematical constant, will not and cannot change. And you still persist with your straw man, as if anyone in this discussion has even implied that every possible source should be exhaustively checked. If you could stop undermining your points with this nonsense and actually provide a straight answer to the concerns brought against your proposal, that would be great.

But anyway, your proposed addition is not simply saying that we don’t have to consult other sources if maps agree. It’s instructing us not to consult other sources (which editors may have on hand or which may be more easily accessible), essentially taking that choice away from editors because you’ve unilaterally made it for them. Therefore:

I oppose the proposed addition as formulated. —Frungi (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And seriously, stop re-adding it when it’s clearly controversial and no one else is supporting it. —Frungi (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree. I have reverted the latest attempt at introducing this rejected proposal. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus, consider this your formal warning against edit-warring. There is clearly not currently consensus to include the idea, discussion is still on-going, and you are deeply involved in the dispute. DMacks (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The point about the periodic table was not that it is the same as a modern place name in that it can change. Obviously, the atomic weight of carbon is not subject to change, while a modern place name can. The point of the periodic table analogy when you are asked how to find out a specific type of information, if there is a place where such information is stored, one directs the questioner to that place. In the case of the atomic number (that its immutable is immaterial) is the periodic table. And the place one goes to determine a modern place name is an authoritative map. Or just to be absolutely sure, a reasonably wide survey of appropriate maps. Once the answer is found in either of these places, it becomes bad advice to suggest that the person begin Google Scholar searches or some such, as it would be to continue looking for your car keys even after you have found them. The goal of the addition is to suggest a way that the user of WP:MODERNPLACENAME can find the answer to question "what is the modern place name for these coordinates"? I ask you, what path do you suggest the modern place name seeker take? What is the straightest line, the safest course toward the guideline users goal, the modern name of a place? Do you actually maintain that a reasonable survey of the appropriate maps would be insufficient?

Now, of course, there may be other ways to determine modern place name. In fact, the last iteration of the addition just now, not the same at all as the previous one but radically revised to accommodate concerns on this page, said, and I quote:

"Good ways to determine the modern name of a place include consulting a variety of the latest maps. Care should be taken to ensure these maps are published only by highly respected companies, agencies, or societies in disparate parts of the English-speaking world. As universal agreement on one modern place name in a reasonably wide survey of such maps is a rational predictor that other authoritative sources do so as well, additional efforts to determine the common modern name into other authoritative sources are not reasonably necessary, absent clear evidence to the contrary. However, if such maps are found not to agree to a significant extent, further investigation may be necessary."

So it is simply not true that the addition insists that maps are the one and only way to successful determination of the modern name of a place. It simply states that good ways to do it include using maps. Maybe you didn't see it, but if that was your problem with it, it's not a problem anymore. You should support it now. So let there be no more talk of "denying them other possible routes to modern place name" or "saying that maps are the only way". That's demonstrably false. We are simply saying that one way to get to your ostensible goal, (i.e.: determining the modern name of a place), one good way we might suggest that can get you there is to check a reasonable survey the latest maps, and that should (and we can add "barring some strange unforeseen circumstance" is authoritative enough. Please agree that such a thing is authoritative enough.

I am very glad you seem to disagree that "every possible source should be exhaustively checked." Indeed, that is not reasonable. But maybe you'd be surprised how far these things have gone. Without clear guidelines as to when they can stop and say "Eureka, we have found the modern place name!" That is what the reader of the guideline needs. S/he needs to know how to determine the modern place name without having to exhaustively check every possible source. S/he needs reasonable advice so that, in case something happens, such as, just for example, there is a group of people who refuse to accept a name change for some reason, which as you probably know, can happen, they will not be able to stretch out the debate endlessly and disallow the update indefinitely. So we must give the reader a reasonable path to modern place name. I have offered one way to that end, only, it is true. Namely, check a maps, or a bunch of maps, good, modern maps. That's a darn good way to find the modern name of a place, and it's authoritative enough to do the job and should be convincing enough to anyone, except maybe one who refuses to accept the name change for some reason. I have in no way discouraged you from offering another, alternative path to determining modern place name. If you have some other idea how the reader can arrive at the modern place name that you think will help the people asking for one, please, hold back no longer. But that is no argument that one such path should not be included.

So let there be no more talk of this addition "taking choices away" in terms of determining modern place names. The last iteration presented the map survey method as merely "ONE GOOD WAY" to arrive at a conclusion, which in no way excludes the existence of others. And please do add others you can think of that might be even better than the map survey method. Chrisrus (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that at this moment I haven’t read most of your reply. But this bit seemed to jump out at me: “S/he needs to know how to determine the modern place name without having to exhaustively check every possible source.” How about common sense? If a decent number of reasonably recent sources (whatever the format) all give the same name, it seems to me that common sense would say that’s enough. Likewise, if a decent number of reasonably recent sources have conflicting information, common sense would usually say to wait on a change from status quo until it’s more stable. If some editors persist in continuing to search for more and more sources in either of these cases, I would hazard a guess that the problem is those editors, not the guidelines. —Frungi (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I haven’t seen any iterations of your proposed addition being presented here. (Please note that proposed or amended changes are usually presented on Talk pages where they can get feedback, and not repeatedly re-added to project pages.) —Frungi (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Scroll up where it says "Good ways to determine the modern name of a place include... See this is why you should read things before responding. Otherwise it's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT refusal to listen. Chrisrus (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you’re right, I didn’t see that. But I would argue that this is why you should pay attention to formatting your Talk page comments (maybe format the quote with italics, a bullet, <blockquote>, or {{tq}}) and be concise. But anyway, what you quote seems much better to me than what you originally added, but I still disagree with how it seems to value maps more highly than other appropriate sources. Please see User:N-HH’s proposed change to a different paragraph in the section below this one; I think it elegantly solves both that problem and this. —Frungi (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely oppose the notion that maps should be the primary principal source for geographic names. The primary principal source should be Reliable Sources writing in prose. Current encyclopedias, Reliable Source newspapers and newsmagazines, and current scholarly writing would all be better sources than maps, for numerous reasons. For one, mapmakers often truncate a name to make it fit into a given space. For another, maps are not as linkable online as prose sources. I don't know anything about the alleged dispute about a particular name that some folks here are citing, and it is irrelevant anyhow; this is a bad idea by any standard. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, just in case of any potential confusion: I’m sure Melanie means “primary” in importance, rather than the WP:PSTS meaning. —Frungi (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, thanks. Rewording. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Edit war. I have protected the page for 24 hours before someone gets a 3RR block. Please establish a consensus here about what should or should not be included on the project page. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Anyway our policies and guidelines where designed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. As such - while I personally agree with the issue of naming the island that started this whole affair - it is wrong to change policies and guidelines to go back to that artice in order to say "look policy/guideline x says we have to have it my way." Rather we want to reflect the reality of RMs. When enaugh discussions out there agree with your point then it should be added here. Sadly the cluster of policy and guideline pages has been taken overrun by those who don't get it their way in article discussions and want to force their way of thinking by way of degree. Agathoclea (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Melanie, that is completely unnecessary and not workable in practice. We need at least one reasonable, rational way for the people to arrive at what should be a very straightforward matter. Going and checking and weighing all the things you suggest is really bad advice unless the goal is to mystify arriving at the modern place name or prolonging doing so indefinately.

Huh? This is the rule for everything on Wikipedia: base the information on Reliable Sources. That's what I'm saying: no more, no less. In general I do think prose/text sources are more useful for this purpose than maps. I'm not proposing to add any such wording to the guideline here, and I'm not saying we should rule out maps; they could have their place. But they certainly should not be the main or first thing we rely on. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Agatha, I really don't care what the name of that tiny little island is. It really doesn't matter, it's just an insignificant place that has nothing to do with me. The important thing is the systemic flaw(s) that it brings to the fore, like the problem that WP:MODERNPLACENAME simply says to use the modern place name, but gives no explanation of how it may be rationally and reasonably determined. In any case, your objection is not valid because it doesn't matter how a person becomes aware of the need for something to be done, what matters is if it needs doing and how. So while you may oppose that maps should be the primary source, do not oppose that they can be and please admit that they can. If there are other ways such as you describe of arriving at the modern place name, please by all means lets tell the user all about it as well. Give them more options apart from using maps and help them do it. All I want is a reasonable, workable, sane policy that doesn't result in such confusion and leave some hope of ever being able to determine the modern name of a place. There has to be some way to determine modern place names, it shouldn't be so hard. You are making this out to be a much bigger deal than it is. We simply need to say that one way of determining a modern place name is the obvious one, checking the (appropriate) maps. Chrisrus (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're the only one here who thinks that's the "obvious" way. To the rest of us, the obvious way is not "checking the (appropriate) maps" but "checking the (appropriate) reliable sources" regardless of format. You've been asked many times to explain why maps should take precedence over other formats and have failed to do so. I think it's also fair to say that in this discussion we've established quite a strong consensus against your proposal. Unless there's anything genuinely new to bring to the discussion I think we're done here. WaggersTALK 07:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal re maps/atlases

At the risk of prolonging this, but also in the spirit of compromise and also because there is a kernel of a point here, how about simply adding to the list currently at Widely accepted name:

• "Consult English-language maps and atlases, such as the Times Atlas of the World etc ...."

Regardless of any debate about the primacy or priority of individual types of sources, that seems a sensible and uncontroversial piece of advice. On the rare occasions that there is dispute between sources and even between different types of sources, and someone provides evidence of that, that's going to have to be settled on a case by case basis. N-HH talk/edits 09:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fine by me. WaggersTALK 09:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Chrisrus (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Reading the current version of Widely accepted name I don't really see the need. Any place that does not have an English-language footprint apart from maps does not have a widely used English exonym. Agathoclea (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the idea is less to say "you might need to look in an atlas because you won't find it anywhere else" than to say "here's another option for somewhere to look, either to start with or in addition if necessary" (and yes, it would also allow for the fact that, in the event of dispute, atlases do carry some weight alongside the other sources already suggested). I agree it's not necessary to include atlases there, but it's not really necessary to include any of the current listed suggestions either. They have the advantage/status of being the ones that already happen to be there, and you can say "let's just leave it as it is", but there's potential benefit and no obvious harm in adding another reasonable suggestion. N-HH talk/edits 12:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I see the harm in that the simple use of a map will be used to cut a discussion short that otherwise would have gone a different discussion. Or worse: Just imagine the Croation costal place xyz. No reference whatsoever in English literature. There is an English tourist map identifying a Smuggler's Port at the location. Can we even be sure the place is meant or a tourist attraction within/nearby? That is why I don't like the idea to codify any map preference over reliable sources in general. If the relevant discussion looks at the map, finds it reliable and identifies it as the WP:COMMONNAME then it is fine. But I bet there will be a lot of places where tourist map usage differs from Literature and/or where it is so obscure that we stick with the native name anyway Agathoclea (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies but I'm really not sure that I follow the overall point you're trying to make or thread of the argument. Just to clarify in response to two specific things you've said, although I'd have thought that this alternative proposal was pretty clear already: 1) this is not about "tourist maps" but about professionally published atlases, which can be specified in the same way that particular encyclopedias are in the current list; and 2) in any event there is no intent to "codify" a "preference" for such maps over reliable sources in general. N-HH talk/edits 17:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion and I support it. --MelanieN (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, done. I think that the list could do with an overall run through and copyedit as well, for example: I'd actually merge encyclopedias, atlases, dictionaries and factbooks into one group, described as "reference tools"; be more specific about the potential failings of Google counts; and drop the repetitive "it is widely accepted" conclusion at the end of each line. I'll hold off that as some people may think that is more controversial than it seems to me. N-HH talk/edits 14:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Revised addition to WP:MODERNPLACENAME

I will make an addition to WP:MODERNPLACENAME soon, probably today. It will take into account the objections and suggestions made in the above section, thank you for the constructive criticism. Please do not remove the addition, but, as always, feel free to edit.

Let me explain.

The purpose of the addition is to help users determine the modern name of a place without so much difficulty should there be disagreement. Disagreement among Wikipedians can exist without disagreement among the sources.

This may seem unnecessary, because everyone should already know that how to determine a modern place name; it's just common sense. But please be aware that there can be disagreements about modern place names, and that in such cases, people do look to this guideline to spell this out for them.

I will broaden "maps" to include all such resources where place names are stored and may be found without the need for extensive research and analysis for such factors as commonality, modernness, primacy, and bias.

I will be careful to add that, if the maps and such do not agree, resources which require such contextual analysis can always be resorted to, but if the maps and such agree, that should not normally required or necessary, there's no need for that, because what's the point? You already have your answer, and, barring some clear evidence to the contrary, it's reasonable to assume that such other sources won't differ either.

I will wait a reasonable amount of time before making the addition and hear you out in good faith, but the mere existence of opposition should not be a factor, that is to be expected and allowed for. For example, sometimes the name of a place changes and many people don't like it. They protest and refuse to accept the new name. However, this doesn't have to be taken into account unless it translates into disagreement in the objective, authoritative sources in which it is widespread practice and good advice to check first before resorting to resources requiring extensive research and contextual analysis.

I'm sorry for being too WP:BOLD and unclear earlier, thank you again for your helpful criticism, apologize for being too WP:BOLD and for my habit of making it's/its mistakes and such. Chrisrus (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather than simply declaring that you are going to attempt another addition and asking people not to remove it, can I suggest that the energy you've spent on posting a lengthy prebuttal might have been better spent actually spelling out what you are proposing, ie saying "this is the text that I would like to add"? That seems especially advisable given the broadly negative reaction seen in the rather exhausting thread above to your initial edit and the fact that it sparked an edit war and protection of the page. N-HH talk/edits 17:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

My question is: Why does it need such an addition? In particular one that needs several careful caveats is not a simplification but an invitation to wikilawyering. Agathoclea (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I have to agree with N-HH. Standard practice for controversial changes like this is to post on the Talk page about your intention, as you have done here, but also post the proposed change on the Talk page, as you have not done once. It’s normally something like, “I propose adding the following paragraph: [paste]”. —Frungi (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. The first sentence I'd add might go something like this:

"Universal agreement on a modern place name in a reasonably wide survey of authoritative, up-to-date English-language atlases and other such reference materials constitutes sufficient authority to definitively determine the modern name of a place."

I'd like to leave it at that, actually. It could even be made tighter and shorter.

I suppose we could add that there are other ways as well, but hope that it's not necessary. For example:

"Although other, equally authoritative sources, such as books and news reports, may also be used, doing so can be problematic, at times requiring much careful inspection of each usage in context for such factors as commonality, primacy, and modernity, as well as assigning proper weight to each (see WP:DONTJUSTCOUNT), and should not be reasonably necessary if it has already been determined that all the appropriate maps and other such reference materials agree on a modern place name."

@Agathoclea, I could see where you'd think that this would not be necessary, that it should go with out saying. But it sometimes is necessary, as it turns out. There are sometimes disagreements about modern names of places that need resolution, a way to find an answer to the question "What's the modern name of this place?" that become unnecessarily complicated.

For example, there can be sometimes groups of Wikipedians who refuse to accept that the name of a place has changed; who don't want it to have changed. These feelings can be so strong that some can actually look at one map after another showing the name has changed, yet still demand more proof and more and more and it never ends without some reasonable stopping point spelled out. People will come here looking for reasonable guidelines to help them with this. So that's why it's necessary to say that, if all the maps and such agree on the modern name of a place, that's enough for any reasonable, disinterested person. Chrisrus (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As I've said once before, it sounds to me that in such cases the problem is the people, not the guidelines. Someone who's hell-bent on moving the goalposts isn't very likely to accept someone else's explicitly setting the goalposts. —Frungi (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to support the idea that maps (as in professional atlases) would be the best place to look for the modern name of a location. They are a good buffer from the immediacy of newspaper articles and such that could rename places back and forth several times, yet they are able to stay more current than books or encyclopedias. Since maps, by their nature, are designed primarily for clarity of information about places, their information would seem to be best for determining the clearest name for a location. Books and newspapers can both find themselves the subject of bias. You'll probably not find too many Greek newspapers referring to Northern Cyprus, as but one example of where territorial disputes will result in different names used in journalism. I'm sure it would have been easy to do google scholar and book searches around 2000 to 'prove' that Zaire was the preferred name for the country renamed the DR of the Congo in 1997.

So I'd say maps are good because their goal is the same as the wikipedia article title, maximum clarity. Dworjan (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus, thank you for posting your proposed change here for discussion. I was afraid you were about to go off on your own again. That's really inappropriate for a guideline page like this, which says right at the top of the page "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." This subject has been discussed now for several days, and I certainly don't see consensus for your idea that atlases and such should be able to trump all other Reliable Sources and render them irrelevant. If anything I see substantial disagreement with that position. But now that you have posted your revised version of the same proposal, which still amounts to "maps über alles", let's see how people feel about it. Personally I disagree and feel that text-based sources are generally preferable to maps/atlases for the reasons I stated above. --MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not in principle opposed to consulting atlases and maps published by reliable sources along with all other types of reliable sources, however, I am strongly opposed to anything suggesting giving precedence to maps and atlases over other types of reliable sources. Whether the maps and atlases are in agreement or not is irrelevant. Maps and atlases are but one of many types of sources used in determining a modern place name, and I thus disagree with the above proposal. Athenean (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

@Frungi, it's because of such people that we need a guideline describes a good, simple rational, reasonable way to find the modern name of a place.

@Dworjan, thanks, I'm glad you agree. Google Scholar and Books searches are great for some things, but completely superfluous in cases in which we've checked 12 major Atlases and such and they all agree on a name.

@Melanie, please look it back over again. There's nothing there that says you can't find place names in some other way such as Lexis/Nexis searches and whatnot. That's still in the guideline that we can go that route if you really want to for some reason. It just says that if all the maps and such agree on a name, that's authoritative enough. You already have your answer. This doesn't imply that there aren't other, perhaps equally authoritative sources for this information, such as encyclopedias or whatnot. There are. It does, however, imply that, if maps and such agree, we can safely assume they other authoritative sources will say exactly the same thing. If they were different, which they won't be, it would be a case of one thing trumping another, but there is no reason to suspect that if The Prestigious University On-Line Internet Geographical Information Database and The Authoritative Atlas of the World and a bunch more such sources all agree that the capital of Elbonia is Mucktent, at some point, further looking is not rationally going to give you a different answer. So if both methods are giving you the same answer, nothing is trumping anything. In order for you to be disagreeing with this addition, you should show that there is some rational reason to keep looking in cases in which the atlases and such have already been checked and they all agree; that universal cartographic consensus is not good enough to say that the answer has been found.

Advising one way that they may arrive at a name doesn't imply that there is no other way, only that this is one good way, and that, having done that that they will have their answer. So they don't have to keep looking for this information in cases in which someone has checked the appropriate maps and such and they all agree, because there's no point in continuing to look for your car keys after you already have them in your hand. So unless you are saying that there is some rational possibility that Google Books searches and such will give you a different answer than a dozen or so of the appropriate maps, you have not addressed the point substantively with this talk of "maps trump all" and "atlas uber alles". Chrisrus (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying that atlases don't have a role to play, and if that has been challenged somewhere, it wouldn't hurt to specifically include atlases and maps in the list of suggested sources - as per N-HH's suggestion above which is a good one. What I AM saying is that we should not have a rule saying "this kind of source is capable of overruling other types of source". In fact I can't think of any other area of Wikipedia that has such a rule. If you have a content or titling dispute where the atlases all agree but some people insist on using other sources to disagree, there are ways to resolve that; see WP:Dispute resolution. But it is not appropriate to try to change the rule book to favor one point of view over another, and there does not appear to be consensus here for such a change. --MelanieN (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at this from another direction. Name an article where we would benefit from this addition. Agathoclea (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Any article in which there is some question as to the modern name of a place. Chrisrus (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't disagree with the premise, ie that dedicated up-to-date reference works, such as encyclopedias, geographic databases and atlases are the best resource to look for the names of places. Any serious generalist publisher would refer to such authorities when deciding what form to use for places rather than, say, direct its writers and editors to perform a Google Book search and see what comes up in every passing mention in novels, children's books, books about ancient history etc. At the very least, per my suggestion in the previous sub-thread, atlases and maps should certainly be included as one of the options suggested at the widely accepted name section.

However, along with others, I remain wary of anything that directs people to rely solely on one limited type of source, whether maps or anything else. First, in a wiki environment you can't stop other contributors from choosing to look at other sources and flagging up any apparent divergence. Even if people don't "need" to look elsewhere, someone always will. Secondly, what if atlases do indeed all agree on one form, but news media and common generalist usage almost universally genuinely disagree with that? There would be a case there for going with what the less specialised and technical sources prefer and I don't think we should rule out that possibility.

Ultimately I don't see that this kind of change is going to suddenly bring clarity to lots of disputes that are otherwise going to fester. There simply aren't going to be that many where it would need to be invoked and even when that did happen and it was, as noted above, I'm not sure it would necessarily lead to the best solution. Looking at the Tenedos example in particular, that's simply happened because a small minority have simply seized on an odd skew in the raw Google Book hit numbers, and have rather conveniently ignored the strictures in this guideline that ask people to "look at [the content of] search results, don't just count them" and to only take those that relate to "the period in question". N-HH talk/edits 09:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The purpose is to help them get a definitive answer in the most efficient way possible. A good reference librarian would send them to the atlases and such first, and only send them to the Lexis/Nexis machine if those disagreed. Its irrational to keep looking in more problematic places if there's no disagreement in the less problematic places. Therefore, you need not be wary of the things you say you are wary of. Chrisrus (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important in the case of geographical place names that we emphasize current reference works. I feel like that is the gist of the proposal here. Current reference works (like encyclopedias, geographic databases and atlases) are the best barometer of current naming. Newspapers can frequently suffer from the issue of being too immediate and too involved. Biases may be present, and there is no insulation from rapid changes in evolving situations. Google book and scholar searches have the opposite issue, they may not be affected by current usage. Any books or scholarly papers written about historical events or situations will use the name of a place at the time of the events, which is not a good starting point to determine the current usage, ie. usage in a current book does not equate to current use. So in order to use these google book and scholar searches as starting points for determining current name requires a lot of wikipedian interpretation. As such, those searches should be de-emphasized in determining current place names. That leads us back to using reference works as our primary resource. Place names in the aforementioned reference works are chosen by the same "what are people today calling the place" standard that we are looking for here with our article titles.

I looked at the talk page at Tenedos this afternoon, and it is now apparent why this is such an issue. Relatively insignificant places that have a huge contribution to history for some brief moment will receive much more coverage in books and scholarly works about that time period than about the current moment. This means that books written today will continue to add "weight" to the historical name in google searches. If we used google book/scholar searches, the Oświęcim article would forever be titled Auschwitz, Gdansk would probably be stuck at Danzig for a while longer, and Bozcaada is stuck at Tenedos. Dworjan (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right about almost everything you say. Just I hope that I can get you to concentrate on which authoritative sources are less problematic and which authoritative sources are more problematic, and re-focus you on the point, which is to help people get to an answer efficiently. Atlases and maps and their modern electronic equivalents are less problematic than encyclopedias and such because you don't have to go through and check for usage in context. Encyclopedias and news reports and such require the user to go through and check each usage by hand for modernity, primacy, and commonality and such, a process that can be longer, more difficult, and is subject to personal interpretation. Also, not all places are mentioned in all such sources, so there's no guarentee there will be answer there. But all appropriate maps show all places over a certain size. Therefore, if you will accept this analogy, a good reference librarian will send you to the Atlas stand first and only if those do not agree will send you to the encyclopedias. Chrisrus (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added some emphases below for the purposes of this discussion. Please understand that they would be removed in the main space:

"One way of definitively arriving at the modern name of a place is to conduct a reasonably wide survey of authoritative, up-to-date English-language atlases and other such reference materials in which geographical information is housed. If universal agreement in such sources is found, such evidence is sufficient authority to definitively determine the modern name of a place."

Notice it does not say that this is the 'only way. It does not say that sufficient = only source of. It does not say that, if another name is found to predominate in other , perhaps equally authoritative types of sources (not a realistic possibility), that a name found one way would "trump" a name found in another. Chrisrus (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

"Definitively" and "sufficient" still sound rather absolute. IMO you are still trying to codify your idea that atlases are a more important, more reliable, more definitive source than other Reliable Sources on this topic. Aren't you? --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to do here. You just want to simplify things for everyone by imposing simple rules and limitations, so that things can get done more quickly and with minimal fuss. The problem with that is—and I hope you understand this—you're imposing limitations. Even if you don't mean to, that's what you're doing here; you're actively discouraging people from referring to other sources if your preferred choice of sources are in agreement. There is a very thin line between saying "you don't have to keep looking" and "don't keep looking." Editors should be free to research however they want, using whatever suitable sources they want.

To this particular formulation: It would be fine, I think, if you offered more than a single method. With just the one, it seems somewhat more like a thinly-veiled limitation than a helpful suggestion. —Frungi (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the best way to would be to say something like "The best method for determining the modern place name of a particular location is to consult a variety of disinterested, authoritative reference sources such as encyclopedias, geographic databases, and atlases and maps. Newspapers and magazines may also help to inform the editor on the modern place name, but the editor should be careful to avoid newspapers or magazines that would be likely to have a bias toward supporting a particular name. Searches on Google Books and Google Scholar should be used with caution, as even modern works may use historical place names in the context of the work."Dworjan (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I would support this wording. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I would support this wording as progress, but encourage thought about lumping encyclopedias in with the geographic databases, atlases, and maps because in the case of the former, not all places over a certain size are going to have their own articles or even be mentioned, and each usage must be gone through and checked for usage in context including primacy and historical vs. modern referees. Therefore, in cases in which the maps and such disagree, we should send them to the encyclopedias and such for more research, but not if not. Chrisrus (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And that is excactly what was objected to earlier. Maps do not have priority. Agathoclea (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

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 MacDui 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 MacDui 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 MacDui 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 MacDui 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.  — 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  — 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 MacDui 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)

Does WP:USPLACE apply to parenthetical disambiguation?

Do US cities and towns need to take the "City, State" format when used as a parenthetical disambiguation? Two current WP:RMs focus directly on this question... See: Talk:Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain) and Talk:Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Forida). While we can start discussing the issue, I would suggest that we not make any changes to the guideline until after the RMs are closed (it is never helpful to have policy change in the middle of a debate... it is better to hold the debate and then, if needed, change policy to reflect the consensus at the debate). Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it should, at the very least the New Britain thing indicates that disambiguation in the most base form is wrought with ambiguity, which it should not be. (If a town called "Boston" in California had a temple called "Ram Temple" and Boston in Massachusetts did not, would Ram Temple (Boston) be acceptable? What if the town was called England? Ram Temple (England) or Russia? Ram Temple (Russia) ) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be three considerations here:

• Clarity. Article titles need to be recognisable. There may be a need to clarify that this applies to disambiguators as to the other parts of the title.
• Brevity. I feel that WP:precision is being misinterpretted, but whether it's that or the policy actually says what is claimed, in either case if it's producing misleading titles and/or arguments supporting these then it needs tweaking.
• Consistency, both with practice (what do other articles have?) and with policy and guidelines.

This discussion is a good place to start. We may need to go to the broader policy too, but let's see what we come up with here. Andrewa (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I always thought that “Placename, State” in article titles was only mandatory if the article was about the place. For all other cases, I’d expect common sense to be applied: disambiguate with the state name if confusion can otherwise be reasonably expected as a result (see the IP user’s examples above). —Frungi (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, some users are arguing that (Placename, State) disambiguation is not even permitted in these misleading cases (let alone mandatory)... That the title Ram Temple (England) must be preferred over Ram Temple (England, Arkansas) for an article on a Ram Temple in England, Arkansas, unless there is an article about another Ram Temple in some other place called England. Example1 Example2 (scroll down to the last of the three edits in this diff)

I think that these users are misquoting the policies and guidelines concerned, but I assume that they're arguing in good faith, so it seems that the policies and guidelines need a tweak... commonsense notwithstanding. Andrewa (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think that for parenthesis disambiguation (not necessarily comma disambiguation) by geographical location the qualifier should generally match the article title of said location. So a ram temple in England, Arkansas would be Ram Temple (England, Arkansas) whereas one in Hollywood would be Ram Temple (Hollywood). Seems easier to just let the geographical place call how the disambiguation qualifier is written.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  Except this guideline, at least as I read it, requires the state name in city article titles except for ones explicitly excepted by the AP. I think the relevant page here is, rather, WP:PRECISION—examples like "Ram Temple (England)" don't seem precise enough when the place is very clearly not that placename's primary topic. At least that's my take on it, and I'd love to hear fellow editors agree or disagree. —Frungi (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with Frungi. Furthermore, this new discussion section seems pointless in light of the discussion already underway at Talk:Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain), where it seems clear that the state should be added when it's need for precision and recognizability; in other cases, like the Pensacola one, it's not needed, but I also think it would have been fine to leave it, and it was rather POINTY of Blueboar to propose that RM just to try to make tighter naming rules. Dicklyon (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  I note that in opening this discussion Blueboar suggested above that we not make any changes to the guideline until after the RMs are closed (his emphasis). I'm in two minds over the RM at Talk:Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Forida)#Requested move - re: disambiguation. My attempt to discuss the possible implications of it there has produced no response at all so far, and I'm concerned that we may not get a good decision without such discussion. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  Looking again at the Pensacola case, I'd say I'd oppose it, since there are mutiple Pensacolas. The state does more good than harm in that case. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  Exactly. Ram Temple (England) would not be a good name. But it's being argued that this name is exactly what current policy mandates. This suggests to me that we need a tweak to the policy. The other option, I suppose, is to tell those who argue for this interpretation of policy that they're just being stupid, and I don't think that's a good option at all. We should assume that they are reasonably intelligent and arguing in good faith unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary, and there isn't any such evidence that I can see, just the opposite in fact. I can't see a third option. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  This line of thinking that policy "mandates" a title decision outcome is a big part of the problem. The policy actually tells us what factors to consider, and leaves the decision up to editors. Yes, Born2cycle has managed to edit the precision and recognizability criteria down to the point where they provide almost no support for recognizability and precision, almost stating that precision is to be avoided, but most of us in title decisions do not follow his interpretation there, and the policy page does not say we should. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  Agree that this would be a good standard, and dare I say it, commonsense. It would mean that we had Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut) but Temple Beth-El (Pensacola), which also seem the likely results of the respective RMs. It would mean that Ram Temple (England) would be the name of an article about a temple in England, but that one in England, Arkansas would be disambiguated (England, Arkansas] even if there were no similarly named temple in England, and therefore no prospect of ever having an article on it. But that does also mean that we give up on consistency, to some degree, and also brevity, to some degree. How would we incorporate such a standard into the naming conventions? Andrewa (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  My thoughts exactly. There is no reason to include why places in locations like New York City, San Fransisco or Cleveland should employ state qualifiers in the disambiguation if those articles have themselves already established that they are unnecessary.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

COMMENT - A few things to think about before we reach a consensus on this... first, we need to remember that policy is supposed to be descriptive not proscriptive... in other words, policy/guidance is supposed to reflect what actual established practice is... so... we need to look at how many existing articles use the "(City, State)" format in disambiguation... and how many articles use the "(City)" format in disambiguation. I would recommend looking at the articles in Category:Buildings and structures in the United States as a start.
We also need to examine how disruptive any guidance we write will be. Whatever our decision here may be... let's make sure we know how many articles will be affected by our decision. I am sure that some article titles will need to be changed, no matter what guidance we come up with... but let's at least keep it to a minimum number of articles. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)